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

FamilyTreeLegends.com

Note

Moved from ANI board

This website, from the "leader in software and services for family history enthusiasts," was recently used as a source to insert alleged birth names, and date of births on a BLP. No other sources I found were reporting this information. I'm told this is covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY, and should not be used.

Hundreds of Wikipedia articles are using this cite as a reference or external link, (see here).

Should this cite by blocked from use on Wikipedia? Is there some value that is appropriate? Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe this might be more appropriately discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard, especially as I'm uncertain how this matter requires administrator intervention. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking the site needs to be blacklisted, which requires an administrator to do. BUt I may be missing that this has some validity. I haven't seen a case yet which didn't violate either WP:ELNO, or WP:BLPPRIMARY. And most of these links are on BLPs. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Take it to RSN and see if people want it added to the blacklist. That can be done if there is consensus there. I don't mess with the list myself as I'm always afraid of breaking the syntax, but I know how to add a request! Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a software company, and of essentially nil value for making any claims of fact. Collect (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like 661 Wikipedia articles include a link to familytreelegends. The software depends on user input, which can be good or it can be garbage: GIGO. The reference is not reliable or unreliable on its face. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I know WP editors like to paint an entire website with a single brush, but that's not a very good practice. In the case of familytreelegends.com, whether it's a reliable source depends on which records from the site are being cited. The site has digitized books - reference, history, and geography books - that are the same as the books found on Google Books or archive.org. Those should be considered reliable sources. The remainder of the records on the site are indexes of primary sources. Although not primary sources themselves, the method of index creation often leaves a lot to be desired, so the indexes should not be considered reliable. Any family trees found on the site are user-contributed, so they fail WP:SPS (the site hosts, but does not publish the trees), and are not reliable. 71.139.152.78 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if this is mostly being used to support BLP names and date of births, which sure seems likes it's misusing primary sources, or if there is valid uses that it is also accomplishing. If the site is using reliable sources, then those are the reliable sources we should be citing, not an aggregator of sorts. The majority of cases have been violating WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:EL. Can you show some examples where that is not the case and the software is being used within acceptable areas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Three examples:

• Monroe, Wisconsin article, footnote 19 cites this source: Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Volume 12, a reliable historical text. For comparison purposes, the volume is also online at the Wisconsin Historical Society website: [1], at archive.org: [2], and on Google Books: [3].
• Henry Hammel and Andrew H. Denker article, footnote 13 cites this source: Sixty Years in Southern California, 1853-1913 also available at archive.org: [4] and Google Books: [5].
• San Timoteo Canyon article, footnote 3 cites this source: The Native Americans of Southern California, 1852, also available at Google Books: [6].

Take a look at the categories in the familytreelegends' records collection. Records found in the Birth, Marriage, Death, & Other; Military; and Land, Court, & Probate categories are indexes of primary records. Those in the Biography & History and Geography & Reference categories are digitized books, such as those shown above, and those found on archive.org and Google Books.

I'm not sure what you mean by "software". None of the familysearchlegends citations I looked at were to any software, only to the site's record collections. 71.139.152.78 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In the above examples, it would make sense to cite the original source rather than FamilyTreeLegends. When someone uses Google or Google Books they are not putting the search as the source, they put the original source. I have no issue with using this company if it leads to a source but i don't think the search vehicle itself should be cited. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't bother to click on any of those footnote links, did you? None of them was using the search as the source. ALL of them linked to the actual source, either a digitized image or a transcription of the source. 71.139.152.78 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I di dactually, and I think it's misleading to the reader who sees FamilyTreeLegends as a source when they, much like Google books, is simply the conduit to the real source. The real source should be cited directed, possibly with a link to FTL's image capture. But the source should be honestly represented instead of appearing to be FTL. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is actually directing me to My Heritage.com. This site is exactly like Ancestry.com and is all user generated content. The site itself is not RS and I can see no logical reasoning to use the site as a source when the references used to document genealogy there would be like finding a reference here. We don't cite Wikipedia just because the source was found here.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Should FamilyTreeLegends.com/My Heritage.com be blacklisted

• Support This looks like it is being misused on a large enough scale to be concerning.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. My comparison might not be accurate, but i see the site's positive uses to finding reliable sources, much like one can use Google Books. However not everything at either of these cites can or should be used as sources, and just like we don't use a Google Book search as an actual reference, neither should we use this cite. Instead directly attribute to the underlying source and reference that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Also rootsweb.ancestry.com, and see if there are any more. TFD (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Most of those supporting the ban really do not understand what the website (or rootsweb or ancestry) are all about. This isn't a black and white issue. Some of the records on familytreelegends (and rootsweb and ancestry) are primary records that should not be used. I feel just as strongly about that as others. But some of the "records" are not actually records - they're historical texts. Please see my (71.139.152.78) comment above where I laid out 3 examples of historical texts hosted at familytreelegends that are without a doubt reliable sources. See hundreds more here. Do you really want to blacklist the CIA World Factbook? 71.139.149.178 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

• In each of those cases though, FTL is a conduit pointing to sources. The original sources themselves should be cited, not FTL. Meanwhile FTL is being highly abusive of the BLP policies and sharing birth names and birth dates, as well as other personal information that may or may not be accurate, likely could be used for identity theft, and should not be used anyway per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I just haven't seen any case where we should cite FTL instead of the original source. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, sorry IP, but primary sources can be used in a number of instances. You are simply incorrect about that. But thinking that using the My Heritage as a source for ANYTHING is even worse. And I actually understand these sites pretty well as I am a member of almost all of them and have a very extensive family tree. Birth records may be used to source DOB as long as they do not contain any personal information. Same as a death certificate or even the photo of a headstone may be used to source the date of a death. On the other hand, a lot of these supposed primary sources are in fact secondary in nature. Testimony from probate documents and sworn affidavits can also be used if they contain pertinent information. Even if there is no additional sourcing, an actual primary source is not simply excluded because it is primary. It still has pertinent information and using My heritage instead of the actual source...DOES NOT MAKE IT SECONDARY.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The main issue here is the notability of the figure and whether they are a living person. Primary sources of someone from 100 years ago is a different animal. I used to be slightly envious of people with famous ancestors...now I am envious of people with good paper trails. Just remember that if you are using genealogy sites to find information of living persons....you must be very careful what you divulge. If you are using the site to find information of someone who dies 100 years ago...there is little chance of that.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Last comment....I have to wonder how the majority of these articles are using these sites. The issue becomes when the site itself is used because there is nothing else. Gosh...I wish I could just use the content from My Heritage and Ancestry.com. Think of all the research I could save myself if I just say "screw it...this says I'm Kanekapolei's great, great, great grandson...so it must be true. No need to research further". Yeah...it simply doesn't work that way in the real world or Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        • The article Richard Tylman is extensively sourced to Rootsweb. The problem is that we do not know if the records in that source relate to the subject of the article. A judgment was made that Richard Tylman, yeoman, who is mentioned in a license issued by the magistrates is the same person as the subject of the article, even though the subject of the article held the social rank of gentleman and had died 16 years earlier. TFD (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are Susumu Nakanishi and Donald Keene "historians"?

