Misplaced Pages

non-RSes being used to establish reliability, and RSes establishing unreliability

1. The Haaretz source doesn't establish that IRmep's a reliable source. On the contrary, it calls IRmep a "U.S.-based Muslim organization" and "an organization with openly political motives." That establishes IRmep as an unreliable source.
2. Mondoweiss is a blog and not even remotely a reliable source for anything but its own opinions.
3. The Jeff Stein piece is a blog post. Per WP:NEWSBLOG we need to attribute content sourced to a blog – even in the case of blogs hosted by reliable sources – hence not itself an RS for anything but Stein's personal views.
4. AccountingToday is probably an RS, but nothing it says about IRmep in that article would lead a reader to conclude that IRmep itself is a credible organization.
5. The LATimes editorial is, of course, an editorial and not a conventional news report. And beyond that, all it's done is published the responses of two individuals to an earlier letter it ran. It doesn't take a position on whether what Grant Smith holds any validity, so how can we use it to establish IRmep's RShood? We can't.
6. The Jordan Times link doesn't load for me.
7. This page at IRmep indicates that the Arabamericannews.com piece is nothing more than an IRmep press release packaged as an original report. Note the presence of PR Newswire at the IRmep link, though. It's a press release.
8. The Reuters and MarketWatch links are to press releases, not to reports originating with these agencies.
9. Did you read that essay at sdonline.org? At one point the author tries to argue that "the goal of Zionism" is to control America. No, not a reliable source for establishing that IRmep is a reliable source.
10. CounterPunch is not a reliable source.—Biosketch (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Biosketch already has shared his opinons that IRmep is fringe because of its “anti-Israel propaganda” and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage". I don't know if his use of books.google.co.il means he's an Israeli with a severe POV or even a COI.

Assuming Biosketch is accurate, if The Arab American News chooses to publish a press release as their own work, other neutral editors will have to opine if that is WP:RS for showing that the The Arab American News thinks Smith/IRmep are reliable. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc, you don't know if my use of books.google.co.il means I'm "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI"? What does that even mean? And why aren't you confining your comments in this discussion to the substance of the arguments raised against your evidence instead of focusing your energies on what country your interlocutor is editing from? If you aren't capable of formulating a compelling and detached defense of the sources you brought, you could have saved us all valuable time by just accusing me directly and from the start of being "an Israeli with a severe POV and COI." That appears to be what your original case is fast degenerating into anyway. Are you interested in an honest evaluation of the sources you brought here even if the conclusions thereof aren't to your liking, or is it now your goal to disqualify me because my web browser redirects to the Israeli version of Google Books?—Biosketch (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The link to books.google.co.il only is relevant because your comments about “anti-Israel propaganda” and that it is "anti-Zionist garbage" express such a strong POV. The two neutral editors who responded do not see a problem with using the primary source documents on IRmep's website. And unless proven differently, Jeff Song has been blocked as a sockpuppet. So please allow other neutral editors to opine. Thank you. CarolMooreDC 12:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) This discussion seems to be going off-track (and squabbles over allegations of bias are certainly not what this board is for). Please could we focus on what this board is for, namely, answering specific questions about whether a given source is reliable for a given assertion in a given context? What specific question about reliability would you like to address? Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually this came up because User:Biosketch started a whole new subsection asking many of the same questions already addressed above, as if they had NOT been addressed before. Editor bias is not entirely irrelevant when editors engage in what looks like disruptive behavior. But here are all responses, including references to repeated ones:

• Repeated response: Haaretz claiming a critic of Israel's most powerful American lobby is politically motivated? Who would have thunk it! However, Haaretz does NOT claim the documents are falsified and we are only talking about the whether the documents are in fact real and therefore reliable and useable.
• Repeated response: Philip Weiss is a well known journalist and his blog has credibility for his opinion on IRmep.
• Repeated response: The Washington Post blog may no longer be published but that doesn't mean its author's mentioning Grant Smith's work (obviously in this context known for being head of IRmep) is irrelevant. If he said the documents were fake, I’m sure Biosketch would be happy to use that source.
• Accounting Today covers IRmep from the perspective of its area of expertise and that is sufficient; it does claim IRmep documents are fake, does it?
• The LA Times would not publish anything by Smith/IRmep if they thought he was publishing fake documents.
• Repeated response: Jordan Times archive seems to be down on a few articles. The article is called "Nuclear-free Mideast" by George S. Hishmeh and meanwhile has been reprinted at another site.
• See response to The Arab American News directly above.
• See long discussion of Reuters and MarketWatch press releases among several editors above. Note again that this WP:RSN discussion as well as others state that a press release printed by a reliable source may itself have some credibility as a WP:RS. And, again, this is not necessarily to use any specific factoid published in these press release as a source for some specific edit, except when it refers to a document on the site. However, it is an excellent indication that Smith/IRmep is not merely politically motivated and virulently anti-Israel. If that were true, Reuters and the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch certain would not be republishing their press releases at all!! (And again there is no evidence either is paid to publish IRmep's press releases.)
• Paragraph in “Socialism and Democracy online” (sdonline.org) article by Joel Kovel called Mearsheimer and Walt Revisited. A source used repeatedly on wikipedia. Biosketch writes the author writes: "the goal of Zionism" is to control America. What he actually writes is: hence, the prime goal of Zionism has been to so control America that this backing would be reliably insured. I don't think that's a very controversial statement of the goals of the pro-Israel lobby in many conservative and liberal circles now a days.
• Claim CounterPunch is not reliable based on WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_110. However, this discussion as well Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2 and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10 all pretty much agree that each of CounterPunch’s article’s reliability depends on who authored them. Therefore this one quoting Smith by a professor of economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa would be reliable. The second article by a non-notable activist mentions a point other WP:RS agree with an no one has contradicted: “Grant Smith, author of several books on AIPAC based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.” Which no one has disputed yet, and various WP:RS support.

Hopefully I won't have to answer all the same questions all over again CarolMooreDC 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still finding it difficult to understand exactly what the original question is here. As noted at the top of this page, this board works best if you could provide

1. A full citation of the source in question.

2. A link to the source in question.

3. The article in which it is being used.

4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.

5. Links to relevant talk page discussion.

I assume the original question was intended to be "Is Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy a reliable source?" This board doesn't work well for such very general questions, as very few sources are ever likely to be of universally unimpeachable reliability. If you're intending to ask "Does IRMEP have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?", then that's a reasonable point for discussion, and it has been discussed, even if the answers are not always what you might have wanted to hear. The one specific point that you raised initially was about a link to a November 1963 Dept. of Justice letter demanding an organization register as a foreign agent in order to establish the date of and the existence of the letter. As a courtesy to the participants at this board, could you explain what source this letter comes from and where exactly IRMEP comes into it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the first two paragraphs of this thread: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence. The operative sentence, which I just reinforced so there's no confusion, is: I think the following evidence that various WP:RS take IRmep/Grant Smith seriously as a source proves both are sufficiently WP:RS at the very least to permit linking to its archives of primary source documents per Misplaced Pages:Primary#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.

Doing everything in number 1-5 may be necessary when it's a question of one source being used for one item. This is a broader question of whether this Institute and its site's primary source documents can be used in some circumstances. We have one editor (and a banned sockpuppet) deleting all such uses with insulting edit summaries. I did offer to provide links to those, and I still can do so, with further analysis.

But do you really think that User:Zero0000's comment, User:DVL999's comment User:WhatamIdoing's comment, all saying IRmep/Grant Smith are reliable for the primary source documents but not their interpretation of them are irrelevant to the conversation? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand what the question is now, thanks for the explanation. No, I do not consider the comments irrelevant, I just tend to disagree with them. If we write in Misplaced Pages that a certain document exists and says X, or that A wrote to B saying Y, and source it to a copy of that document or letter published by an organisation O, then we are using O as a source. That means that O has to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The fact that other organisations use material from O is not enough to establish that -- they may have different motives for using the material. Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy Until then I would say it was a questionable source and advise against using it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cusop Dingle wrote: Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. That's an ideal for any source, do you apply it to every single source you opine on WP:RSN? I do see from a search you opine often.

In practice many Wikisources not only do not fulfill this criteria. Including some that are highly partisan and even criticized in their Misplaced Pages articles for not being reliable. These include, as other editors have mentioned in this discussion, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) (which is often accused of inaccurate translations) (see WP:RSN discussions here); HonestReporting whose constant highly partisan opinion criticisms of media used on Misplaced Pages (see WP:RSN discussions here); Palestinian Media Watch (Palwatch) most of whose refs are the Jerusalem Post covering its being banned from Youtube for questionable content but nevertheless is widely used on Misplaced Pages (see WP:RSN discussions here). Are you willing to offer that opinion the next time any of these are brought to WP:RSN?

Or perhaps are you willing to look at a list of deletions of refs to documents posted on IRmep's web site, as I've offered twice to do?

In any case, I'm going to look for some more sources using IRmep/Smith's books because after looking at the refs on the articles on the three "reliable sources" named above, it is clear that IRmep also deserves its own article and having a coherent article rather than list of links will make it easier for people to understand any notability and credibility. CarolMooreDC 14:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have given my opinion on the question posed here. I am personally keen on Misplaced Pages having the highest possible standards for sources, and on having evidence. If the other sources mentioned here are called into question, I may well contribute to the discussions there, assuming I have the time and feel that my contribution would be constructive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, no need to compare and contrast. While you may have a personal opinion, the point here is to look at policy. It does not say we must have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of directly. So it's useful to stick to the sources we have about the reliability of a source, instead of asking for incredibly high standards which even the most reliable sources may not meet. CarolMooreDC 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The object of this board is to achieve consensus, which involves various editors offering reasoned arguments. Verifiability requires that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". What is the evidence that IRMEP has such a reputation? I do not say that this "must" be from a scholarly source, only that this would be ideal. I dispute that asking for good evidence of reliability is an "incredibly high" standard -- I say that it is in fact policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's your whole quote: Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy

