Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 181

I was told in the Tea Room that there is no absolute policy against submitting content relating to oneself. It is just that the content needs to be objective, which is nearly impossible. So I have tried to gather materials for a short stub article on Nathan Coppedge, a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet, who lives in New Haven, CT.

However, all I have found to include are a few sentences expressing how he / I have been noted for perpetual motion designs , and also noted as a philosopher.

Those statements are supported (if that) by the following sources:

A somewhat major information-gathering site offers praise, presumably in a peer-reviewed fashion. Although it comes off rough, it is clear that some thought went into the response.^[1] An op-ed page google-ranked 7 has a sub-page in which the same hobby inventor is lauded as a philosopher:.^[2] However, that comment takes place as a comment, not in the primary opinion page. Also, a major reference page has a sub-page google-ranked 3 that cites the hobby inventor's work as a reliable source: ^[3]

I have had trouble gathering three sources which are up to even this level of quality. But perhaps you will surprise me and say that one or more of these might be usable in a stub.

Are any of these usable, even in a stub, or are they considered junk for not being more critical, and/ or not pertaining directly to the topic? None of the sources seem to have reason to be biased in the direction of hobby inventors, in my opinion. Jamal Martin, who says that I am '[C]learly a philosopher of this present age.' is not an acquaintance of mine. It seems to me that more reliable sources, for example, on the subject of Joseph Newman, or Fern Coppedge (a painter), were not soon in coming in those cases.NCoppedge (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The kgbanswers link is useless - it merely mentions your name without further explanation, though I can see no reason to think that it would be considered even remotely a reliable source anyway. The Dalia Martin page says nothing about you, while the inventors.about.com page merely links your website. If these are the best sources you can find, there is no possibility whatsoever of an article on you meeting our notability guidelines - we require significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. And it makes no difference if the article is a stub - the notability requirements are the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't have sufficient sources and it's not a good idea to have an article about yourself anyway. It will rank first in any search for your name and will not be under your control. Anyone can add anything to it, and you will have to watch it to make sure nothing false enters, or hire someone to do that for you. If anything negative is ever written about you in even local free papers, it will likely be added. TFD (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

When citing a journal article that I found through an academic database (i.e. behind a paywall), I came across this site, thefreelibrary.com (also TheFreeDictionary.com#TheFreeLibrary.com), which hosts it for free. The publication is The Mississippi Quarterly, and thefreelibrary seems to host a lot of its content. The site says it hosts copyrighted content and that the copyright terms are at the bottom of each article. In this case, "No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder." The assumption, I suppose, is that thefreelibrary has express written permission? Does anyone have experience with this site to know whether it's legit? A Gsearch for '*thefreelibrary.com* site:wikipedia.org' indicates we use it an awful lot. But the information on the site about itself is a little lacking, as far as I see, and I only see one instance of it brought up here in the past (without a definitive conclusion, it seems). (Note that if this is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Non-free content review feel free to move it there or to let me know and I will). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have started to see material from the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics, www.isgp.nl, inserted into Wikipedia articles. The "About" page states that "[a]ll articles on ISGP were written by Joël van der Reijden" and indicates that the website was formerly known as the Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions but changed it's name "in an effort to make it sound both better and more professional".

Pilgrims Society currently cites http://www.isgp.nl/Pilgrims_Society02.php as primary source material for membership lists. I am looking for further feedback as to the acceptability of this source. Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

From the site's About page we find encouragement in the statement that "The reason [this] site grew so much in the 2005-2010 period is due to early support of people working for Alex Jones sites Infowars and Prisonplanet." So yeah, it's obviously reliable for any and all statements of fact. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In case it is not obvious, Boris is (a) being sarcastic (b) bang on the money. This falls into the "fuck no" bucket. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. About as useful as a chocolate frying pan. Not to be used. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to know if the following sources are unreliable (regarding music-related articles) because they don't appear here and I have never used them so far.

1. Dubious sources recently added to two specific articles to support the new wave genre (a discussion was previously started on my own talk page) :

• Brutal Resonance (included in this article) (NB : only one song is specifically described as "new wave" and I really don't think it's enough to support this genre, as one song is not necessarily representative of what a band/act usually plays)
• ChuckURadio (included in the same article. I don't think it is reliable at all)
• A book called The Complete, Cross-referenced Guide to the Baby Buster Generation's Collective Unconscious, written by Glenn Gaslin and Rick Porter. (included in this article) I didn't find anything at all regarding the two authors so I don't think this reference should be included to support "new wave".

2. Websites I've already seen several times but I think they are all unreliable :

3. Specific reviews :

• Adrian Denning
• John McFerrin (can be found here)
• Mark Prindle
• Reocities reviews
• Reviews from Sputnikmusic written by Contributors. Emeritus and Staff reviews are considered reliable, User reviews are unreliable, but what about this last group ?
• Wilson & Alroy's Reviews

4. MusicMight "categories"

• Are MusicMight categories reliable ? I didn't find anything which proves the categories used by this website are reliable. (For the record, AllMusic sidebars are not considered reliable ; only the prose itself is considered reliable.)