I'm not sure if this belongs here or on ANI, since it's clearly a politically-motivated user trying to find any excuse he can to dismiss my sources, but on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura User:Dwy has been claiming that literary scholars such as Donald Keene and Nakanishi Susumu don't qualify as "historians" because they are "literary scholars" instead. I should clarify that by "historians" Dwy is referring to a Japanese word rekishi-gakusha, a term that generally refers to the study of political history, and by "literary scholars" he means kokubun-gakusha. The problem is that the article in question is about a poet who is not notable for any impact he had on politics or the like, and whose name gets only a few passing mentions in the historical records of the time. For this reason, virtually no political historians write about him.

The subject is considered by a vast number of (probably most) literary scholars to have been of Korean (Baekje) descent, but in the 1970s and 80s this theory was criticized by two political historians based on somewhat non-intuitive readings of ancient texts and one or two of the minor details that are known about him. The theory was defended by several prominent literary historians, and the debate has largely died down since c.1985. Since then, virtually every book and scholarly article covering the subject in detail (with one exception) has said either "Okura was born in Baekje" or "Okura was probably born in Baekje". All of these books and articles are written by "literary scholars" and not "historians".

I interpret this as meaning that the consensus theory is that Okura was probably born in Baekje, but that we probably shouldn't state this in the article until a new general reference work is published that backs this up explicitly. User:Dwy, however, interprets it as "literary scholars say one thing, but historians say another thing". Unfortunately, because this subject is not a significant part of political history, the only political historians who have discussed it in any detail are the very few who oppose the theory on grounds of political history, and the overwhelming majority who (probably) see the theory as something for literary historians to decide amongst themselves have not touched it. This makes it very hard for me to discuss with Dwy, who insists that "no historians accept this theory".

My question here is whether scholars like Nakanishi and Keene count as "historians" for our purposes. Both of them have spent over half a century teaching and writing about the history of Japanese literature (the latter wrote a 4,000+page history of Japanese literature in English[7][8][9][10]), and if scholars who study old literary texts don't count as "historians" then do we throw New Testament scholars like Bart Ehrman out as well? To the best of my knowledge the only "historian" (by Dwy's definition) Ehrman has ever cited in one of his books was a historian of classical Greece and Rome who rejected the historicity of Jesus -- does this mean the article on Jesus should say "literary scholars of the New Testament consider Jesus to have existed, but historians reject this claim"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave Jesus out of it :) We can report what these scholars say. It isn't our job to subclassify them. All that really matters is that this topic is relevant to their work, and it clearly is. Does that answer your question? Andrew Dalby 17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I brought Jesus in because Ehrman is an English-speaking historian who has had people ask him "Are you a literary scholar or are you a historian?" Y'know -- a REAL historian. He basically dismisses this question, saying that if he has a doctorate in the relevant field and teaches history and writes history, he's a historian. In my opinion this is the same for the two scholars I mention. The problem is that another user is insisting that they are "not real historians". I'm not concerned with being allowed report what the scholars say anymore (I won that debate), but with whether we should have to say "this theory is rejected by historians", or whether we can just work with the fact that, since literary historians are historians, then virtually all historians who we can cite accept the theory. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see, sorry. Well, literary historians are historians. The name's a giveaway, really. What they might be called in Japanese is not so very persuasive, because we ought to try to give guidance that would work similarly in other contexts on the English Wikipedia.

So it would be misleading to readers if we said that historians reject this theory if (for example) Donald Keene accepts it.

It may be relevant to your discussion that to classify our scholars into groups, unless they explicitly do so themselves, is synthesis, which we try to avoid. So I wouldn't even say that "political historians" or "literary historians" take a particular view here, unless these conflicting groups are so named in our sources. Instead, given that there is disagreement, I would name the most useful or eminent names on either side: one should be enough, two at the most. And that's what we probably ought to do in the Jesus case too, I think, whenever that arises ... Andrew Dalby 09:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Keene's background is in Japanese literature, so it would be incorrect to call him an historian. But an article about history published in an academic journal is rs, because academic disciplines do not operate in isolation. The issue seems to be however about what weight to assign different opinions. Try to find an rs that writes about the various views and explains the weight that academics have assigned to them. TFD (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If your doctoral thesis was written as a historical analysis of an 8th-century poet are you still not a historian? (This is Levy: I don't know off the top of my head what Keene wrote his dissertation on. I also don't have him answering questions after a lecture in which some guy asked him if he's a "real historian" and he responded by saying that he has a job as a historian so that's what he is; that's part of why I started with the Ehrman analogy.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not very nice of Hijiri 88 to open a discussion here with such a one-sided description of the case, especially when he did not give me any notification or a chance to present my side of story. I am tempted to contradict every point Hijiri 88 made, but it would not be very constructive. So I make the most relevant point only:

As mentioned earlier,[11] the term "historians"(史家) was taken from the words of Susumu Nakanishi himself, 「帰化人の推定について史家の意見を仰いだところ「臣」たることに異議があった」(I asked for the opinion of historian on assuming that he was an immigrant, and they raised objection on the basis of his being "Omi.")（Nakanishi Susumu (1973), “ Yamanoue no Okura”, Kawade Shobo Shinsha, p.45） So it was not actually my synthesis.

By the other scholars who took part in the debate on the Toraijin theory, the opponents were often referred to as something like "scholars of ancient (Japanese) history"

• Kazuo Aoki, Okura Kikajinsestu Hihan, p.263 「憶良帰化人説関係論文の論証過程には、日本古代史専攻者にとって常識と思はれる所知見が無視されてゐる部分があり」(In the arguments in the treatise of Okura Toraijin theory, various knowledge which should be regarded as common sense for the scholars of ancient Japanese history are ignored)
• Arikiyo Saeki, Nihon Kodai Shizoku no Kenkyu p.140 「高木氏は「彼我の歴史や記録を漁ってその真偽を確かめなくてはならない責任」を果たすための適任者として古代史研究者を推している。よって本稿では…」(Mr Takagi [Ichinosuke] suggests that the responsibility of researching their history and ours to verify the facts should appropriately be performed by the scholars of ancient history, and therefore, in this paper...)
• Izuru Murayama the Title of Extraction of Okura Yamanoue p.5 「関晃、平野邦雄両氏をはじめとする日本古代史研究家が既に否定的に見られた問題について専門外の人間がふれることになるわけで…」(I we will be dealing, despite being non-expert, with a problem on which the scholars of ancient Japanese history, such as Aikra Seki and Kunio Hirano, have already expressed a negative view...)

The term "scholars of ancient Japanese history" may therefore work as well. --Dwy (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that, unlike Dwy's obligation to post an accurate, neutrally-worded opening comment on the page in question, there is no rule that we have to present a "neutral" version of the dispute on this noticeboard. Nor was I under any obligation to inform Dwy of my post here, as I wanted to get the opinions of other Wikipedians. It's also worth noting that our article on Winston Churchill refers to him as a "historian" in at least four places; we even have an article on the subject. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera piece a reliable source?