That is very different from WP:V's statement "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There is no statement that if there is "no objective assessment of a reputation for accuracy" a source can't be used. Obviously, if there are positive statement's about its reputation, that's a big help. But it's not mandatory. The whole purpose of WP:RSN is for Misplaced Pages editors to decide if a listing of a number of reliable sources that consider a source reliable (be it for primary source links, facts, opinions) show it has a reputation for accuracy. That said, it seems to me there were a couple such statements re:IRmep - or implied statements. Do we need to list those to make you happy? CarolMooreDC 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems implausible that one would establish a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" without evidence, and it seems implausible that evidence other than objective would be acceptable. It isn't a matter of making me happy -- it's a matter of helping the editors at this board assess that reputation, so yes, it would be a good idea to produce that evidence. In the absence of evidence, my assessment, and, I suspect, that of anyone else who is interested, would have to be that lack of evidence implies lack of reputation, and lack of reputation implies lack of reliability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that most editors see a lot of WP:RS reporting on or using a source as evidence it's reliable, which is why the WP:RS of sources mostly has been under discussion. Overall, I'm starting to feel like this point should be clarified at this noticeboard's talk page to avoid editors having to have this debate again in the future. Actual statements are just gravy. And since I'll be using such in the article itself, not a burden to look for. CarolMooreDC 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if Cusop and Carol are agreeing or disagreeing, or a little of both... but they are both essentially correct... when the reliability of a source is questioned, we do need to examine its reputation. Now, one quick to do that is to examine how many other sources refer to it. But that has its limitations... as it raises the question of whether those other sources have a good reputation or not (a chain of unreliable sources, all referring to each other does not make any of them reliable). When we are examining the reliability of a source, the question of which other sources refers to it is far more important than the question of how many other sources refer to it. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comment, Blueboar. I agree that some sources using/referring to/reporting on a source are more reliable than others. I tried to list them from most to least reliable just to make it easy. (Except for later entries, and I have put a few more up now.) And even if several are seen as unreliable, that does not mean that others do not have reliability - or do not generally support the reliability of the source for some or all purposes. If Cusop wants to list the sources he considers unreliable, fine, we can debate it. Or if someone wants to say only these six sources show it's reliable, that's fine too. I just have a problem with how I interpreted what Cusop said which I won't repeat so we don't have to discuss if I interpreted it right CarolMooreDC 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• A 3rd Party Opinion - If the documents are U.S. Government documents obtained through FOIA requests, shouldn't the source be considered the U.S. government rather than IRMep? It sounds like IRMep is just acting as the host. If we were relying on IRMep to interpret the documents for us and we didn't have direct access to them, IRMep would need to meet a higher standard, but if we're just limiting coverage to the primary documents themselves, I don't see why we would need to establish anything other than the fact that IRMep is not a blatantly fraudulent organization (as the U.S. government is generally considered a reliable source). Granted, there may be extenuating circumstances I'm not aware of in this rather convoluted debate, but that's my opinion from the peanut gallery. Kaldari (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't necessary to establish that IRmep is a blatantly fraudulent organization because in a sense that's already the default approach we take in situations like this where the source is advocating a fringe political agenda. Rather, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to establish that IRmep is a reliable source. Particularly in this case that we're dealing with, there are these documents on the IRmep website that IRmep is claiming are authentic, and we're endeavoring to determine where on the scale of reliability IRmep belongs in order to agree what status should be conferred on the documents. The documents themselves are of a highly charged and controversial nature in that they relate to a topic that's frequently a source of conflict between editors throughout Misplaced Pages. It's therefore vital that in order for us to accept IRmep's documents as authentic, we first establish a consensus around IRmep being a reliable source for information - and that's where we're stuck right now. After all, anyone can found an organization, come up with a fancy name for it, and claim to have exclusive access to all sorts of obscure documents. It's our role to be rigorous in our critical standards in proportion to the nature of the claims we're assessing. This is the root of the insistence that IRmep be shown to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and that insistence has as yet gone unfulfilled.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• @Biosketch's comments directly above only: Criticism of the powerful Israel lobby in the United States, seeking FOIA information about it, disseminating that information, and having it picked up, used, publicized by a variety of sources is hardly fringe; even that article has a few of the many examplels, even if they are sometimes overwhelmed by all the denials. The problem Biosketch describes really seems to be that a number of editors with strong ties to Israel WP:IDONTLIKE IT. (And note that WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration has a whole archive section on outside recruiting of pro-Israel editors dedicated to rising through the ranks and purging critical information. How successful they have been is a matter of debate.) So again I raise the issue of WP:CENSORSHIP via extreme nitpicking of sources, as say compared to use as WP:RS for extremely (and some might say extremist) pro-Israel sources like MEMRI, Palestine Media Watch and HonestReporting.com detailed above. CarolMooreDC 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Need uninvolved editors to examine my analysis of a source

Moved to a subsection of this thread as it turns out to be the same source being discussed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia_and_WLRoss, there's an issue over the proper use of a source. According to my own analysis, the use of this source fails criteria #2 of WP:SPS but no one else is agreeing with me. Can some uninvolved editors examine this source and let me know what they think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The site isn't a reliable source for Misplaced Pages content. Most obvious to me is that there is no true editorial oversight, and the site seems to be a collecting place for material with a specific slant. If any of the content on the site is significant enough to be included on Misplaced Pages you should be able to find it in good secondary and so reliable sources.(olive (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for putting this here. I have commented under Comment by Carolmooredc at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia_and_WLRoss about the evidence presented and that four editors found it WP:RS for presenting primary source documents. It really is a bit much that just as couple dozen evidences of IRmep being reliable at least for documents is ongoing here, an editor tries to get people in trouble for using it as a source of opinion on arbitration enforcement. (Was he afraid the community might suddenly decide its opinions are valid too? Still could happen, of course.)

I do not know if LittleOlive has read the very top of this thread that lists all of those sources. Unfortunately the government does not choose to list on any website all the documents it releases through freedom of information act. And lots of other documents, news articles, etc. often dissappear from their original sites but are still useable from other sites on Misplaced Pages. Four editors and myself above have opined it is useable for such purposes. (Listed under my comment.)

Also, I find it interesting that two admins at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_ZScarpia_and_WLRoss thought Irmep’s opinions also sometimes may be used on Misplaced Pages, though others disagreed. Read whole debate there.

• ...Even assuming arguendo that the IRMEP website is not a reliable source for facts (something we need not decide to resolve this case, although it does seem true), it is surely a reliable source for IRMEP's own opinion.... T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• @A Quest for Knowledge: WLRoss and and ZScarpia are trying to include the editorial opinion of the IRMEP organization about the Middle East Media Research Institute. It is not out of the question that one research institute's opinion of another research institute might be relevant or interesting. The two institutes seem to be acting as adversaries, so you might consider whether their views deserve space in each other's criticism sections.This would not run afoul of WP:RS because it's a question of opinion, not of facts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevant policy on opinions can be found in WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. So the question is, how expert is IRmep/Smith on their opinions on topics they write about as evidenced by WP:RS using them? Something to be discussed is some next round of WP:RSN discussions, anyway. Using above list of two dozen relevant sources. CarolMooreDC 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There should be no problem with citing IRMEP publications as a source for their own opinions, provided of course they are stated as IRMEP's opinions, rather than as established facts. Whether those opinions are sufficiently significant to be included in any given article is not an issue for this board. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize there was a second RSN discussion about this source. In any case, isn't this essentially a self-published source and you can't use an SPS for claims about a third-party? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If IRMEP's website says "A is B", then that is a reliable source for the statement "IRMEP believes that A is B". It is not a reliable source for the statement "A is B", without further evidence as to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether that opinion is worth reporting is another matter. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not if B is a claim about a third party. See criteria #2 of WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. If the claim is about the subject and not self-serving, etc. then we can use it directly. Any direct quote can be used provided that it is stated to be their opinion. If it is not reported by any independent reliable source then it is probably not worth our using it. For example, if the website of the X Institute says that "The X Institute is the only impartial think-tank based in Washington, then we can directly state "The X Institute is based in Washington", possibly "The X Institute is a think-tank based in Washington" (assuming the claim to be a think-tank is not self-serving), but not "an impartial think-tank" (definitely self-serving) or "the only impartial think-tank" (relates to other think-tanks). We can however say "The X Institute claims to be the only impartial think-tank in Washington" if we want. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But all of those examples are claims about itself. We can't say "The X Institute believes Obama is a bad man" because Obama is a thirt-party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We often report opinions about third parties. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not unless it's published by a reliable source. So, if BBC News reports that The X Institute is saying that Obama is a bad man, then we can include it. But if it can only be sourced to The X Institute, we can't include it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Then we do not agree about the meaning of WP:SPS. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To summarise: I maintain that an entity's own publication of its opinions are a reliable source for those opinions, and we may legitimately cite them to support the assertion that its opinions are what it says they are. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You can maintain anything you like, but WP:SPS is very clear:

If you disagree with policy, then you should try to gain concensus to have condition #2 removed from WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the policy, I disagree with your interpretation of it, which I say is wrong. If the X Institute website says "Lincoln was a bad man", then as a self-published source, we cannot use that to support Misplaced Pages saying in its own voice "Lincoln was a bad man", because that is an assertion about a third party. But we can use it to support Misplaced Pages saying in its own voice "The X Institute says Lincoln was a bad man", or better, "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" (in quote marks), because that is not Misplaced Pages making an assertion about Lincoln, it is Misplaced Pages making an assertion about the X Institute. Note that in the case where it's a quote, WP:RS actually prefers the use of the original: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."

In summary, I say that Quest has taken an overly broad interpretation of "involve". Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Where in WP:SPS does it say that it's OK to use an self-publish source to make contentious claims about third-parties as long as it's not in Misplaced Pages's voice? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying "The X Institute says 'Lincoln was a bad man'" is not making a claim about Lincoln, but only about the X Institute. So that question is irrelevant. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln is a third-party. This is exactly what WP:SPS is designed prevent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have brought this up without a concrete example from an actual article (the kind of thing one can bring here.) But in general terms if advocacy groups/think tanks/institutes like MEMRI/IRMEP/etc. has just gotten documents X,Y,Z through FOIA or whatever reliable source about some individual/group and announces "we have documents X,Y,Z and they say blah blah. Note that blah blah is a violation of such and such law (see link to govt web site)." That should be WP:RS. If the group groups/think tanks/institutes say: "...And therefore X,Y,Z should be prosecuted immediately for violation of that law." That would be an opinion which would be open to challenge. Though the community might ultimately agree that opinion was useable. CarolMooreDC 00:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Quest, that is still wrong. Lincoln is a third party, but the fact that someone holds a particular opinion about Lincoln is not information about Lincoln, it is information about the opinion-holder. What SPS is designed to prevent is Jane Smith publishing on her website, say, "I was born in London and my father was John Smith", and us using that to source the statement "Jane's Smith father was John Smith". It is an acceptable source for "Jane Smith claimed that John Smith was her father" (except that if John Smith is still alive, a special BLP rule applies). Look at the article on David Icke, for example. He believes that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards, and we cheerfully source that, indeed quote, his self-published writings. For another example, look at the discussion on hopenothate.org.uk at this baord today. We should probably not report an opinion if no independent source has troubled to notice it (because reporting it would be to give it undue weight), but once we have decided to report it, a self-published source is actually a recommended source for an accurate quotation of that opinion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Carol, that's not right either. Analysis by a non-reliable source cannot be reported as fact. You can say "X Institute reports that the document said Y and claims that this violates law Z". Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at David Icke and the claim that he believes that world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards are sourced to a secondary source. In Icke's article, it's sourced to an article published by the Guardian. Please cease and desist. This is getting tiresome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be incorrect. It is sourced at to one of his self-published books, and his website is directly quoted at . (It is also sourced to secondary sources, as one would expect for a belief which was worth reporting.) If you do not wish to pursue the discussion, by all means let us stop. I have explained your fallacy several times over and have no real desire to do so yet again. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't change goal posts, please. You asked about the claim that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards. That is clearly sourced to a secondary source as I just proved. It is NOT sourced to his book. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you are now mispresenting the situation. As for 37, I don't think that "the race of gods known as the Anunnaki" really qualifies as a third-party since they don't exist. Yes, you really need to stop. Your arguments have no basis in policy and are now bordering on absurdity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the citations to Icke's self-published works are in the first and second paragraph of Reptilians and shape-shifting, which refers in the first sentence to his "reptoid hypothesis", which is that the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards, I think the goalposts are pretty firmly in place. The reptilian aliens from the planet Draco are certainly third parties. If that doesn't help, try looking at reference in the paragraph above, or , about the plans of the world leaders, or ,,. All cite Icke's SPS work, all refer to third parties, all are there to support our reporting of his shape-shifting lizard theory. The statement that this theory is "NOT sourced to his book" is simply not correct (it is also sourced to other places of course). Any absurdity you see is (either in Icke's theory or) in the failure to acknowledge the rather large difference between "David Icke thinks the world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards" and "The world's leaders are shape-shifting lizards".

There you go again. You falsely claimed that the world's leaders are giant shape-shifting lizards was sourced to his book when it's clearly not. Rather than admit you were wrong, you falsely claimed that 37 was about a third-party when it's clearly not. I hate to break it to you but there are no "reptilian aliens from the planet Draco". What's the point of repeatedly proving you wrong when you refuse to acknowledge your mistakes? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not made any false claims, and I am content to leave my case in the hands of impartial observers. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am an impartial observer. I've never edited that article. Not even once. And if you bothered checking, I'm the 6the most active contributor to this board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An impartial observer of this discussion? Really? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break

It's getting hard to keep track of the items of evidence that are being added at the top of this thread, and adding such items out of sequence can change the sense of comments like "I have seen no evidence of reliability", which may be referring to some previous iteration of the list. It would be helpful to add any new items of evidence in thread order so they can be discussed as they arrive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite a number of these newer items are examples of IRMEP or Smith having their opinions quoted. Why is this evidence of reliability? One item comments that Smith has a Master's degree. Why is this evidence of reliability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. I used to teach on a Master's Degree - most of the students were admitted without having had an undergraduate degree. It wasn't a bad course and it was in a respectable university, but the students at the end still didn't have the equivalent of a good undergraduate degree IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are two sources that seem to establish reliability for matters unrelated to Israel: . From my reviewing of the material above and some other sources, it seems the group is sufficiently significant and reliable to merit its use as a source. The concerns about its bias against Israel/Zionism are only significant with respect to the organization's own comments on Israel, but its opinion would be noteworthy enough to mention and it is apparently trustworthy enough to consider any FOIA documents on its site to be authentic.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources! Obviously when there is a Wiki article on IRmep any day now that ties all this material together its reliability will be easier to gauge. The Masters I just threw in there, but obviously more relevant to an article. Anyway now there are five people and me who think it's reliable for linking to primary sources on the web site, one against, and one whose opinion I will not attempt to characterize so as not to misinterpret. CarolMooreDC 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's cited as IRMEPs opinion and based on FOIA documents I see no problem with them as a reliable source. It is exactly how many other advocacy groups such as MEMRI are used in WP. Wayne (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again no, because IRmep isn't a reliable source, i.e. not a reliable publisher of information; whence it follows that any documents IRmep publishes can't be treated as though they originated with a reliable publisher. If there's another source for these documents that has established credentials – a reputation for fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc. – that's fine and the documents are fine too. But that isn't the case here, and until the issues of IRmep's unreliability are resolved, the documents retain their status of originating with a publisher of questionable credibility.—Biosketch (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that when IRMEP use FOI to get documents from normally reliable sources then those documents are no longer considered reliable? Since when is an organisation responsible for fact checking documents that have been released to them? Can you supply an instance where IRMEP has published or commented on documents that were subsequently discovered to not be reliable? Wayne (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If a source not considered reliable publishes what they claim to be a document from another party, we cannot use it as a source for the existence or contents of that document. We can use it to say, for example, "IRMEP claims to have documents saying XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "Documents showing XYZ exist", nor can we use it to say "XYZ is true". If IRMEP is considered a reliable source, then we can use it to say "IRMEP recovered documents and those documents say XYZ". We still cannot say "XYZ is true", unless the documents are also froma reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What User:Cusop Dingle explained in his reply directly above is what I meant in my comment three messages up. It isn't that FOI-related documents need themselves to be reliable in order for us to use them. It's a question of who is publishing them as far as our citations are concerned. If these documents had been published by, say, the New York Times or NPR or something, there'd be no debate surrounding the reliability of the documents. But since IRmep appears to be their only source, we're faced with the problem that our only access to the documents is through IRmep, which isn't a demonstrably reliable publisher. That's what I meant. Again, it's not about anything internal to the documents; it's about the medium through which access to them is obtainable. Beyond that, the insistence that an instance be found of IRmep having ever published documents that were later discovered to not be reliable is an inversion of how these discussions are supposed to take place. The onus is on IRmep, as it were, to prove to us that it is a reliable source. To illustrate what the issue is: I can recruit a couple of guys from work, find a D.C.-based agent who'll register me as a company, start a blog with links to internally-hosted documents I claim are authentic declassified communication records, and pay PR Newswire to publish dozens of press releases advertising my claims. It's certainly conceivable no one's interest will have been sufficiently piqued that they'll care one way or another about the claims I make, so there won't be any actual evidence out there that I'm fabricating anything. At the same time, though, there won't be any evidence confirming my claims either. The absence of negative criticism doesn't make me a kosher source. In this case it just means the media's been indifferent. That's why we need actual positive evidence indicating that IRmep is a reliable source.—Biosketch (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaging consensus

This shouldn't need to be said, but since an editor appears to be keeping a tally of for and against opinions here, it should be stressed that RSN discussions are traditionally considered authoritative as a function of consensus among uninvolved editors. This was the original position of the editor who initiated this discussion, and it should be in that spirit that the discussion is concluded. Editors whose input is predictable based on their history in the I/P topic area (I include myself in that category) are of course important components in trying to establish consensus, but the greater weight is given to input from editors whose input isn't predictable, lest this turn into a vote.—Biosketch (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for including myself in the tally. On the other hand, if we're supposed to get uninvolved opinion, don't you think you're opining once would be enough? Creating a whole sections to list things mostly already discussed, and constantly forcing me to clarify or explain, when other noninvolved editors don't see a problem, seems to me to be disruptive of the process, don't you think? Why else do I even have to try to summarize what's going on, unthinkingly putting myself in the consensus, except to deal with fact you keep going on and on and on? Geez, you think there'd be a rule agin' it. CarolMooreDC 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Christ on a bicycle, I logged in a few days ago and have been following this particular train-wreck. Documents obtained under FOIA (or similar government releases) by this group are treated as rock-solid, 100% reliable by my profession. A biased organization? Yes. A reputation for not forging documents or lying about their origins? Also yes. What's really going on here is a sophistic side-game in the battle to control underlying article content (presumably someone doesn't like what a primary document contains, so want to insist the site that hosts it is "unreliable.") As for the opinions of the group being "notable" ymmv. I concede that this back and forth nonsense, squabbling over how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, has become the preferred form of discourse here (rather than direct, logical adult conversation). So it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify please can this be cited for its opinions or 3rd party or not?--Shrike (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Shrike: "Opinions or 3rd party" are not really the subject of this thread. Frankly, I think that will end having to be done on a case by case basis since IRmep has done a lot of work on a lot of different issues and there are some where WP:RS quote IRmep/Grant books, opinions, actions, etc. and others where they don't. And one really has to search with very specific key words to find much such info since as we've seen very general searches don't come up with much; but very specific searches are what have come up with the most WP:RS mentions. At this point we are just talking about the documents on the website. CarolMooreDC 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@Shrike the question "can IRmep be cited for its opinions or not" has a very clear (but not a very simple answer): It depends. Let me break it down: 1. All US and other official documents hosted on their servers should be treated as genuine and reliable. 2. IRmep also writes pieces of opinion and analysis. Some of these opinion and analysis pieces are excellent, some less so. In some cases it may be appropriate to quote (with attribution) IRmep opinion and analysis, in other cases, less so. The only sensible way to deal with this is on a case by case basis as a question of editorial discretion. There is no binary "yes/no" "Up/down" judgement to be made here, and an attempt to do so is damaging, because it limits the sophistication and maturity of judgement that needs to be applied to research.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Any disputes regarding the use of IRMEP should be handled on a case by case basis on the article talk page. Wayne (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be reasonable if these concerns re IRmep were confined to only one or two or three articles. Centralized discussion might be more efficient, but not profoundly so. Here that's not the case. There are roughly ten articles where IRmep had been linked to prior to my removals before the AIPAC sockpuppet debacle. It wouldn't be economical to have ten different and mostly overlapping discussions simultaneously. That's the rational behind centralized discussions in the first place. The discussion currently in progress at Talk:MEMRI, for example, has implications vis-a-vis everything we're discussing here, such as whether IRmep's own paperwork all adds up. That isn't something specific to MEMRI; rather, it's a concern relevant to a centralized and general discussion of IRmep.—Biosketch (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes WP:RS have commented very explicitly and in detail about certain researches by IRmep/Smith relevant to the article in question. That usually makes that material valid for any use. And people will bring individual cases here anyway. You can't stop them. CarolMooreDC 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

1. .A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
2. .A link to the source in question. For example
3. .The article in which it is being used. For example article name
4. .The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example

   text

   . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
5. .Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

Unfortunately, few do. Maybe start a new discussion (or sub-thread) with this information? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, to clarify, the original thread is about using FOIA released and other govt-related official primary source documents that only are lodged on the IRmep site. This thread was started because they were removed from a number of articles. I offered to give specific examples but no one took me up on it, in part because - given all the WP:RS mentioning/quoting/etc IRmep/Grant Smith - several people agreed that it obviously was reliable for displaying such documents. I do agree that if people challenge use of IRmep facts/opinions, be they following secondary source WP:RS and/or primary source official documents on IRmep site, those who disagree can bring specific issues here for community input on a case by case basis as discussed elsewhere in this overly long thread. CarolMooreDC 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

IRMEP - two separate issues

There appears to be two separate issues here:

1. Citing this IRMEP's opinion about third-parties.
2. Citing documents obtained in FOIA requests.

The first is not allowed per WP:SPS condition #2. The second you're not really citing IRMEP. You're citing primary documents that just happen to be hosted by IRMEP. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS condition #2 does not apply as this guidline specifically applies to be used as sources of information about themselves. For use as a source of opinion about third-parties this guidline applies 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. Wayne (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to this edit, Middle East Media Research Institute is clearly a third-party. Nobody has presented any evidence that the author is an established expert who's been previously published by third-party reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Several people have presented evidence. You may just have missed reading the entire discussion before commenting. Smith has been interviewed by the BBC News and CNN, his articles have been reported by newspapers such as Reuters . He has authored nine books on the subject, one co-authored with the former head of the CIA's bin Laden search team. We can assume that Smith has some expertise in the area and he has been previously published by third-party reliable sources. Wayne (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Being reported on and being a published author by third-party reliable sources are two different things. The only link you provided above is to this article by Reuters which is credited to Reuters. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"The second you're not really citing IRMEP. You're citing primary documents that just happen to be hosted by IRMEP." I disagree, as I said above: if a source not considered reliable publishes what they claim to be a document from another party, we cannot use it as a source for the existence, let alone the contents, of that document. IRMEP asserts that these are documents released under FOIA and that assertion, assuming the source is not a reliable one, is not enough, because the authority for the assertion is IRMEP. We can use it to say, for example, "IRMEP claims to have documents released under FOIA saying XYZ", but we cannot use it to say "Documents released under FOIA show XYZ", nor can we use it to say "XYZ is true". If IRMEP is considered a reliable source and publishes those documents, then we can use it to say "IRMEP recovered documents under FOIA and those documents say XYZ". We still cannot say "XYZ is true", unless the documents are also from a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cusop Dingle and this comes back to oversight. Unless a publication has good editorial oversight (and therefore achieves reliability per Misplaced Pages) documents can be changed and those coming to a site would never know. As well, if a potential source is only published in a place that does not have good editorial oversight and no where else, and I don't know if this is the case or not, I would wonder if per weight the content should be included even with an in text attribution. (olive (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

Unfortunately, these two separate issues - 1) Citing this IRMEP's opinion about third-parties versus 2) Citing documents obtained in FOIA requests - were merged into the same thread. Looking at the culprit, it appears that Cusop Dingle was the one who made this mistake. I think it's best that Cusop Dingle step away from the discussion to avoid further blunders. This will allow uninvolved editors better able to assess this source's reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why you are so insistent about it being a Self-published source. This clearly is not a self-published source.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I fail to understand how IRMEPS reporting of documents is any different to that of any other advocacy group. A good example is MEMRI, they have no oversight yet are often used as a source of comment for the translation of Arabic articles (ie:primary documents that just happen to be hosted by MEMRI). They are often critisized by reliable sources for the unreliability of their translations, it is documented that they do in fact make alterations to text which changes context and some of the "articles" they translate are unreliable in themselves as many are little more than letters to the editor, but this appears to have little affect and they are frequently used as refs in WP articles. The only critism regarding IRMEPs reliability comes from WP editors. Wayne (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that this discussion has become personal and that to me is a sign that those making the personal comments towards other editors have too much vested interest in the discussion. No one should be requesting an editor step away when the arguments have been calm and clearly articulated. For the very reason given above, that documents can be changed, as is possible with no oversight is why this site in not a reliable source, in my opinion. And Misplaced Pages has its own standards for reliability which is what this discussion is about.(olive (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

You cannot compare misinterpretation of documents (or differing and possibly debatable interpretations) of a language reported by WP:RS to an editor like User:Littleolive oil's WP:OR allegation that someone has falsified a scan of an original document. If they had you know that AIPAC et al with their millions of dollars of resources available to debunk critics would have proved it by now. CarolMooreDC 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a red herring to discuss the practicality of document falsification. The main issue is lack of editorial oversight, and this extends to articles as well as hosted documents.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to check: you have read the very beginning of this this thread with a long list of WP:RS regarding IRmep/Smith? And do you understand that despite this diversion, what we are discussing is reliability for hosting documents? See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs If you only are responding to this last small section, you've missed a lot. Please respond so we'll all know. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've added a new item to the list at the start of this whole thread that shows sources that have cited IRmep research or documents, and have several more I intend to add over the coming days, as time allows. The particular publication in this instance is the refereed journal, Military Review, published continuously by the United States Army since 1922.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. News and World Report as source for criticism

Oh boy, I just love asking dumb questions at RSN!