Dorje Shugden controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other pages now uses this Aljazeera piece as a source for various claims. I notice several glaring errors, such as the number of Shugden practitioners, not to mention staged purposeful confrontations, slow motion editing to make people seem sinister etc. This is the very definition of a "hit piece". What do you think?Heicth (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In general Al Jazeera is one of the most trustworthy journalistic sources. Do you have reliable sources that would suggest errors or inaccuracies in its reportage? Disliking something is not reason for removing it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223. There's no question Al Jazeera has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control and that we should consider it a reliable source. But it's not unheard of for reliable sources to disagree, even over the facts. When that happens, we do not decide the controversy and we do not decide the truth. We simply report the disagreement in proportion to the support each side has in the relevant sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Msnicki has touched on precisely the right way to treat this situation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"The figure of four million worshippers for Dorje Shugden is preposterous." There are several other obvious "errors". Furthermore, they don't even mention the murder of 3 people by Shugden cultists that every academic source mentions. Lastly, its an academic fact that China fuels Shugden activity. This was nothing but a "hit piece." Heicth (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source - but that doesn't mean that none of these are too. And when two reliable sources disagree yes, we should probably report both, and put them in context. Watch for WP:NPOV when doing so, of course, but be bold. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop parroting that Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Reread my comments. Heicth (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You asked if Al Jazeera is a reliable source. You got an answer: yes, it is. If you want to fight its inclusion, you could try to cite WP:UNDUE, but I don't think you'll have much success. Al Jazeera is generally considered a high profile, reliable source, and biased sources are perfectly legitimate, even if you subjectively feel they are hit pieces. If you feel the report is incorrect, then there's little you can do about it but quote a reliable source that disputes it. If you're feeling particularly argumentative, you could tag it with template:disputed-inline and raise a stink on the talk page. Maybe consensus there will establish some sort of amicable solution. If not, try an RFC. After that, i suggest you just give up and let it go. Sometimes consensus goes against you, and you have to leave an article in a state you find offensive or incorrect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked if this Al Jazeera PIECE was a reliable source. Not Al Jazeera in general. I have clearly demonstrated that its not reliable. Heicth (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH for a controversial essay on this topic. It might explain why people are not swayed by your arguments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia isn't concerned with whether something is true. An oft-cited example is that if Wikipedia had been around in Copernicus' day it'd have posited as uncontroversial that the earth was at the center of the universe. What Wikipedia is concerned with is how generally reliable a source is, and Al Jazeera is generally highly reliable. It might very well be wrong in this case. If so you should use other reliable sources demonstrating other positions in order to show that's the case. This is especially true with fraught political issues like this one. Simonm223 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is not to establish the truth in any instance, such as here, where Heicth is saying that this particular Al Jazeera piece is inaccurate. That point, that we don't attempt to establish truth, is rather unintuitive, and bears some thinking about. Instead, Wikipedia attempts to rally together a variety of accounts from reputable sources to cover all the main positions on the subject. These will often be in disagreement with each other; but no attempt is made to say which one is true. Rather, we attempt to give more weight to those sources that are considered to be more reliable. Al Jazeera is generally considered fairly reliable as news sources go, but news sources are not generally considered to be as reliable as, say, academic articles printed in reputable peer-reviewed journals, or academic books published by reputable academic publishers.

Heicth, I suggest you find a couple of highly reputable sources that contradict the Al Jazeera claims you believe are false, and add those to the article for balance. If they really are more reputable, they can be given greater primacy, e.g. "There are an estimated 400,000 Shugden worshippers,[cite your sources] though one news report has estimated 4 million.[cite Al Jazeera]" If it ends up just looking like an embarrassment for Al Jazeera, then other editors might concede the point and let the Al Jazeera claims be removed altogether.

I hope this helps. Fuzzypeg★ 00:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not correct, Fuzzypeg. The role of Wikipedia editors can be to establish truth, insofar as Wikipedia articles should never include information that is not true and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. If it can be established with reasonable certainty that the figure quoted by Al Jazeera is plain wrong, then it should not be included in the article. Of course, the burden to demonstrate the unreliability of the information rests with anyone that wishes to remove it. Formerip (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Look, here's the simplest way to report this. Say what the sources say. Attribute to the source's voice not Wikipedia's voice. Say "Al-Jazeera is reporting that the sky is red^[1], while other sources such as the New York Times^[2], the BBC^[3], and Mom's Totally Reliable News Blog^[4], dispute this claim, noting that the sky is actually a sort of yellowish-green color with a bit of a paisley pattern". If you do it that way, you make it clear that there is a dispute, you make a note of the sides of the dispute, you place the reporting of facts in the voice of those that are reporting it, and you leave it to the reader to decide where the Truth lies. This is not necessary where all reliable sources clearly agree; in those cases you can report something in Wikipedia's voice. But where there is disagreement, Wikipedia does not take a stance, but merely reports the disagreement. Also, this does not apply where FormerIP notes as well: When a normally reliable source is demonstratedly wrong, we don't report it. The issue here is that we haven't demonstrated that Al-Jazeera is wrong here, we've just demonstrated that other sources disagree; it could be that those other sources are wrong. --Jayron32 12:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Robert Thurman just came out with a piece today that debunks all of the claims put forth in this video, although doesn't mention the video specifically. Heicth (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source generally for statements of fact, although not always. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of www.notafina.de in several articles on compositions

I just met eleven articles using http://www.notafina.de as a source for various bits and pieces of information. The source has been used in:

1. Three Bagatelles (Ligeti) -

   Moreover, the score also includes a fourth bagatelle as an encore of the piece to be performed if the pianist wishes, which is marked "Tempo primo" and only includes a sixteenth rest. Citation

2. The Dream of Jacob -

   The work's original German title, Als Jakob erwachte aus dem Schlaf, sah er, daß Gott dagewesen war. Er hat es aber nicht gemerkt (Jacob woke from his sleep and said: Truly the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it. Citation

   (Notafina and another source used to support this content).
3. Magyar Etüdök -

   The composition is mathematically adjusted so that all musicians end the piece together Citation

4. Due capricci (Ligeti) -

   The set has been published by Schott Music together with Ligeti's Invention for piano, which is put in the middle and which the set is strongly associated with. Citation

5. Mátraszentimrei dalok -

   The premiere took place in Saarbrücken, with Robert Pappert conducting the Kammerchor Hausen. Citation

6. Magány -

   Magány, sometimes translated into English as Solitude. Citation

7. Ramifications (Ligeti) -

   The composition is dedicated to Serge Koussevitzky and his wife, Natalia Koussevitzky and is meant to be a gift for the Koussevitzky Music Foundation in the Library of Congress. Citation

8. Pápainé -

   This composition is in one movement and takes three minutes to perform Citation

9. Invention (Ligeti) -

   It is a very quick piece, marked Risoluto, ♩ = 88, and gravitates towards F. Citation