User:Kwamikagami argues that in our article on the Secular Islam Summit, we need to "find a RS that presents some factual criticism," because s/he believes that this article is insufficient to support the statement that the Council on American-Islamic Relations criticized the summit for being organized and attended by non-Muslims/anti-Muslims. The article is from a reliable secondary source, it says that CAIR made these criticisms, and it also says that the conference was organized and attended by non-Muslims who made anti-Muslim comments such as equating radical Islam with regular Islam. This means that it goes over and above our normal requirements for criticism - we often don't even care if a secondary source can be found, let alone if the criticism is based in fact, but here we have both. I believe RSN will confirm that the removal of the article's criticism section on these grounds is spurious.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We do discourage "criticism" sections, but USN&WR is definitely a RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into an "article shape" discussion, this seems RS to me as well. -- Despayre   14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

USN&WR is absolutely a RS, and there is no need to expressly avoid all well-sourced critiques, as long as they are quoted directly, or framed in the voice of the author, not the 'pedia. See, WP:RSUW for guidance. — GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could also take this to NPOVN or something, but in the interest of not spreading the dispute across every forum that exists: would you consider this to be an accurate representation of CAIR's criticism?

The summit was criticized by the Council on American–Islamic Relations as hostile to Muslims. CAIR pointed out that the conference was organized and headlined by non-Muslims, and criticized remarks like those of Wafa Sultan, who claimed that there was no such thing as moderate Islam.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate some input. Otherwise I suspect this is going to ANI. Roscelese concluded from your lack of an answer above that "RSN has already unanimously rejected this argument on all points." The source in question, USNews, describes the speakers as ranging from 'angry ex-Muslims to devout reformers', which she wants to change to 'anti-Muslim activists', which is her own invention. CAIR calls them 'a bunch of atheists', which USNews calls 'mudslinging'. Roscelese insists that we include the mudslinging, since it's in a RS. (At first she refused even to present it as CAIR's opinion, insisting we present it as fact, since it's in a RS, though she has compromised on that.) In her last version, the criticism started in the introductory paragraph; the article was more about CAIR and their criticism of the summit than it was about the actual summit. This is also a bit of a BLP issue, since we list by name the people, some devout, that are being called atheists by CAIR. She also wants to include an inflammatory statement by one of the speakers which he did not even make at the summit, wording so that it looks like it was part of the summit, and wants to remove mention of a (cultural?) Muslim from the list of organizers, so that it looks like it was organized solely by non-Muslims. I don't understand the edits, and the repeated misrepresentation, unless it is to push her personal agenda. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, it's almost as though you objected to the presence of a criticism ghetto! Could it be that you just want to pretend no one objected to anything about this conference, rather than integrating the material into the article in the interest of avoiding a criticism section?

Kwamikagami is also (probably deliberately) misrepresenting the U.S. News source - which characterizes Sultan's remarks, not the comment about atheists, as mudslinging - but this behavior is unfortunately unsurprising after the edits s/he made to the article. It's far from the only thing about which s/he isn't telling the truth in this comment, but it is the one most directly related to the sources, so I'll leave it at that; maybe s/he will see fit to tell the truth later on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article one word at a time. It characterized both sides as mudslinging.

Roscelese has made a mess of the article. She's in an edit war to push a POV which her own source does not support. I've tagged the major points, but it now reads as a joke. I'm here because I don't want to multiply the discussion, but this is really a matter of NPOV and WEIGHT, not RS. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The USN&WR quote is balanced and neutral, can you provide a better example, or is this the worst? — GabeMc (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Guinness World Records

Hello, I was wondering if the regulars on this noticeboard could help me out. There is currently a talk page discussion on Creme Puff (cat) concerning the accuracy of the claims made in the article. The article's verifiability seems to be completely dependent on Guinness World Records publishing that this cat is the oldest ever recorded . There is coverage of the cat in other sources, but those sources also depend on Guinness to back their claims. However, another user claims that the cat breed that the owner and others claim this particular cat to belong to did not exist in the purported year of birth.

So the question I pose is, are there/have there been reliability problems with Guinness World Records in general? —KuyaBriBri 14:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't answer your question specifically, but there have been hoaxes in the past, but that does not take away from Guiness as a reliable source. I personally have seen that they send employess out to verify claims for the record book, in one case, an employee spent hours counting heads in a video. I would say that Guinness is definitely RS for that assertion. The fact that they are occasionally wrong (hoaxes, or just error), does not make them a non-RS, as, when they find out about it, they will correct the error, as a reliable source should. Just like a newpaper publishing a correction notice. -- Despayre   15:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

the statement is currently attributed to the Guinness book of world records, this seems fine. There appears to be no source stating it is a hoax. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - the GBWR may not be a perfect source, but until there is equally verifiable and reliable information that contradicts it, an attributed statement seems more than acceptable. The argument on the talk page seems to be one editor's opinion, unverified by any sources I could see. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't mean to imply the cat thing was a hoax, just there have been hoaxes played on GBWR in the past, and even so, they are still a reliable source imo. -- Despayre   00:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of the original question, but what the hey. IMO sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact. The reason I bring this up is because I see a lot of CAM-pushers who attempt to discredit whole fields of study on the basis of Big Pharma being generally evil or having ghost written single (or even several) articles. I see this as similar - people claiming a specific, generally reliable source can't be trusted on the basis of unrelated incidents does not discredit the source in general. Though GBWR may have been hoaxed before, unless there is specific evidence that this is a hoax, I don't think the information can justifiably be removed. This isn't pointedly aimed at you Despayre, it's just something I've seen before (and if anyone has a policy or guideline relevant to this discussion, I'd be keen for a link). WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with you on this point too. -- Despayre   00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In the present context, it's probably OK to say "sources that are generally reliable are reliable for all information contained therein unless there is specific evidence to the contrary for the challenged fact" (as WLU says above). But I don't see this as a policy or rule. Yes, there are indeed sources that we generally trust, and whose fact-checking we respect, but it still all depends what they are saying and whether it is in their field of expertise. Andrew Dalby 08:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion hi-jack

I would say that GBWR are beyond doubt RS—they are extensively covered in other reliable soures and they have very strong fact-checking practises. I'm more inclined to believe a claim by them than say the general media. However, I ran into an issue with them regarding methodology in a particular case, where they published two distinct figures, one in their published book and one on their website! It involved the adjusted box-office gross for Gone with the Wind. The issue is a bit too complex to go into here, but I question their methodology in relation to one of their figures. I would appreciate it if someone could offer an opinion on it. The relevant sections are the last paragraph of List_of_highest-grossing_films#Highest-grossing_films_adjusted_for_inflation (along with the table directly below) and the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Worldwide_highest-grossing_films_.28adjusted_for_inflation.29_Guinness_World_Records_2012_.28.D1.81.29. Betty Logan (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GBWR is most certainly a RS, but its best to attribute in-text when using it to justify inclusion of contentious material. Such as, "According to GBWR, John Doe is the greatest actor alive". — GabeMc (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Defence.lk

Is it a RS source to add or not to use in Misplaced Pages ? My edits are being removed.It is a Sri Lankan government website.රණකාමි333 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Vandalism by JohnCD in Channel 4 News :Wrong It is from the Defense ministry website why cannot I use it.The title itself is LTTE's money talks again %252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E%252525252525257E]%25252525252E Why cannot I add the truth.රණකාමි333 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This user wants to add to the article Channel 4 News the statement "Sri Lankan defence ministry state that it is funded by money from the LTTE", using as source the headline "LTTE's money talks again" from the article cited. The accusation may be implied by that heading, but it is not directly stated in the article, and per WP:REDFLAG so serious an accusation requires better sourcing than that. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Still not RS. Source does not support claim. Entire article (not surprisingly I suppose) reads like a promotional piece for the Sri Lankan government. -- Despayre   14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the point at issue here is that Channel 4 aired a controversial documentary about the Sri Lankan civil war, in which it is alleged that war crimes (including extrajudicial killings of civilians) were committed not only by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE), but also by Sri Lankan government troops. There are numerous sources dealing with this (I won't list them here because anyone should be able to do a Google or Bing search, as I did just now, and find them), so there is definitely no valid reason to rely solely on sources that are clearly committed to the Sri Lankan government's position. Additionally, any description of this controversy would belong, not as part of the lead section, but in a later section of the Channel 4 News article — possibly under a neutral heading something like "Sri Lankan civil war documentary controversy" — and per WP:NPOV, the discussion should fairly represent all major views substantiated by reliable sources, not simply present one view as "the truth". — Richwales 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Sri Lankan government is a party in this dispute, and as such it cannot be used as a reliable source regarding the funding of Channel 4, but it can be used as a primary source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government on the dispute. And this clearly does not belong in the lead, but rather, as Richwales has said, in a separate section dealing with the documentary controversy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The only role the primary sources would have is then in a supporting role to the secondary sources (showing what the Sri Lankan government propaganda says etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you would have a hard time getting even that much use out of the article, since other than the title, all you've got in the article is that the government disagrees with the report from channel 4. Nowhere in the article does it talk about channel 4 recieving money from the LTTE. It quite simply does not support the statement "Sri Lankan defence ministry states that it is funded by money from the LTTE", which was the question here. -- Despayre   14:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This source is a frankly rather witless rant against Channel 4's documrntary which at not point makes any claim that Channel 4 is funded by the Tigers. Never. The only reference to money is in the headline - which might mean any number of things (that the Tigers can bribe witnesses to make false statements, or fund a lobbying campaign to get the attention of C4 etc etc). In fact that vacuousness of the "claim" in the headkline is of a piece with the general empty ranting about irrelevancies that constitutes the main article. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the defence.Lk reliable.I want to add Amnesty International gets funds and about human right watch and about David Milibnd %2525257E%2525257E%2525257E%2525257E and also add some of them in sinhala wikipedia.රණකාමි333 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At the very most, I would say that Defence.lk may be a reliable source regarding the views of the Sri Lankan government. In a dispute involving Sri Lanka, anything said in Defence.lk is clearly going to reflect one side of the dispute, and thus anything from this source must be used with caution (and probably not just by itself, but only in combination with other sources giving a well-rounded picture of a given situation). If you are asking whether Defence.lk is "reliable" in the sense that a statement from Defence.lk can be used all by itself as an authoritative statement of an objective fact, I would say no, it is not "reliable" in that limited meaning of the word. — Richwales 14:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As for whether Defence.lk is acceptable as a source to be used in the Sinhala Misplaced Pages, you would need to ask this question there. Different language editions of Misplaced Pages are editorially independent, and the standards in place for the English Misplaced Pages may not necessarily be the same as the standards currently accepted in the Sinhala project. — Richwales 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

රණකාමි333 has asked me to reply here to the question "Please let me know if it is okay to use Defense ministry website it or will you remove my edits." I think the answers above cover this well. I am not going to say "You must not use it" but your edits will be closely scrutinized and, on its own, it is unlikely to be acceptable as a source.

In addition to the points made above, I would point out that although Defence.lk is a Sri Lankan Defence Ministry site, the articles quoted from it are written in so violently polemical a tone that I seriously doubt whether what they say can be taken as the official view of the Sri Lankan Government. Take, for instance, their statement that David Miliband is an "Incompetent neo-imperial meddler" who "tried to destroy Sri Lanka". Defence.lk is not a good source for the statement "David Miliband tried to destroy Sri Lanka"; but I do not believe it is even a sufficient source for the statement "The Government of Sri Lanka says DM tried to destroy SL."

රණකාමි333, people who come here with a strong wish to push a particular point of view do not often go away happy. Please read WP:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The End of Faith

A discussion at Talk:Pogrom#Paragraphs_removed has paused on the question of whether this book is a RS with respect to this paragraph about massacres committed by Muslims:

These and other indignities have been regularly punctuated by organized massacres and pogroms: in Morocco (1728, 1790, 1875, 1884, 1980, 1903, 1912, 1848, 1952, and 1953), in Algeria (1805 and 1934), in Tunisia (1864, 1869, 1932, and 1967), in Persia (1839, 1867, and 1910), in Iraq (1828, 1936, 1937, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1967, and 1969), in Libya (1785, 1860, 1897, 1945, 1948, and 1967), in Egypt (1882, 1919, 1921, 1924, 1938-39, 1945, 1948, 1956, and 1967), in Palestine (1929 and 1936), in Syria (1840, 1945, 1947, 1948, 1949, and 1967), in Yemen (1947), etc.

Here are some snippets from the wiki article Sam Harris (author):

• While Harris is "extremely critical of all religious faiths," he asserts that the doctrines of Islam are uniquely dangerous to civilization, stating that unlike Jainism, Islam "is not even remotely a religion of peace."
• Suggesting that the Qur'an and the hadith incite Muslims to kill or subjugate infidels, and reward such actions with paradise (including 72 virgins), Harris believes Islam is a religion of violence and political subjugation. He asserts that the liberal argument of stating that the phenomenon of religious extremism is a consequence of fundamentalism in and of itself is false, and that many other religions such as Jainism have not experienced the same trends Islam and Christianity have. Harris considers jihad, which he calls "metaphysics of martyrdom", as taking the "sting out of death" and a source of peril.

Here are some snippets from our own wiki article on the book.

• In a review for Free Inquiry, the editor Thomas W. Flynn alleged that Harris had allowed his argument to become clouded by his personal politics and by his use of spiritual language.
• Another review by David Boulton for New Humanist, also stopped short of a ringing endorsement, describing the book as containing "startling oversimplifications, exaggerations and elisions."
• Writing for The Independent, Johann Hari was largely encouraging but also expressed considerable reservations about Harris's political leanings, and revealed how he "began to choke" while reading the final chapter on spirituality.
• Madeleine Bunting, writing in The Guardian, quotes Harris as saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." Bunting comments, "his sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition." Quoting the same passage, theologian Catherine Keller asks, "ould there be a more dangerous proposition than that?" and argues that the "anti-tolerance" it represents would "dismantle" the Jeffersonian wall between church and state.
• Critical reviews from Muslims include Sam Harris and the End of Faith: A Muslim's Critical Response by Bill Whitehouse.

Views gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile. That quote is very specific, and really only provides 2 things: 1) a list of dates and locations of Muslim violence, 2) the characterization of those events as "organized massacres and pogroms." What exactly is looking to be supported with that quote from The End of Faith? Is it item 1), the catalog of Muslim violence that you question? If so, then are you suggesting that Sam Harris has lied, invented events that did not occur, and that the book was not fact-checked, and nobody has called this book into question on that? W. W. Norton, the publisher of the book, is top-tier and publishes a lot of college textbooks, and I would not expect that from them. The widespread notoriety of the book would certainly have attracted critics to look into questionable claims. My initial thought would be that this book is indeed a WP:RS for that catalog of Muslim violence. Is it item 2), whether it is acceptable to use this book as source for the common popular use of the word "pogrom"? I'd think it meets that as a WP:RS there too. Zad68 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly so. The book itself was both a best-seller and winner of the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction. While it (like most books) has received criticism, the issue here is not regarding the author's overall thesis, but rather on the very narrow question of whether the source is reliable for describing the specific events listed as "pogroms". Jayjg 23:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How can being a best seller suggest reliability? Mein Kampf was a best seller in its day! And the extreme position of this author is reminiscent of that... Oncenawhile (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is absolutely a superbly excellent reliable source (although a primary source) if an article makes an assertion that Hitler expressed a religious basis for his atrocities, and you support it with a cite from Mein Kampf like the quote "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." It always matters what assertion you are trying to support. Please answer the original question back to you: What assertion is trying to be supported here? Once we have BOTH the questioned assertion and the source used, only then can we make a determination. Zad68 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf is a suitable source for the opinions of Hitler as you say. The End of Faith is a suitable source for the opinions of Sam Harris. Are the opinions of an anti-religious polemicist neuroscientist significant on the subject of Islamic history? probably not. Is a polemical publication by said neuroscientist suitable for the verification of facts in the wiki voice relating to Islamic history? Definitely not, in my opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's still a viable argument that the book could be a reliable source for the particular list of dates and locations for Muslim violence based on the fact that the book was released as non-fiction plus the strength and reputation of W. W. Norton for fact-checking. Misplaced Pages's basic policy for determining whether something can be considered a WP:RS is "Is the source open to review, does the source fact-check?" and W. W. Norton does fact-check. But before we even go down that road, the whole discussion of whether the Harris quote can be used as a reliable source to support something might be moot if the something isn't even dependent on this. So, back to the original question, what assertion is this Harris quote being used to support? Zad68 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zad, the assertion it is being used to support is the characterisation of all the historical events in the quote at the top of this discussion as "pogroms". If you read some of the better sources at pogrom, and some of those currently being debated at talk:pogrom, you'll see that, because the term "pogrom" is loaded with implications, there is a great deal of scholarly debate over what type of events can be categorised as such (although none of the above events feature in the specialist scholarly works on pogroms). It is clear from the reviews of his book listed above that Harris's political pov has influenced his work. So it is not much of a stretch to imagine that Harris could choose to be somewhat "generous" in his apportionment of loaded words like "pogrom" to incidents where Muslims people were recorded to have killed those of other religions. It supports his central thesis that Islam is an evil religion. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your example of Mein Kampf, please review Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum. Jayjg 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, the book looks like exactly the sort of unreliable polemic that the rules are supposed to exclude. The author is a neuroscientist with a very strong political stance against religion. Nothing wrong with that, but on what grounds is such a person citable for historical events? Zad68's argument doesn't hold water; there are libraries worth of books out there full of complete rubbish that nobody has bothered refuting. In the case of this list of alleged events, Harris says that he got it from books of Wistrich (who is biased but meets WP:RS) and Dershowitz (who is an absolutely unreliable activist). Zero 00:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article pogrom can be written quite easily since, as anyone may verify at google books, there is an extensive library of academic works by specialists on the phenomenon. Twice now, poor sources, firstly the Center for Policy Research, which is a far right political think tank, and now Sam Black's book have been used to to document data that are not present (so far) in academic works. As Zero states, Sam Black's book is non-specialist and does not distinguish between good or bad sources in its synthesis. The question is, why the push to use poor sources, when excellent sources abound? The answer probably is, because some editors like that data, and will bend the RS ropes to get it into articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So Nishidani, rather than discuss sources, you'd prefer to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard to speculate and make assumptions about editors' motivations? Please review WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A far better better page would be one that includes history books discussing individual pogroms rather than a list of years. This would seem a better bit of information to include in Harris' page, not as a raw dump of information in pogrom (in fact, List of pogroms would be most appropriate). The book is reliable, particularly or mostly for Harris' opinion, but I would say it is not appropriate for this use. May I suggest using the dates and locations to try to find more appropriate works to verify the specific incidents? It would add more information to the page, using better sources, which seems like a win-win. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Supporting references from actual historians would be much more credible. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Wistrich has been suggested as a source, and apparently Harris uses him as one of his sources. Zero0000, what does Harris say? Jayjg 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He just says he compiled the list of events from Wistrich "Oldest Prejudice" and Dershowitz "Case for Israel". No indication which event is from which source, or how the source described them. Zero 12:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If Harris is relying on a source that we would not regard as reliable for the material (i.e Dershowitz) surely we must conclude that Harris is also not reliable for the material. Dlv999 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, this source could be regarded as reliable. Are there any "pogroms" the author lists that editors would question were really pogroms? --Dweller (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be about as reliable as any mainstream source - that is, not by an academic publisher (and Norton's is a quasi-academic publisher, and highly respected, like Blackwell or John Wiley and Sons or Routledge), nor in a scholarly journal - is going to be. He has a well known anti-theistic and anti-religious bias, but he's not being used to support statements of fact on the nature of religion, which could only go so far as to say "Harris's opinion on X is..." (as much as any other religious author). He's being used to cite a list of facts, and that's the kind of stuff that is screened out by a reliable publishing process. He's generally well-regarded, even if he lost his debate with William Lane Craig, and theists (such as myself: I was a partisan of Hitchens, the only worthwhile one of the "Four Horsemen", who happened to be the one riding on a pale green horse; he had more philosophical sense as a journalist than supposed professional philosopher Dennett has as a professor) tend to loathe him. St John Chrysostom _τω 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph from Harris' book in which this is quoted is an attempt to prove that Muslims have not lived peacefully alongside other religions. I have added the immediately preceding sentence above "In parts of the Arab world it has been a local custom for Muslim children to throw stones at Jews and spit upon them" for context.

As to Dweller's question, yes there are many that I would question his definition for (if you look them up, most sources do not refer to them as pogroms, and whether they were "organized" is rarely established). The problem though is that the word "pogrom" can be used loosely or strictly, and different people understand it in different ways. That's what we're trying to work through at the RfC on talk:pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians - Community status and cultural identity

Source : Rajendra Prasad: A Historical-developmental study of classical Indian philosophy of morals - pp. 475-491, ISBN 81-8069-595-6 : The section related to Saint Thomas Christians is authored by C.D Sebastian. Is it reliable a reliable source for the information regarding social status and cultural identity of the community? --AshLey 11:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks RS to me (although I'd rather have a specific statement to apply the source to). While Prasad's expertise might have been called into question, it appears that C.D. Sebastian has published over 80 papers/books all in the area of Indian religious history/philosophy/ethics, and teaches several courses as an Associate Professor of Philosophy at a university in India. The information comes from him, not from Prasad. -- Despayre   15:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The context: To balance a primary information in Caste_system_in_Kerala#Untouchables : User:Sitush uses a quote of 19th century to infer the relative status of different castes in Kerala. I think, it's a primary information and also an unbalanced view. Hence introduced a new point as follows:

"The inference of relative social position specifically between Syrian Christians and Nairs from the above quote is ambiguous as many other historians mention that the Syrian Christians used to go for a ritual bath after physical contact with even Nairs."