10. Clarinet Quartet (Penderecki) -

    The movement list is as follows: ..... Citation

11. Éjszaka – Reggel -

    It was eventually published by Schott Music. Citation

All of these articles were created by the same editor. According to their About us page, Notafina "is a legal download site for sheet music and other digital content". EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific on how the site is being referenced. You list all these articles but not the actual reference from the site. in looking at the first article, I can't see it being used at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was being as specific as possible by copying the lines in each article that various pages from notafina.de is being used to support. From my assessment they are nothing more than promotional links but I want someone else to investigate. The first article for instance links to this page from notafina which contains nothing more than a buy download button, the name of the author and score. The link used to support content in The Dream of Jacob article is the same, and this link is in the Magyar Etüdök article. Is that clear enough now? All of the others also lead to a page to purchase sheet music. I had used the format suggested for requests: Source - Article - Content. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to go through every single one of the above articles to find how each reference is being used fine, but if you want help you need to show the exact reference used in each one. I am not going to do that amount of work for you. Sorry. You provided the article and the claims, but not the citation used. In order to help, one has to go to every article and check each inline citation as you are not providing it here.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I've inserted urls to each page being used in the articles. Is this ok now? At least now I know where not to come for consultation on reliable sources. Are you always this hostile to newcomers? EagerToddler39 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Pollingreport.com

For the BLP on George W. Bush is [12] a reliable source for the following statement, specifically as worded: "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office"? Dezastru (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It gives the numbers without commentary. I suggest going from 26 to 49 percent is "substantial." YMMV, but I do not think that a near doubling can be described as less than substantial with a straight face.

Gallup [13] states Americans' views of former president George W. Bush have improved, with 49% now viewing him favorably and 46% unfavorably. USAToday [14] has "Americans' opinions of George W. Bush have improved with the passage of time, and now the public's ratings of the former president tilt positive. Bush left office with decidedly negative favorability ratings as well as approval ratings, so the recovery in his image is notable. I suggest if "substantial" is not good that "notable" is straight from the sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case, Pollingreport.com, Gallup and USAToday seem to meet WP:RS AFAICT. The material was in the BLP for a very long period until two editors sought to excise the sources for some reason. Collect (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(Off-topic, but just to clarify: The statement that the article had been stable for a long time until two editors recently sought to remove material is very misleading.

The lede of the article had contained the following line for the past year: "Although his presidency has been ranked among the worst in recent surveys of presidential scholars, his favorability ratings among the public have improved since he left office." An editor, for unexplained reasons, recently removed the part of the sentence that said his favorability ratings have improved since he left office.[15] Collect then restored the line, but added the word "substantially": "His favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office." (emphasis added)[16] Introducing that "substantially" might seem innocent enough – unless you have been following the editing on this article, in which case you would know, as Collect knows, that that change would be controversial.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]) Dezastru (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, the question here is whether Pollingreport.com is a reliable source for the statement "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office". This discussion is not about other sources for that statement. Please quote the content from Pollingreport.com that supports the statement. Dezastru (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think so, yes. It's a fairly straight repetition of statistics from a bunch of reliable sources including NBC, CNN, Pew, CBS, Fox, etc. It doesn't editorialise and it provides clear reference points so that others can find the information in question which is what we require of our sources. That does mean we need to interpret the results somewhat but, as Collect points out, describing a near-doubling of favorability ratings as "substantial" is fairly NPOV. It's not "massive" or "significant" or "incredible" or whatever. So... reliable? Yes. How we describe those sources is another matter. Stalwart111 13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the source that is being discussed? Where specifically in the source is there a "near-doubling" of favorability ratings? I honestly don't know how Collect (or you) is coming up with these numbers. (Note that in an edit summary on reverting a removal of this and two related sources, Collect also wrote, "most people consider a change from 19% to 49% to be 'substantial' see Gallup article thereon", yet there is no 19% to 49% in any of the 3 sources that were being replaced).

"That does mean we need to interpret the results somewhat" – Wikipedia's policy on use of sources is unambiguous: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Dezastru (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Then go for secondary sources instead (always a better option) rather than raw polling data. CNN calls the jump "significant" (which I jokingly included in my list of less-NPOV terms), the Washington Post calls the increase "slight" but focuses only on national, whole-poll results, Fox calls the results "remarkable" and USA Today calls the results a "rehabilitation" and "notable" but mostly quotes material directly from Gallup which is available here. I'm not sure what you're after here. Each of those sources is reliable and the Pollingreport source that repeats their raw polling data is a reliable source for that raw polling data. I think you know what I meant about "interpretation" with regard to raw data provided in secondary sources - I'm not suggesting editors conduct original research. But we can't just repeat, verbatim, extensive polling results in a single line of prose. Feel free to use "significant", "remarkable" or "notable" instead (in quotation marks even), sourced to those articles. Stalwart111 21:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

USAToday (given above) says "notable" for the increase. Would you prefer that term here? I trust the RS nature is not at issue here. Pollingreport lists a change from 26% to 49%, and some other polls (one CBS one, for example) had a low of 19%. Still -- 26 to 49 is "notable" without making any improper surmise (though out of a hundred people, 99+ would find it "substantial:. Collect (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please state from precisely where in the pollingreport.com page you are getting the 26% to 49% figures. (For example, if you were referring to pollingreport.com data included under the NBC News poll of May 2011, you could say that there were figures of 13% in 1/9-12/2009 and again in 5/5-7/2011 with ratings of "very positive.") I do not see any 26% to 49% on that page. Dezastru (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why that matters. Is someone trying to insert those figures into the article? You wanted to know if it was a reliable source for the statement, "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office". I'm saying it might be but it doesn't matter - there are plenty of other (better) reliable sources that could be used to verify even stronger statements. Stalwart111 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It matters because when an actual attempt was made to use a better source, such as you suggested above, and to revise the statement in the article to the more neutral "as with most former presidents, his approval rating among the public has improved since he left office", the changes were reverted, restoring the pollingreport.com citation along with a citation of a Gallup article that was published too early to possibly be a reliable source as well as a citation of a USA Today article citing Gallup that reported positive ratings of Bush had increased only from 17% - 25% and that concluded "Americans still rate George W. Bush among the worst presidents, though their views have become more positive in the three years since he left office".[24] Dezastru (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that's different again to the "26% to 49%" figures you're demanding reliable sources for. I, personally, don't think we should be quoting figures at all. What's the point? The "results" are actually a massive group of figures and even within those there are categories of registered voters, independents, age groups, etc. The figures themselves don't really tell us much. It's the third-party editorial that's probably going to be most valuable. I'm not sure that comparisons to previous Presidents is particular valuable given only one (Gallup from memory) actually covered all of them. The others (non-Gallup) were linear chronological comparisons to favourable/unfavourable polls during and after his presidency. I don't think either of those "statements" is particularly "good" so I don't see the value in fighting over reliable sources (or not) with that as the end goal. Can we come up with a better form of words that doesn't just use Gallup and doesn't quote particular polling figures? Stalwart111 04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm demanding proof because this is the reliable sources noticeboard. If someone is going to revert a change and replace a reliable source with a different source, they need to be able to show that the source they are restoring is reliable. In this case, based on the numbers cited in the edit summaries and comments posted here, the editor who made the reversion appears to be misreading the source that is being restored. So I'm not trying to include the figures in the Wikipedia article; I am trying to confirm whether the editor has read the source correctly. If the editor has in fact misread the source, the editor's opinion on whether the source is reliable for the statement that is being challenged is invalid.