But, it was reverted by Sitush, reintroduced by me, and subsequently a discussion challenging the reliability of sources was started here: Talk:Caste_system_in_Kerala#Relevance_of_a_recent_contribution. Many more sources (some listed below) were cited, but all of them are being challenged.Sitush argues that Saint Thomas Christians or Syrian Christians were outside the caste system, but hasn't provided any sources to support his view.

• Harold Coward - Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters
• Benedict Vadakkekara - Origin of Christianity in India: A Historiographical Critique
• Duncan B. Forrester -Collected Writings on Christianity, India, and the Social Order

So I decided to seek help from this forum. Your guidance in this matter would be highly helpful for further improvement to the articles related to Caste System and Saint Thomas Christians --AshLey 08:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

AshLey is misrepresenting the sourcing issues, and is also being challenged by someone else for similar problematic edits on Caste system in India. What I said was this. This is not the best forum for resolving a content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, If you don't have any concern regarding the reliability of information from these sources, I'm quite free to use them for citation and we don't have any issues in this regard. Here, we are discussing the reliability issue only; your concerns on typography, misprint etc of the sources also could be discussed here. Issues related to the content of wiki-article are separate; if needed, we could discuss in related forum.AshLey 12:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No., you are fudging the issue. This matter should never have been brought to this board in the first place because it is irrelevant to this board. Now, please, take it somewhere useful. I have explained what the problem is, and it is nothing to do with Sebastian's authority (which I explicitly stated was not at issue). - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

NASSP blogpost

An important part of a dispute at Programme for International Student Assessment is regarding this source: (Mel Riddile, "PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid", December 15, 2010, NASSP blogs). Is it a reliable source? User:CartoonDiablo argues that it is and wants to include some of the claims such as a comparison between share of US students in schools getting reduced or free school lunch and share of populations in different nations under poverty lines. See the section here, currently including the blog post material: . It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price lunch and different national poverty lines. (There is also a strange link to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR.) I argue that the Mel Riddile material is not a reliable source. It is a blogpost at nasspblogs. It is not written by a scholar. Some of the arguments in the blog post are reliable since they cite this source: which in turn seems to be citing this source: (Page 15). However, these sources do not make a strange comparison between between getting reduced or free school lunch and national poverty lines. No sources are given for the statistics. Poverty lines can be defined in many different ways and are often not compatible with one another since different nations use different criteria. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The top of the page is waaay up there now, so you may have missed the suggested format here:

Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source, please keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context (that is, on exactly how you are using the source). You will get a faster and more useful response if you include:

1. A full citation of the source in question. For example Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60.
2. A link to the source in question. For example
3. The article in which it is being used. For example ]
4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

#4 is the key there. It isn't very important to say who the other editors involved are, I'm sure it can be figured out from the talk page. While some explanation of the situation may be specifically required, if all your reasoning is already on the talk page, there's not a lot of reason to re-post it here, at least, imo. Anyone else, feel free to disagree. Largely the issue for me here is scale, I can't give you a yes/no for multiple assumptions at once, pick one? It's only an observation of mine, but the shorter and simpler your question is, the more replies you get here. -- Despayre   23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated my post. To clarify, see the section here . It contains the text "The table below summarizes the scores of American schools by their relative poverty rates and compares them to countries with similar poverty rates" as well as a table. It is sourced to the Mel Riddile blog post which makes the strange comparison between getting a free or reduced price school lunch and different national poverty lines. There is also a strange link to some Finnish language data table which is not mentioned by Mel Riddile and which does not mention PISA. Seems to be some form OR. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well totally off-topic, but first of all, regarding the "NASSP" cell in your table, using bare URLs as citations is definitely frowned upon by the MOS (see WP:BURL and {{cite web}}), it should be inside a <ref> tag too, and it should be outside the table, but I digress...

Reading the nasspblogs article, it seems good, and the author seems to know what he's talking about, but go to http://nasspblogs.org and you instantly see the problem. This site is not RS. Why has someone not found the direct statements of Tirozzi and used those? They may be exactly as reported by nasspblogs, but that does not make nasspblog RS. nasspblogs and a few other sites seem to have found quotes from Tirozzi's statements, so we should be able to find them too. I took 5 minutes, this seems to be what you were all looking for, although I didn't see Mexico mentioned, or a couple of others. The actual report is somewhere at oecd.org, it looks like a little more digging is required. -- Despayre   15:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, having "NASSP" indicated as the source is false, it's NASSPblogs. NASSP.org does seem like it would be generally RS, so that gives a false impression at best. -- Despayre   15:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to really muddy the waters here, I'll throw this out for other editors. I do not have a problem with Dr. Riddile, or Mr. Tirozzi, only with NASSPblogs.org. I think there must be better places to find this source. -- Despayre   15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tirozzi's arguments are here: . While he does not it say it outright he seems in turn to be quoting this source: (Page 15). However, neither of these sources make a comparison between poverty rates and getting a free lunch at school. This is the main claim by Riddile which I object to. It is a very dubious comparison since national poverty rates vary from country to country since poverty is defined differently in different countries. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean page 23, 15 is "intentionally left blank". Tirozzi's arguments don't include Mexico (for example), I think I referenced that page in my previous comments, it doesn't give you a source for all of that chart. If you do a search in the document you linked, you'll find on page 30 that it does actually talk about lunches and grades. -- Despayre   00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Page 15 (as numbered at the bottom of the page) which has as section called "School Socioeconomic Contexts". Probably page 30 by your count. Yes, it talks about lunch and grades. Which Tirozzi also does. But there is no comparison between getting a free lunch and different national poverty rates of the kind Riddile makes in his blogpost. This is a very strange comparison. Getting a free lunch is not comparable to the many different definitions of official poverty which vary by nation. For example, in some countries everyone gets a free lunch in school. This does not mean everyone is poor. Tirozzi makes no such strange comparison. Riddile does in a blogpost which is not a reliable source. I agree that Tirozzi arguments are fine. Riddile's further arguments are not.Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Askmen.com

I'm wondering if this specific article:

David Strovny. "Bathroom Sex Positions". AskMen.com. IGN. Retrieved 23 April 2012.

can be considered a reliable source for sexual health-related topics and for the claim "There are six special sex positions possible for having sex in a bathroom" in the Bathroom sex article. Previous discussions about askmen.com at RS/N () have found it to be passable for pop culture topics. Gobōnobo 02:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Askmen is owned by IGN, which in turn is owned by News Corporation. It has an editorial oversight and meets WP:RS. Askmen is at par with Playboy, GQ, Maxim etc. and specializes in men's fashion, lifestyle, dating coaching, relationship and popular sex guide. So it is fine for information on sex positions. It is used for information on sex position, not on sexual health. --SupernovaExplosion 11:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would consider articles such as bathroom sex to be closer to pop culture than sexual health; this isn't a medial or psychological article so much as a look at a phenomenon. Askmen is as reliable in this context as sources such as Cosmopolitan, which is also used with the same weight. GRAPPLE X 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain's date of birth

A discussion is occurring here:

• Date of birth, birth name, and birth place

We don't have it, but would an official copy of her birth certificate from the state of California be admissible as a primary RS, or is it only allowable if it's been cited in a secondary RS? I don't remember the details about such rulings here and would like the latest interpretation.

I've been doing my best to keep out sources which we don't consider RS, but have been getting lots of flack and personal attacks from 64.223.235.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Contrary to their charges, I have never deleted a source because of the date, only because the source itself isn't considered reliable here. We currently have three different ages supported by RS.

It would be nice to get some fresh eyes on this situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that you have a quote from her saying "“I don’t like revealing how old I am", and that you have the public record of her birth (when/if you get it), and that there are no records apparently of a Jessica Howard being born in California between 1976 and 1982 when I look that up on the site linked from the talk page, I would say that a bith certificate from the state of California would be admissible as proof that the state at least says that's when she was born, and that's RS. Which could end up with something like "While there are various dates given for her birth, ranging from X to Y, the State of California says she was born on Z.". -- Despayre   14:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with using birth cirtificates. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

While it says to avoid use of public documents, I don't read that to mean that a document who's sole function is to provide date of birth information shouldn't be used for that. I read that more to mean things like court documents (mentioned) or drivers licences. However, there was also this section further down, which I didn't read before:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

And that would seem to say pretty clearly that we shouldn't use it, so I guess this is a slight alteration of my opinion, (but I'm not admitting my first one was wrong ). -- Despayre   16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the year of birth could be used from the birth certificate, a primary source, since it is a matter of fact that requires no interpretation. The month and day should not be essential to the article, especially when they do not seem to be generally known and previously published in reliable sources. The month and day is an issue of respecting privacy and not exactly a reliable source issue, since it is not a bigger leap to take month and day from the birth certificate than to take the year. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are wrong. Read what was quoted immediately above your statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the name Jim Hawkins ring a bell? If Chastain does not want her birthdate in Misplaced Pages, going to primary sources is most definitely not the answer. Leave it out unless and until it is published in reliable secondary sources, and in that case only use the year. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The name Jim Hawkins did not ring a bell with me since I wasn't involved in that situation, so I looked it up and here is a diff that can be studied:

• Jim Hawkins' talk page (one version)

I don't think we have an exact parallel situation here:

• For some odd and seemingly irrational reasons Hawkins was extremely sensitive about several types of publicly available information appearing here, and he even seemed to come unglued about it. A sysop even mentioned to him that his behavior and objections were triggering the Streisand effect.

• By contrast, Jessica hasn't objected to Misplaced Pages, or anywhere else that I know of, about the publication of her date of birth, only that she doesn't think that actresses "should be asked about their age", that they "should be allowed a degree of mystique when it comes to their ages", and she doesn't "like revealing" her own age. She hasn't forbidden anyone else from doing so that I know of. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that "Chastain does not want her birthdate in Misplaced Pages", but we can show a bit of sensitivity by limiting anything here to only her birth year.

What's really ironic about this is the Streisand effect. Her secrecy only creates more interest in the matter. She would be wise to just settle the matter before more digging ends up uncovering some kind of skeleton in her closet (everyone has things they'd rather not see published here, no matter how trivial they might be).

So...if we can ascertain her birth year, that should be good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So far we have three different ages given in published, secondary, RS (even more when one figures +/- one year, depending on the exact month). Since we have no certainty, we're just listing what RS say. It would be nice if she settled the matter in an interview. Then we could drop the sources that have gotten it wrong. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unresolved situation: Is Time Magazine a RS? Is IMDB a RS?

We need active participation from experienced editors, and preferably an admin ready to do some blocking. The personal attacks (including outright lies) from SPA 64.223.235.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continue, with a pronounced IDHT attitude and refusal to seek to understand our policies here. NPA and AGF aren't followed at all. RS isn't understood, with a denial that Time Magazine be used as a RS. They also insist that IMDB is a reliable source for her age, and refuse to accept our policies about the use of IMDB. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of the archives for this page will show you that IMDB has often been found not to be RS. On the other hand, TIME has almost always been considered to be RS (actually, I don't know of an instance that it wasn't), but without a specific source reference, I can't give you a specific yes/no answer either, but it's very likely that TIME is RS to start with (imo). -- Despayre   05:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. The IP fails to realize that when we say "RS", we're using the word "reliable" in a slightly different sense than the general meaning. The IP refuses to even study the policy. If a source is verifiable and consistently there, and there is some form of fact checking, we usually consider it "reliable" (stable), even if it occasionally makes mistakes. In this case a source which mentions Chastain's age is from a short blurb about her written by Gary Oldman for Time's coverage when she entered the list of Time 100 most influential people of the world. The 100 Most Influential People in the World: Jessica Chastain, by Gary Oldman, Time Magazine, published April 18, 2012. It is the fact that his comments are published by Time Magazine that make them eligible for use in the article, not whether he's right or not. We just quote him, and the IP wildly objects, because the IP went to high school with her and knows her real age.