"Sure, but that's different again to the "26% to 49%" figures you're demanding reliable sources for." Well, that's just the point, isn't it? I can tell you precisely where the 17% - 25% rates are cited from. I'm not the one claiming that a source reported a 26% to 49% increase or a "near doubling". Is it not perfectly reasonable to ask someone who makes such a claim to produce the evidence, particularly if the discussion is occurring on a noticeboard dedicated to that purpose?

If you'd like help rewrite the article, feel free to join the discussion on the article's Talk page. A number of us have not felt the current wording is particularly good, but it was hammered out after months of discussion and edit-warring a year ago, and as much as any of us have disliked it, it was what could be agreed to. Dezastru (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's unreasonable but I also wouldn't say it's particular relevant either. You're asking for "evidence" of something that nobody seems to want to introduce into the article (the figures themselves) because someone has used those figures to justify the addition of the word "substantially". It seems clear the word "substantially" was based on the collective (perhaps paraphrased) interpretation of multiple reliable sources that described the increase in a similar but not identical fashion. If the objection is to the word, which is the part you say changed between revisions, then pick another word. Collect used the term "substantial" whereas reliable sources used the words "significant", "remarkable" and "notable". It doesn't really matter how Collect came to his conclusion or what his specific conclusion was - reliable sources came to the same conclusion and have provided a bunch of different words you could use in place of the one Collect picked. This really isn't a matter for WP:RS/N because it's not the source that's in question - it's the weight given to particular sources and the neutrality of the words used to describe their conclusions. I can't see Collect objecting to you selecting one of the three words listed above, each of which can be directly attributed to a reliable source. Stalwart111 07:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog

I have long been familiar with this website, and have used it as a reference myself in some articles. However, I have since begun to question whether it is a reliable source, given that it has the word blog right in its title, after it was proposed as an addition to Murry Salby (see Talk:Murry_Salby#Protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2014). I would like some feedback as to whether it is a reliable source. The website itself is here. Jinkinson talk to me 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to DeSmogBlog in that section of the talk page. The proposed edit does, however, include a link to Andrew Bolt's blog ([25]), unsurprisingly offering slanted and uncritical endorsement of Salby's claims. It's not clear what benefit plugging Bolt's blog offers, or why it gets so much attention in this short article.

DeSmogBlog is linked in the next section of the article talk page, apparently as a resource for editors researching the article. It seems to provide handy links to a lot of primary documents surrounding Salby's...interesting...history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right, it's not in that section. Good catch. Nevertheless, given that I have used it in, for example, Timothy Ball (but could also have used it a lot more often than I actually did), I wanted to know if its use in Ball's article (or any other BLP) was acceptable as per our policy on Biographies of living persons. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The blog's primary problem is that it is specifically "opinion oriented" and specifically implies that "established official IPCC reports are good" and "anyone opposing them is bad." As a result, within any post thereon is unlikely to be any balancing information about the person being written about. I find it interesting that they now appear to post unedited press releases from some companies - I guess they do not have enough material otherwise now? [26] demonstrate the POV pretty clearly. Collect (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog is a blog and, thus, should not be used in BLPs. (In practical terms, it's no worse than Delingpole's or Bolt's blogs, which are cited in the article and which are also shitty sources for a BLP). I think you (collectively) have to make a decision about this article: is it going to feature back-and-forth claims from global-warming partisans? Then cite Delingpole, Bolt, and probably DeSmogBlog.

Or are we going to use only high-quality independent, reliable sources? In which case the subject may not meet notability criteria, or would have a two-line article like: "Salby is a climate scientist best known for promoting climate-change skepticism. He was fired from his academic post in 2013. Salby claimed he was fired in retaliation for his skeptical views on climate change, while his university stated that he was fired for failing to meet his academic and teaching obligations." MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, he has written texts of some repute, which also should be mentioned in any BLP. You might note my wording on that article talk page. Collect (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog is the creation of a PR executive/PR company. The blog makes no pretense of being an independent news site. They are an advocacy opinion site and tool of its PR executive founder and super-wealthy patron. They are reliable for their own opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this viewpoint considered "RS" enough for notability?

On the Spanish Wikipedia there is an AFD on es:Liceo Mexicano Japonés, a Japanese curriculum school in Mexico. (See the notability standards of the Spanish Wikipedia here: es:Wikipedia:Artículos_sin_relevancia_aparente, which differ from the English Wikipedia) I referred to a passage in a book as an argument that the book has significant content:

• Masterson, Daniel M. The Japanese in Latin America. University of Illinois Press, 2004. ISBN 0252071441, 9780252071447.

Page: No. 214.

Text: "When the Liceo Mexicano Japonés (Mexican Japanese School) opened in the late 1970s, after more than a decade of organizational activity, it marked the culmination of the Japanese community's efforts in Mexico City to centralize its educational facilities in one well-funded setting. The school, located in the fashionable suburb of Pedregal, soon enrolled over 1,000 students from kindergarten through secondary school and became one of the most prestigious schools in the nation. Both Mexican and Nikkei-jin students attended the school, along with the children of Japanese diplomats and business owners residing in Mexico. Fieldwork by Chizuko Watanabe concludes that Japanese parents sent their children to the school to "main-[...]"

Page: No. 215: "[...]tain their ethnic identity and pride, implant a spiritual heritage that they claim is the basis for success, and to establish close ties with Nikkei-jin children who live in distant areas."

A Wikipedian questioned why one should care about Chizuko Watanabe's viewpoint (it wasn't directly cited in the Spanish article), but I decided to check on who she is. It turns out she is the author of a master's degree thesis, and Masterson cited her thesis in this book.

• "Chizuko Watanabe. "The Japanese Immigrant Community in Mexico Its History and Present" (M.A. thesis, California State University at Los Angeles, 1983." - Watanabe's master's thesis includes interviews with people.

I know that by itself a master's degree thesis is not usually considered a reliable source. But if a secondary source (a scholarly book published by the University of Illinois Press) published cites a master's degree thesis, does it make the content acceptable? Does the presence of Watanabe's conclusion increase the topic's notability? Or does the fact that it originates from a master's degree thesis harm the prospects of this quote giving notability to the article?

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia will have its own rules, but this would definitely be a reliable source in English language Wikipedia. A scholarly book is a scholarly book. If it originates from a masters' thesis that just shows that the thesis must have been exceptional and worth publishing. The school would meet our notability guidelines since we regard all schools as notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing interesting is that the Wikipedian said that the sources I showed did not show significant coverage. When I put the Spanish quote in Google translate, it sounds very similar to the English one: "«Cobertura significativa» significa que las fuentes tratan el tema directamente en detalle, y no se necesitan investigaciones originales para extraer el contenido. Cobertura significativa es más que trivial pero puede ser menos que exclusiva. Esta cobertura tiene que proporcionar suficiente información para escribir un artículo verificable, aunque sea breve." I also just found out the campus is a work of art of a famous Mexican architect... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Since one Spanish Wikipedian is for deleting it, and three are for keeping it, it may survive! It would be surprising to see this article deleted. Yes, the fact that the building is by a well known architect should help to make the topic notable. Masterson gives the reason for being interested in Chizuko Watanabe's work, so there was really no need for anyone to question that. But, as Judith says, Spanish Wikipedia has its own rules. Andrew Dalby 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the paper is cited five times on Google scholar, but this list does not include The Japanese in Latin America. That means this master's thesis has been cited at least six times.

• Making Ethnic Choices: California's Punjabi Mexican Americans
• Mexico in the 1940s: Modernity, Politics, and Corruption
• Allied policy toward axis Interests in Mexico during World War II
• America's Japanese Hostages: The World War II Plan for a Japanese Free Latin America
• Transpacific Mexico: encounters with China and Japan in the age of steam (1867-1914)
• The Japanese in Latin America (not seen on Google scholar)

In addition, Masterson's book says on p. 265: "We will concentrate this discussion on Mexico City's Nikkei-jin, who have been studied most intensively, particularly by Chizuko Watanabe and Takehiro Misawa, in the decades following 1970."

And this statement may be related to why her work was cited by the Punjabi Mexican book:

• Explorations in Ethnic Studies: The Journal of the National Association of Interdisciplinary Ethnic Studies, Volumes 14-16. NAIES, 1991. p. 153. (Snippet view) (Search View)
• "The Mexican Japanese studied by Chizuko Watanabe shared certain characteristics with the Punjabi Mexicans. Japanese immigration to Mexico was greatest between 1908 (when the Gentlemen's Agreement cut it off to the United States) and[...] The Nikkei (Japanese or half- Japanese born in Mexico), even those children whose parents were both Japanese, all spoke [...]" and also "she studied are not part of any one community. However, Chizuko Watanabe's study of the Japanese in Mexico and Barbara Posadas' studies of the Filipino-Europeans in Chicago do focus on groups comparable to the Punjabi Mexicans[...]" See the search

So does this support the idea that this master's thesis is at a higher standard compared to other master's theses?

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, certainly it does. It doesn't matter how the work set out in life, so long as it now has peer recognition, and this work clearly does. You could use it on the relevant article here, no problem. But you have to understand that we can't make a rule for the Spanish Wikipedia. It's the discussion over there that will decide whether that article is retained. Andrew Dalby 09:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, I understand this has no power over there. That's okay. What I wanted was this noticeboard's guidance. And despite having no power over there, I can use this noticeboard's expertise as an argument in favor of keeping the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I encountered the following arguments:

• 1. One Wikipedian says that because Masterson is quoting Watanabe and not analyzing that particular quote, her sentence counts as a primary source and not a secondary source. Does field work (in anthropology or ethnic studies) count as a secondary source or a primary source? I would think field work involves analyzing what other people say and write, right?
• 2. The second is that the newspaper supplement was for promotion and/or entertainment (did he mean soft news?) so it doesn't count as a secondary reliable source. My counter-argument is that Janett Nathal (author of the article) is an employee of the company and that the company has editorial control, and so since she is the writer, it counts as reliable.

Again, I am aware this board has no power over there. But what are your opinions about it?

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have met a Wikipedian who is staking his life on killing this article. I guess we don't know yet what the result will be. What I have done, if it happens to me, is to create or improve the relevant article on other Wikipedias. If you do this you go on finding relevant sources, which is useful anyway. Then, if the article really is deleted, you can come back to the subject six months later and try again. The Wikicontext will be different, your sources will be better, and the topic will look more notable because there are better articles about it in other languages. Don't know if that helps -- it's just a friendly suggestion :) Andrew Dalby 12:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! I've edited both the English and Spanish versions at the same time so both have the relevant information. He said he has access to the Mexico Journal article and Watanabe's thesis, but when I asked him to e-mail me a full copy of the Mexico Journal article, he said that I should just pay for the service. Instead I put requests both on the Wikipedia:RX and on Reddit. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Signpost as source for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

In 2014 Wiki-PR launched a new website under the name StatusLabs.com.

"WMF bites the bullet on affiliation and FDC funding, elevates Wikimedia user groups". SignPost. February 12, 2014.

—rybec 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable per WP:WINARS. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I just removed it and all the Status-Labs related stuff sourced to it. Let's hope no one adds it back in. Jinkinson talk to me 23:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Cathars

Who said the Cathars worshipped two Gods - their persecutors? (unsigned)

I rather think they only worshipped one of the two -- the second was Satan. Interesting group. Collect (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Is there a question about sources here? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

John A. Rizzo is he a high quality reliable source?

Source: [27]

Article: waterboarding

Content: "Is waterboarding a form of torture? No." As per John A. Rizzo.

Glennconti (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead of the waterboarding article says waterboarding is torture. This source says waterboarding is not torture. Is John A. Rizzo a "high quality" source that can be used to restart the debate (which has recurred many times) on whether a less definitive statement like "waterboarding is generally considered to be torture" should be substituted in the lead? Any opinions will be sincerely appreciated. Thank you. Glennconti (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, John A. Rizzo is not a scholar of any description, but a lawyer for hire. Under the George W. Bush administration he was appointed the Acting General Counsel of the CIA. In his advisory capacity he approved and thereby helped enable the use of torture in CIA interrogation practices. He is a politicised figure, highly compromised by the legal ambiguities that surround the practices he endorsed. He has no medical background or credentials that might allow him to objectively assess the impact of waterboarding on a person, and he certainly has no scholarly track record as an authority on ethical behaviour. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If waterboarding is torture, then John A. Rizzo should be in jail. So he is the opposite of an impartial source. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cardinals and bishops campaigning

In the third paragraph of the article Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, is citation of Seattle Catholics Divided On Repealing Gay Marriage a reliable source for the statement:

Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against same-sex marriage

The question is about "cardinals and bishops" (not other leaders) themselves "actively campaigning" (not just encouraging others to campaign). It is claimed that the citation gives support only to a statement such as

In some parts of the United States, Catholic bishops "urged their parishes to host a signature drive" for a referendum against same-sex marriage, and an opponent of this measure said that "Catholic leaders have increasingly campaigned against same-sex marriage".

But this has also been disputed.