I have repeatedly made it clear that I have no particular preference regarding her age, and I have supported the inclusion of any and all RS that mention her age (until we have definitive certainty for it). The IP refuses to believe me and keeps attacking me and lying by insisting that I have deleted all sources that don't back up an age of 30 years old. Well, that's patently false. The IP also claims I have edited the article for months, but I made my first of few edits on April 10. The IP is the only one contesting any of my comments, but claims that others have done so. Not true. Only one new editor with two edits (one on the talk page) has shared the IPs POV, and I strongly suspect it's a registered sock of the same IP. The same lack of logic, lack of reading comprehension, and same language. An SPI would block based on WP:DUCK alone...;-)

I'd appreciate some participation from others. I'm tired of the uncivil behavior and personal attacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The TIME article you cite says she's 30, but that means that her birthday could fall on either of two years (1981 or '82 depending on when her actual birthday is). The fact that the other editor went to school with her is completely irrelevant, and is definitely not RS. If his behavior is disruptive, the place to report it is WP:ANI. -- Despayre   06:41, April 26, 2012‎ (UTC)

Time is of course a highly reliable source, but this matter is evidently extremely contentious and we don't know what source Time relied on.

My view, which I will add to the talk page if it would help, is that the infobox should not mention her age at all (and it didn't when I last looked). If (as I understand) we have fairly reliable sources for two conflicting years of birth our text can say, plainly, that her year of birth has been differently reported as X and X, with a footnote for each.

I agree with others, this would all change if she stated the date clearly herself, but that's her choice. We should respect it, and stick to reporting reliable sources. We must not do original research, and anyway we cannot cite the birth record because we cannot prove that it applies to this person. Andrew Dalby 13:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In general terms (without given context) Time Magazine is considered a reliable source (on the level of "serious" newspaper publication). The IMDB however is generally not a reliable source and as such in particular its biographical information cannot be used as a source. However it might be used to "source" largely undisputed/unproblematic content (cast of characters, movie quotes, statistical infos on the films etc.). --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I knew all this already and I agree. This is what I've been telling the IP, but I only get abuse in return and an insistance that I am wrong for not allowing the use of IMDB. They also insist that Time Magazine should not be used because the IP thinks that Gary Oldman is wrong. (After all, the IP went to high school with her!) When I explain our policies about these matters, I only get further abuse. Note that we're not talking about an edit war, but talk page abuse. Your participation there would be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Asiatic Journal

Is this work reliable? The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign India, China and Australasia by Allen. - InarZan (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's too old to be used by us as a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

InarZan, what is the intended use? Age may not have any bearing on the matter, depending on use. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is part of the contentious discussion about the St Thomas Christian article. A basic principle is that we never regard Victorian colonial studies as reliable on Indian sociology today. WP:HISTRS may be of interest. Please do not take this as an endorsement of one side or the other in the content dispute. It will take a lot more than just a few RSN posts to resolve it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No. This is not related to article St Thomas Christian. I am concerned about article Caste system in Kerala. I just want to include a quote to balance a view and avoid a potential confusion. I am giving below the entire paragraph. I only wish to quote the text given in the bold letters:

"The Christians, pursuant to the laws of the country, are the protectors of the silversmiths, brass-founders, carpenters, and smiths. The Pagans, who cultivate the palm-trees, form a militia under the Christians. If a pagan of any of these tribes should receive an insult, he has immediately recourse to the Christians, who procure a suitable satisfaction. The Christians depend directly on the Prince or his Minister, and not on the Provincial Governors. If any thing is demanded from them contrary to their privileges, the whole unite immediately for general defence. If a Pagan strike one of the Christians, he is put to death on the spot, or forced, himself, to bear to the church of the places an offering of a gold or silver hand, according to the quality of the person affronted. In order to preserve their nobility, the Christians never touch a person of inferior caste, not even a Nair. In the roads and streets, they cry out from a distance, in order to receive precedency from passengers; and if any one, even n Nair, should refuse this mark of respect, they are entitled to kill him on the spot. The Nairs, who are the nobility and warriors in Malabar, respect the Syrian Christians very highly and consider it a great honour to be regarded as their brothers. The privileges of the Syrian Christians are so numerous, that it would be tiresome to describe them all: but a few will be stated, of so important a nature, that they place them, in some measure, on an equality with their sovereigns. It is permitted only to the Brahmins and them to have inclosed porches before their houses. They are authorized to ride and travel on elephants: a distinction accorded only to them and the heirs of the crown. They sit in presence of the king and his ministers, even on the same carpet; a privilege granted to Ambassadors only. The King of Paroor, having wished, during the last century, to extend this privilege to the Nairs, the Christians declared war against him, and obliged him to restore affairs to their former state."

Sorry for not signing above. Please give me a reply. Thanks. - InarZan Verifiable 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely not a reliable source for present-day sociology of India. In regard to past attitudes and practices, it's a primary source. It might be possible to use it if carefully attributed. In that case it would have a form of words like "according to a British traveller writing in 1822...". (Find out who the author was, and the best way to describe his status.) Discuss that option with other editors on the talk page and see if anyone objects. We can only use primary sources with great care. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

whosampled.com

Is anyone here familiar with whosampled.com? I had never heard of it 'til yesterday, when it was used as a source in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. Specifically, an anonymous editor added "American rapper Cage sampled the score in his song 'Agent Orange,'" and used the site to source this claim. Taking a look at the About Us page on whosampled.com, it says that the content is user-generated but is moderated, and gives a list of who the volunteer moderators are. This sounds a lot like what we do here at WP, and leads me to believe that this is not a reliable source. I would like to hear some other opinions, though, before removing the information from the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it is a user-generated site with a team of anonymous moderators (example) who's expertise are unknown. It is analogous to Misplaced Pages and is not RS. --SupernovaExplosion 14:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my gut instinct. Interesting site, but not reliable. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

thedeadrockstarsclub.com

Does anyone have any opinions about whether or not is a reliable source? Angryapathy (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like an unnotable fansite. It doesn't appear to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a website that I have watched and used regularly for years now. I have found it to be accurate, and it often contains more correct information than is provided by some newspapers and other such media. Despite it's rather quirky styling, do not be fooled - it is professional in its approach and, in my long experience, it is reliable. Perhaps some editors would carry to check the information therein for its accuracy. It obviously is not going to out trump The New York Times for example, but it does cover music on a worldwide scale, is not opinionated, sticks to basic factual information, and often contains musicians that are not covered by major news sources. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be true, but it doesn't appear to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for what is considered reliable. If the web site's author has been published by a third-party reliable source, it might qualify as reliable per WP:SPS. If not, there's still Ignore all rules: If a rule gets in the way of making the encyclopedia better, it should be ignored. I'm sorry that I can't give a most satisfactory answer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Appears non-notable and non-reliable. Reliability is not decided by degree of accuracy, but by authoritativeness and degree of professional involvement and review. This site is basically a personal blog.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree not RS, as per Maunus·snunɐw. No oversight policy, no credentials. I won't even take marks off for style (hideous though it may be), the degree of accuracy is irrelevant (as far as WP is concerned). -- Despayre   23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

All female pornstars like other women, and men, and will probably have sex with you, at least according to porn sites

In reviewing our overblown coverage of pornstars, I have noticed that the vast majority of female stars that I have reviewed all appear to comment about how attracted to women they are, at least when they are talking to their industry trade rags. I am concerned that including this kind of "in universe," information as reliably sourced encyclopedic fact is problematic. Two examples to which I refer: and . I contend that information about pornstars that is sourcable only to trade rags and is of questionable provenance (such as "being in an open marriage," or "enjoying swinging," or "identifying as a bisexual, but preferring men," or "loving bsdm," is of questionably veracity, and such sources are not reliable for biographical information that is likley overblown, created out of thin air, or exagerated. Comments? Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you ask the wrestling editors how they deal with kayfabe. Industry rags are likely to be highly reliable for porn kayfabe, but unreliable for actor's personal lives. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion, other than if this section title is true, I just want to say "Yay!" -- Despayre   23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it terribly difficult to believe that a pornstar from San Francisco is bisexual and into BSDM. That being said, usually statements that a person makes in an interview are considered sufficient for their sexual identity, but interviews with a porno mag might be an exception--since that's part of the performance of being a porn star. In any case, "loving bsdm" might be a trivial detail best left out of the article anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary quoted on Necromancy

Material from the Oxford English Dictionary has been used to support a statement on the Necromancy article, but repeatedly removed as a "factual inaccuracy", examples here and here. To provide additional support for the article I added a quote from the source, here, but this has been deleted by another editor. Talk page discussion here. As I seem to be in a minority regarding the use of the source, guidance is requested. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

For my own part, I want to assure you that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with you citing the OED. I am not in disagreement over your use of the OED in this instance, neither am I challenging the reliability of the OED as a source(!). I removed the quote merely because it seemed redundant and therefore unnecessary. You might have noticed that I also added a link in the citation to the online OED, providing readers with direct, immediate access to the word entry where they could readily see the content you quoted (if they desired to do so) as a substitute for reproducing that content in the article. To reiterate, I did not delete the cited source, I deleted a quote taken from the source that had been added to its inline citation. Please refer to my recent post on the article talk page where I attempt to clear up the simple, unfortunate misunderstanding that has brought us to this point. Thank you. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, we still haven't succeeded in restoring all of the deleted source material, in the manner prescribed in Misplaced Pages:Offline sources, but grateful thanks to User:Andrew Dalby who has put in a lot of time and effort to achieve a compromise. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources used at List of Vegans

There is a dispute over the validity of some of the sources used in the case of Will Tuttle's entry at List of vegans. The dispute is over whether the sources constitute RS status in regards to the claim he is vegan. Please note that this does not effect his position on the list because I consider his official site to be legitimate for the claim, but an editor keeps adding further sources that I consider not reliable and I request an impartial opinion.

The edit in question:

The sources:

• "In Conversation with Dr. Will Tuttle: Towards a World Peace Diet". Vegan India!. 2012-01-05. Retrieved 2012-04-25. {{cite news}}: |archive-url= is malformed: liveweb (help)
  • A blog based on Blogspot; I do not regard this as reliable as per WP:BLOGS.
• Tuttle, Will (2011-04-02). "Spiritual People Moving Toward Veganism?". VegSource Interactive, Inc. Retrieved 2012-04-25. {{cite news}}: |archive-url= is malformed: liveweb (help)
  • This is a privately run site run by a husband and wife according to http://www.vegsource.com/about-us.html. I believe it fails WP:SPS.
• Will Tuttle (Speaker) (2008). Will Tuttle: Eating for Spiritual Health & Social Harmony (MP4 OGG) (Video recording of live presentation). San Francisco, California, U.S.A. Event occurs at 29:16. Retrieved 2012-04-25.
  • Video footage uploaded to Archive. I believe it fails WP:NOYT which states video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight; it uis not possible to ascertain if the publisher i.e. the uploader is a reliable source.

The editor in question is using lots of these types of sources, so I would be grateful if we could draw a line under it one way or ther other. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Blogspot - Has an editorial policy page, lays out its goals, and provides a resource for corrections if needed. The article claims to be an interview with Dr Tuttle directly, I'm not sure where else you would get that interview from. It's not an exceptional claim, (and I don't see why it's even needed as a backup, that goes for all these sources), but I think this one could be borderline reliable is not RS. While it is definitely on blogspot, this isn't really a blog. I changed my mind when I realized I had no idea who the actual author was of the article. Personally, it's probably fine, by WP standards, I'm going with not RS.

vegsource seems to be down, and the archive wouldn't show either, no comment

Video Footage appears to have been uploaded by its creator, San Francisco Vegetarian Society (link to about page, they seem RS to me, and this video can be found linked to their site, link), and therefore would be RS (uploaded by anyone else and it would not be). But again, it's such a non-exceptional claim that as per WP:BLUE I don't know why you'd need additional references at all. -- Despayre   15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I find it all a bit weird personally, he seems to be adding lots of redundant refs to many entries (like 4/5); since some of them are ok it's not even like their removal precipitates the name coming off the list. At first I thought it was someone connected to a particular site and was just trying to slip in some promotion, but it's much more widespread. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding the extra refs because of users like you who are so eager to delete content. These extra refs increase the chances of there being at least one valid ref in place for a long time to come, even if other users like you come along to delete them because they find them unsatisfactory or because both the original site and its archived counterpart are no longer accessible. The extra refs increase the chances of the name remaining on the list. --Andomedium (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I never "came along" and started deleting content. When I came along a couple of years ago both the vegan and vegetarian lists were completely unsourced, which violated Misplaced Pages policy regarding claims about living people. I spent a couple of months adddng hundreds of sources to the lists, and removed the entries I could not source so both lists were completely sourced. These lists are completely sourced now, and editors who come along can see that so there is no excuse for adding entries without sources. I have better things to do than chase down sources to cover someone else's lazy editing, so I remove them if the entry is unsourced or is not RS. Tagging entries for a citation doesn't work because no-one actually does come along and add a source, and if you ask someone to supply a source they point out there are other entries that are unsourced. While I appreciate anyone who comes along and adds sources, they are not much good if these sources are blogs, private sites, youtube videos etc, since if the list ever gets to FL standard they will have to come out anyway. Either help or don't, but it is not your place to criticise an editor for not doing enough to source the lists when they have done far more work and for more sourcing on the article than you have. These lists probably would have bene deleted by now if it were not for my efforts in sourcing these articles; you have source half a dozen entries, let's see how motivated you are after you have done several hundred. Betty Logan (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Betty, I respect what you're doing in trying to keep the list tidy and properly sourced. I think the problem lies in your reluctance, in some cases, to accept people's self-published websites. These should not be accepted to establish notability, but as everyone on that list is, in theory, notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, notability is not the issue. Therefore, WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS kick in, and these say that self-published sources are fine for claims like this (unless we have reason to question the source's authenticity). Indeed, the subject herself is (in most cases) the only person who knows whether she is a vegan, which is an inherent problem with a list like this, in that the subject's word is realistically the only criteria we have. That means we can never be sure of the list's accuracy -- someone could say she's a vegan on Monday, then by Tuesday be tucking into steak sandwiches and ice-cream. But that's not related to the sources being self-published. We'd have the same problem of checkability even if they announced it through the New York Times. SlimVirgin 18:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with sourcing through self-published sites, but if you can't establish authorship then it is not a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on the talk page. There's no requirement for editors to contact every single website and somehow check that the owner is who she says she is. We don't use sites if we have reason to doubt the authenticity, but there does have to be a reason to question it. Without that, it's okay to use it under WP:SELFPUB, which is policy, so long as the site owner is talking about herself and not a third party. SlimVirgin 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You say there is no requirement, but I don't see anyone supporting your position. If authorship of self-published sites do not have to be validated then put it in the guidelines, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It says nothing about editors being required to authenticate each and every website, which would be close to impossible. It does say there should be "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," but note the word "reasonable." In the absence of a reason to believe the website is fake, we trust it, unless the issue is a contentious one per BLP, but someone publishing of herself that she is a vegan is not contentious. SlimVirgin 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that Betty Logan has opened a second thread about sourcing at this page here below. I tried to join it to this thread, but he reverted, so I'm leaving this note instead. SlimVirgin 02:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think more is required. If she is a self-professed vegan notable enough for this discussion then surely there is an article or a book, that this could be sourced to versus a selfpup which may or may not have a connection to the subject. — GabeMc (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic

Is Sputnikmusic a reliable source to use in articles for songs and albums? For example this. The reviewer is apparently a user of the site, but I have seen the site used in other articles previously. Till I Go Home (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic has both staff and user reviews; only the former have had sufficient editorial oversight to be considered reliable. Avoid using user reviews as it's just user-generated content. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your example is not RS for anything to do with the Sugababes. -- Despayre   15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it from the article I was writing. Till I Go Home (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

thepeerage.com (update)

This notice is an update to previous discussions, listed here:

• WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#thepeerage.com
• WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Self-published_royalty_websites

The compiler of this website (Darryl Lundy) has responded to me by email to clarify the some of the points raised. He was unaware of the debates listed above at the time. Here are two extracts from his email:

• I try to show the source for every single fact given on the website - although when I started creating the database around 2000, I didn't show sources, so now I am still going back and adding sources to everything - will be a year or two before that task is finished (88.5% of all facts currently are sourced). I try to primarily use sources which are printed reference books but if someone emails me something about their own family, I will use that as well.
• I'm not a professional genealogist - no formal qualifications in the area

So, I think that backs up the previous discussions, "thepeerage.com" website is effectively an SPS with regard to some family histories, which are accepted in good faith by the compiler. Those pieces of information should not be used here on WP.

I do not feel there is any reason to question the quality of the information on "thepeerage.com" that has been identified as being sourced from an RS, particularly if the WP article is not a WP:BLP, but it is obvious best practice to consult and cite the original source if the contributor has access to them.

The problem is that some of these RS require expensive subscriptions and consequently, not all libraries stock them. Rather than deleting "thepeerage.com" citations altogether, I think it would be good practice to indicate whether the information has been extracted from an RS, in which case the original source should be cited as well. In due course, contributors with access to the RS can update the citations. Obviously, SPS-sourced material needs to be deleted, or at the very least, WP:Citation needed tags applied. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No There is no reason to believe that this source copies the material intact, correct and complete: The source has no editorial control. Further, what you say you've heard via personal correspondence isn't really a suitable basis for evaluating a source. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your first point, however, even sources with editorial oversight have errors in them. That's why this isn't an RS and why ultimately, we need to check the source material. Where this website can help is that it points directly to a page in a book; get the book, check the page and if all is well, there you are.

Disagree with your second point as the compiler is not claiming to be an expert - he is excluding himself and some of the material from being a reputable source. This really has to be taken on board. Wikiwayman (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate the SPS exemption. There's no demonstration of a self-published source exemption, or expertise here. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to draw a distinction between unverified SPS material on the site and the re-publishing of extant material alongside it. I'd assumed the reformatted information could not be tainted by opinion due to its plain content.Wikiwayman (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. We don't assume that the reformatted information is untainted because of the propensity of people on the internet to fake things, and because of the propensity of people in general to fake things. This is why we may use some things as external links (like thepeerage.com), even when they're unreliable sources. Because we refer people to a source we consider "unreliable" because our standards are high regarding our own use of sources, whereas people in this case may be able to make use of the information at the external link, using their judgement. Misplaced Pages editors rarely use their judgement about competing content claims, and only use them about the capacity of a source to sustain a claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. If he's a published/peer-reviewed scholar in this field, OK. If he isn't, then, however useful his site is in indicating other sources to us, we can't treat it as a reliable source in itself.

NB Where thepeerage.com gives a good overview of a relevant matter (e.g. the genealogy of a family, since genealogy is not our own main concern) then there may still be reason to include thepeerage.com under external links. Andrew Dalby 08:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so if I'm starting to understand this correctly, when I come across an article that uses the website as a reference source, I should work with the authors to improve references (by going back to the original source if available) and agree to remove any dubious information that I don't believe is likely to have originated in a published work. In a small number of circumstances it may be relevant to include an external link. Wikiwayman (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't answer, but that's because I agree. "A small number" may be exactly right: let's be fair, either way. If we used peerage.com originally, and as long there is still some handy added information to find there, a retained external link helps our readers and at the same time serves as acknowledgement. Andrew Dalby 10:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Establishing the authenticity of personal websites

My interpretation of RS rules is that personal websites are permitted as reliable sources for claims by the person they supposedly belong to, but as with Twitter I understand that there must be some way of confirming their authenticity i.e. such as a confirmed Twitter account. Or maybe a reliable source that provides the address of the person's website. What is the judgment in regards to sites where they claim to belong to the person but there seems to be no concrete evidence that they belong to the person in question?

Specifically, http://wjsullivan.net claims to be the website of William John Sullivan but I can't find any concrete evidence in reliable source that this is actually true. In this case is it permissable to use it as source for biographical information about the subject, or does RS required that its authenticity be established independently? Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe a reliable source is required to verify who the web site belongs to. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou, that's what I thought but I needed to make sure. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Can this be used? It has name, phone numbers, and addresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that the site is registered to a "John Sullivan", and he seems to live in the right area. It looks like it probably is his website, so is that sufficient or is it original research to link the WHOIS registration to the subject of the article? Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Checking whether a source is a reliable source is not counted as original research. The most we can do about them is check whether it is reasonable to say they are reliable. You seem to have done a reasonable check. someone might come up with a reason why it is not reasonable but I think the onus is now on whoever says that to provide evidence to back up what they say. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

George Menachery

Is George Menachery a RS for articles related to social history in Kerala? More specifically, his journal "Aspects of the Idea of “Clean and Unclean” among the Brahmins, the Jews, and the St. Thomas Christians of Kerala"? - InarZan (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My quick impression is that he is a published academic in this subject area; therefore this particular paper, although apparently self-published, is not disqualified. It looks well-documented. Am I right in thinking he is a member of the St Thomas Christians? One should be aware of possible conflicts of interest and be prepared to mention his name in the text if citing him on anything contentious. Would others agree with that view? Andrew Dalby 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to pass my WP:SELFPUB test as well, I would say this is an RS article. I didn't see where it said he was a member of STCs, but if that's the case, it's not a direct COI, but any exceptional claims should probably be backed up with another source as well. -- Despayre   03:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no indication that he has published in the scholarly mode at all. His encyclopaedia is self-published. He hasn't published with scholarly publishers. He don't have any claims of publishing journal articles in the peer reviewed mode. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was maybe a bit too positive but I think that's a bit too negative :) He and his encyclopaedia crop up in JSTOR references and reviews, admittedly not many. The academic side of his career is in Christian colleges, but, there you go, it happens. My impression from a brief but helpful review of the Encyclopaedia seen on JSTOR is that there is one POV issue that must be noted: an assumption, amounting to an article of faith, that St Thomas reached Kerala and is buried there. So better not quote him on that -- certainly not as a reliable and neutral source. Andrew Dalby 08:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not into that. I want to quote him for the untouchability practiced by Syrian Christians. Since he himself is a Syrian Christian, I assume he has some authority regarding that issue. Could you please refer the discussion here and comment whether he is an RS in the particular context? - InarZan Verifiable 09:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So you want to quote him on the expert practice of religion amongst a particular group; and, we can clearly demonstrate that he is an expert practicioner of religion within this group? That's a different expert argument to say, religious history, where I'd suggest the publication mode of his encyclopaedia would need to be weighed against its use in scholarly articles (as suggested by Andrew Dalby). If you want to quote him on the contemporary social practices of a religion of which he is an expert member, that seems fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Woah, I've only just spotted this thread, despite being involved with Inarzan and other STC advocates on various articles. I had raised the issue of Menachery's reliability but it seems that it came here without any notification being made. Anyway, as with many aspects of the STC articles, the problem is as much on of English comprehension etc as it is of the more generalised reliability issues. In this instance, Inarzan appears to have misrepresented been vague the purpose for which they want to use Menachery. As I understand it, the untouchability matter relates to a historic practice rather than a current one. The chances of Menachery having experienced that practice are at issue. I seriously question the author's reliability. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Menarchy is clearly unreliable for historical caste/caste-system practices: no scholarly publications, work is self-published, no qualifications as a historian. The expert exemption I'd give him over current practices of his own religious group (due to his standing as a publishing religious figure, publishing in modes that reflect standard scholarly religious publication) doesn't apply to historical practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)