This question, together with the broader one whether other supporting sources perhaps exist, has been discussed without conclusion on the article's talk page: here. Perhaps an advance can be made by examining whether this, the one source actually cited, supports or does not support the statement in the article. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The source is RS only for a claim that a local priest gave permission for people to seek signatures on a petition outside a specific church. It is a major problem when people jump from a very limited source into making general statements. To make a general statement, one needs a reliable source making that statement. Collect (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou seems to have come to RSN hoping that other users will read the article and its sources for him because he can't be arsed to do it himself. The article and its sources are very clear about the large sums of money that the church donated to anti-marriage campaigns, their lobbying against hiring discrimination laws, etc. I have pointed out repeatedly on the article talk page that this material is already adequately cited, and he has flat-out refused to check. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ros, you know how it works: statements need facts; facts need support. Attacking Esoglou won't do. Are you now contending that there's support for your statement that "the church" made donations of "large sums of money" and that such is equivalent to the assertion that "cardinals" and "bishops" "actively campaigned" against specific legislative initiatives? Cloonmore (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of discussing editors, attributing motives to them, and using offensive language, would it not be better to address the question of the reliability of the cited source for the statement it is claimed to support? Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The cited NPR article does not mention cardinals, so it is not reliable for any statement about cardinals per se. However, the source does say that "Catholic leaders have increasingly campaigned against same-sex marriage in other states. In Minnesota, where it's also on the ballot this fall, bishops there have directed parishes to form committees to advocate the church's position", so it is reliable for a statement that Catholic leaders have campaigned against same-sex marriage. The statement that "Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against same-sex marriage" is clearly true, you just need to search more thoroughly for better sources if you want to include that information, since it is in contention. (And not just Catholic leaders in some parts of the United States; there are sources documenting such efforts by Church leaders in a number of countries.) For information on the US context specifically, you might try searching for reports in catholicnews.com. Dezastru (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems clearly true to me as well. I am not sure why there is such resistance to this particular phrase being let in to the article. It is not overly contentious, or dubious. One look at the USCCB's activities under the former president, Cardinal Dolan, is enough to confirm it beyond a doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

All you need is a reliable source for "campaigning" in the sense in which it is used in the context, which speaks of encouraging clergy and laity to campaign. Whether other sources are reliable is another question. What is asked here is whether the one source actually cited is reliable for the statement? Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think the point of this board was for editors to chime in as to whether they hold a personal belief as to a statement's truth. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the board was about reliable sources.Cloonmore (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It has little to do with a "personal belief" and more to do with the objective verifiability of the contested statement. Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability is indeed in question here, but not whether there may exist other unspecified sources to verify the statement made. The question here is whether the adduced citation verifies the statement. Nobody, not even User:Elizium23, judges it to be a reliable source for verifying the statement. Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

famousdiamonds.tripod.com

There are over 50 articles using famousdiamonds.tripod.com as either an external link (i.e., Samarian spinel, Chalk Emerald, Taylor-Burton Diamond); a general reference (Pink Star (diamond), Imperial Crown of Russia); and/or as a citable source (Brown diamonds, Coronation of the Russian monarch, Gabi Tolkowsky). I cannot find anything on the internet that leads me to believe the site's author is an expert gemologist or historian. Is his site actually reliable? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There certainly must be a better source than tripod.com. The author of the web site does not seem to possess any apparent expertise, but who knows. That's the problem with free web hosting: you never really know who's writing the page. It looks like an enthusiast's home page to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Short film by Nicolas Hague?

Dr. Robert Thurman came out with an article yesterday that directly contradicts every claim made by this short film by Nicolas Hague. Thurman also points out facts that are missing in Hague's film, but are present in every academic book. Thurman is a Buddhist scholar, and an expert in the Gelug school. Can we consider Hague's film as a Nonreliable source?Heicth (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For what purpose? The reliability of a source depends entirely on what it is being used for. --Jayron32 02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The unreliable short film is currently being used in Wikipedia for these claims, which are rebutted by Thurman and others:

• "The Shugden worshipers in India protest that they are denied admission to hospitals, stores, and other social services provided by the local Tibetan community"
• "In the Tibetan refugee camps, Shugden worshippers have been turned away from jobs, shops and schools. Posters with the message 'no Shugden followers allowed' cover hospital and shop fronts."
• "No Shugden worshipper has ever been charged or investigated for terrorism, and yet the monks that continue to worship Shugden remain victims of a campaign of name and shame."Heicth (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Thurman article is not enough to declare the video completely unreliable for the statements in contention.

Thurman's article does not directly contradict every statement made in the video, although it does challenge or contradict several of the claims made by people interviewed in the video or stated by the reporter. Also, while Thurman is a scholar of Buddhism and was ordained as a Buddhist monk, his article is not written as a dispassionate scholarly exploration of a topic. It is written as an opinion piece, with political statements such as "Whatever one believes about the reality of fierce angels or demons, it is clear that the leaders of the Dolgyal Shugden cult have done nothing over the last 30 years but cause trouble.... It has benefited no one except those misguided operatives in the Chinese government who wish to destroy Tibetan Buddhist culture, in order to assimilate systematically deracinated Tibetans into becoming second class Chinese citizens, and thus, through such a policy of crushing the identities and even lives of the 'minority nationality' Tibetans, to secure forever their claim to the vast territories and resources of the Tibetan plateau. But as we have seen all over the world--and as aware persons can attest here in America with our still very much present First Americans...." So the reliability of Thurman's article on all of its claims is not unimpeachable.

The video says that Shugden adherents say they have been discriminated against, and several of them are interviewed in the video saying as much. The video maker has the prime minister of the Tibetan government in exile read a sign that asks Shugden worshippers not to enter a shop; the prime minister says that the sign is perfectly reasonable. A representative of the Parliament says all of the MPs were in agreement on government policy dealing with Shugden. So the video is reliable for statements saying that Shugden adherents say they have been subject to discrimination.

On the statement "No Shugden worshipper has ever been charged or investigated for terrorism", the video is not reliable. (Bear in mind that the video was made more than 5 years ago.)

This [28] article from the Times of India is relatively recent and less polemical than the article by Thurman:

The Tibetan community is divided over Dorje Shugden controversy, evidently in recent days, as local police station has received an unnamed parcel from Singapore bearing the sender's name as Shugden, which contained a DVD and a letter questioning the role of Dalai Lama and the deities in the Tibetan struggle for an autonomous region within China. Shugden is a segment of Tibetan community which follows Dorje Shugden, reportedly a Dharma protector of Sakya Gelug tradition. But it has not been recognized by the Dalai Lama and had [sic] been socially boycotted. Dalai Lama had issued an explicit ban order on this section of practitioners in 1996, stating that they do not comply with the principles of Buddhism. Dorje Shugden practitioners have also been stripped off voting rights, which other Tibetans enjoy.

Dezastru (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The murders of 3 people by Shugden cultists are from 1997. The video is from 2008. There is no excuse omitting this most famous aspect of Shugden. Thurman is a Gelug specialist. Accusing him of making a political statement is rubbish. Are you going to accuse other scholars like Kapstein as making a political statement, when they call Shugden, NKT etc. a cult? This video is the political statement, since it is used everywhere in Shugden propaganda. A staged confrontation by a guy dressed as a monk, and wrongly translated subtitles is not evidence of discrimination against Shugden practitioners, especially since there are NO SHUGDEN practitioners in India, except Chinese employees. Heicth (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much sympathy for the Shugden, but Dezastru is right that "the video is reliable for statements saying that Shugden adherents say they have been subject to discrimination." Other evidence from reliable sources should be used to provide balance and alternative viewpoints. And if, as you say, the clear majority of reliable sources agree to certain facts about the Shugden sect, then those views should have prominence.TheBlueCanoe 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll also echo was other editors said previously: if there are elements of the film that are demonstrably false, then they shouldn't be included. Thurman's piece might disprove or at least qualify some of the aspects of the film, but he can't disprove the fact that Shugden followers claim they face discrimination. TheBlueCanoe 01:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is www.jazz.com reliable?

Is www.jazz.com reliable enough to add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a source you could list on the WikiProject page if other members of the project don't object. The only potential problem is that they solicit user-generated content for use in their site directory, forums, and perhaps elsewhere, and explicitly encourage their readers to use these pages for self-promotion. For that reason you may want to add a qualifier that some sections of the site should be used with caution. TheBlueCanoe 01:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bernardinai.lt reliable?

Is this newspaper reliable? the fact that the article has been primed to say "created with a goal to provide objective information " gives one pause, taglines asserting objectivity are generally signs of the opposite.

Use: It published an obituary of an artist [29] which would help establish the notability if it is an acceptable source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable or not?

Does anyone care to share their opinion on a source for the Moors article currently? This source is a republished edited version by an independently owned publisher Black Classic Press of a book from 1886. This new republished version of the original book by Stanley Lane-Poole has been redone by the Afrocentrist writer John G. Jackson (writer). You can take a look at some of the book here and I think just by looking through a little of it you can already see it comes off as a questionable source. It does not seem reliable in my opinion due to the fact it has no scholarship and it comes off as questionable too. The source already was deemed unreliable by another editor, but before I decide to officially remove it from the article, I would like to hear a few more editors sentiments on this source. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not, I'd say. Unless we are talking about historical views of the Moors. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look at the Google preview, unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anybody else care to share their opinion? ShawntheGod (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Domestic and worldwide box office gross

I have always wondered about this so I feel it is best to ask here what others think. Box office Mojo is actually IMDB. Is this site actually a reliable source for Wikipedia? What about The Numbers is that a reliable source? I can't see where they are getting their information from. Does anyone know if there is an accepted site for these figures?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Numbers and Box Office Mojo are both accepted as reliable sources by WikiProject Film. Box Office Magazine, Variety, Screen Daily, The Hollywood Reporter, Indiewire.com, and, to a lesser extent, consumer entertainment magazines/websites (Entertainment Weekly, IGN.com, Deadline.com, etc) can also be used. See WP:FILM/R for the project's full list of resources, but keep in mind that most of them won't report on details like budget or gross. Besides that, it's worth checking the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Guardian, and other newspapers with a strong arts/film tradition. In the UK, Australia, and Canada, you can sometimes find budgets and box office stats from government sources. And, finally, it never hurts to check specialty magazines/websites, such as Fangoria, Starlog, Twitch Film, or Film Threat. Variety is usually your best bet if BOM and The Numbers come up empty. Sometimes useful articles are archived by the Google newspaper archive or in Google Books, but don't get your hopes up. The IMDb is not a reliable source, but it can be used to gather clues for your research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was all over project film the other day and was not able to find anything.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Self-published? Reliable?

Please take a look at the references in the Robert Hunkins article.

1. Are these self-published?

• [30]
• [31]
• [32]

Although it may not be obvious, those publishers were the vanity press of the day. It's doubtful whether any of those works received any editorial oversight.

2. Are they reliable sources?

Thanks for taking a look. 71.139.148.125 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Dutch Progressive Rock Page reliable?

Hi, I am in search of references for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band). Is a Dutch Progressive Rock Page CD review regarded as a reliable secondary source? The two reviews at the source webpage are evidence that the two albums produced by Café Jacques are covered by a reliable media publisher. This is the means by which I wish to show notability (i.e. the band released two albums with a major record label). I am intending to put two inline citations after the names of the albums in the discography, if that is the right way to approach it. In other words where citations 2 & 3 are now. Thankyou. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Kshatriya Page & its Lineage Article Reliability

Hi, what i mean to say is Nagavanshi is not one of the Kshatriya Lineage.Also i am saying that the references provided for "Nagavanshi" Lineage in Kshatriya page are not at all reliable. The reference provided are:

^ Omacanda Hāṇḍā. Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalaya, p.251. [1]

Jump up ^ Viyogi, Naval and Ansar. History Of The Later Harappans And Silpakara Movement, p.198 [2]

Jump up ^ Pranab Chandra Roy Choudhury, (1968).< Folk Tales of Bihar, p.63. Sahitya Akademi

Please analyse these references provided in Kshatriyas page with experts & remove that "Nagavanshi" Lineage from Kshatriya page immediately if they are not reliable.Thank You. -117.200.18.243 (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

hometownlocator, fallingrain, ...

A couple of questions:

• hometownlocator.com is being used in some 1200 pages. Is it reliable? Or is it comparable to the nototriously unreliable fallingrain.com (i.e., do we have any evidence that it uses a better database than fallingrain, or is it one of the many similar websites based on the same poor database)?
• Is there a list of other similar unreliable geographic sources that get used regularly on Wikipedia?
• Is there any means or effort to get rid of those? Blacklisting is normally only done for sites that are actively promoted (spammed), not for sites that get added by unsuspecting or lazy editors

Other at first sight similar sites:

• mbendi.com, used 194 times
• fallingrain.com, used nearly 5000 times[33]
• placenames.com, used more than 5000 times[34]
• cartographic.info, used some 2700 times[35]
• topozone.com, used 415 times[36]
• lat-long.com, used about 100 times (search function doesn't work well with the dash)
• mytopo.com, used some 150 times
• And less commonly (less than 100 times) used ones like myfishmaps.com, eachtown.com, placekeeper.com, anyplaceamerica.com, gmap3D.com, geoview.info, itouchmap.com, ...

Any ideas? Fram (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like HometownLocator.com simply scrapes (or licenses?) data from Google and the U.S. Government. I don't see any particular reason why it should be treated as a reliable source. The data should probably be cited from the original source, rather than some middleman. Didn't look at the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

recipe in book that cant really be found?

The book itself is not listed in loc.gov or google books project, however a mention of the book is found here http://books.google.com/books?id=SYUXAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA97&dq=Steward+%26+Barkeeper+Manual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TPkdU4r-GqeC2QWpoYDoCQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Steward%20%26%20Barkeeper%20Manual&f=false in one book, thats it, much less a recipe to base an entire wikipedia page off of. the book in question is called "Steward & Barkeeper's Manual in 1869"

A recipe for a John Collins is featured in the Steward and Barkeeper's Manual of 1869:

Teaspoonful of powdered sugar

The juice of half a lemon

A wine glass of Old Tom Gin

A bottle of plain soda

Shake up, or stir up with ice. Add a slice of lemon peel to finish

^ http://secondgoldenage.com/2012/07/21/collinses-fizzes-difference/

all based off this 2010 book ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QQPQnCwBdJ8C&pg=PT283&lpg=PT283&dq=john+collins+1869+steward+%26+barkeeper%27s+manual&source=bl&ots=u5PqmcKf-a&sig=D5YF_xzUurC2__9GuFYLTeK6j0A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g0d4UrmPK6rS0QXptIGQBA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=john%20collins%201869%20steward%20%26%20barkeeper%27s%20manual&f=false

The author of this book along with the author of "imbibe!" David Wondrich who frequently self promotes including on this page several times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Collins use sources or references that do not exist or are behind pay walls, just like above "oh its in this book that kind of exist but nobody can actually read it"Drinkreader (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fastestlaps.com and Crownvic.net

I'm wondering if I should add these as articles on Wikipedia or not. 198.228.217.171 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)