It would help me a lot if someone could give me an answer ASAP for all these sources (and maybe other editors by the same way). Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you investigated the credentials of these websites? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and most of them seem to be unreliable. However it would be better someone like you can confirm I didn't make any error. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we can answer the question (and certainly not quickly)... There is no such thing as a 100% un-reliable source (nor is there such a thing as a 100% reliable source). We can't simply take a list of sources and declare them reliable/unreliable in a vacuum .... We have to examine the specifics of how each is being used... knowing the context is vital. We need to examine the specific statements that each of these sources is supporting. A given source might be unreliable in one context, and yet completely reliable in another context. That said, I would agree that, on the surface, these sources seem iffy... there will be more situations where we would consider them unreliable than there will be situations where we would consider them reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't expect a full answer you know, I only expect answers such as "this website doesn't seem very reliable". I always take care about the statement supported by one specific source, but also about the overall reliability of a specific source. I recently got a problem with highly dubious sources added by another editor in two articles : Brutal Resonance and ChuckURadio (both were included here to support the "new wave" genre) as well as a dubious book written by unknow persons included here, again to support the "new wave" genre. None of these sources seem reliable and I would like to be sure they are actually unreliable before removing them again. This is one of the reason I always avoid sources I usually don't use. Morepver I didn't find anything at all about all the websites mentionned above which prove they are reliable (as I said they don't appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, even among the "sources to avoid" identified by other editors). I saw them in several articles and I would like to know if they should be kept or not to support a music genre. I hope it would help you a little bit more. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the ChuckURadio source to the one article. It is the website of a radio station, so it would pass basic reliability issues in terms of editorial oversight, non-self-published content, etc. However, that is the only real source I can find that strongly supports Den Harrow of new wave, so I would say that WP:UNDUE applies here. Also, there is this journal article that suggests that Den Harrow wasn't new wave, and that source, as an article published in a journal, appears more authoritative than the word of a DJ for some small radio station. For the book in the Baltimora article, I don't see any reason to question it. It is a work published by a third party, Boulevard Books, and the book is social science, discussing the "big-'80s", which I would say is relevant to the discussion of musical genres as musical genres would qualify as a valid subject of cultural study. The author might not be notable, but notability is not inherent to a discussion of reliability. As for the other sources, I'm not involved in any discussions involving them, but most seem unreliable. With Music Might, as long as Garry-Sharpe Young was the sole contributor, which is true for the link given above, I would consider the genre tags valid. The reason that they are considered invalid for AllMusic is because they are usually unrelated to the content contributed by an actual writer - the tags often conflict with the written review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagined most of these sources were unreliable, so I'm not going to use any of them. Regarding the book I previously talked about, notability matters. Authors of a field are supposed to be recognized as experts in their own field (eg. Christgau, Unterberger, most music critics who writes for AllMusic/Spin/Rolling Stone, etc fall under this category. That's not the case for Glenn Gaslin and Rick Porter. Can you prove they are music experts ? Can you prove they wrote other "serious" stuff ? I imagine you can't. Compared to the other source, established by authors who wrote several music-related works upon Italian music, this source is far too poor to be included in the article. (NB: stop edit warring while this discussion is ongoing, thanks.)Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Synthwave.94: It appears you're citing this thread to justify edit warring at Baltimora, when I don't see any consensus for the general statements you're setting forth. Specifically that an editor must demonstrate to your satisfaction that the authors of a book -- a book that was not self-published, and thus for which we can assume editorial oversight -- are "music experts" and/or "wrote other 'serious' stuff". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to know if Credibility has any impact on what constitutes a reliable source.

Specifically for journalistic/news sources I have some questions:

• Does credibility have to be gained over a period time? If so, over what period of time?
• Can credibility only be lost? If so, how do we quantify the loss of credibility?
• Does credibility only pertain to individual writers? If so, does that mean the source overall can maintain reliability?
• Can credibility pertain to a source overall? If so, does publishing non-credible articles/writers detract from the credibility/reliability of the source, and to what extent?

With stories like this and this happening lately, it looks like credibility isn't doing so well. So do these stories impact the reliability of the source significantly enough to be unusable? (Though I guess rolling stone is probably already unusable.)

• What happens to Wikipedia articles that used these writers/sources for some of their content in the past? Or in other words, does changing reliability affect the reliability of past citation?
• Do we/should we have an open dialog of credibility and integrity of writers/sources and should they be proactive or reactive?
• And finally, do we err on the side of skepticism or trust?

Yeah, I know, this is loaded with questions.... TyTyMang (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that credibility is indirectly addressed in the opening sentence of the Overview in WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sources that might generally have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are going to screw-up from time to time, so it's unlikely that you will now find Rolling Stone to be considered an unreliable for every citation. As always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. - Location (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup - even the best sources get things wrong occasionally. Which is why we need to take care if using a single source (no matter how 'reliable') for contentious assertions, and why we need to avoid rushing headlong into breaking news. That won't guarantee perfection, or anything even approximating to it, but it may help to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In general I would avoid using investigative journalism, and just report the parts of it that are picked up in mainstream media. Whether or not rs requires that, weight does. And the fact is that a lot of the first reporting of stories is inaccurate, but they tend to get corrected over time. That process is what makes mainstream news sources reliable. TFD (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:V makes clear that if a source meets the reliability requirements, that is - has a mechanism for finding and correcting factual errors - that "truth" is not a proper criterion to insist on. Even "mainstream news sources" frequently make a hash out of facts, alas. More importantly, once a story has been shown to have significant issues (vide the Rolling Stone UVa rape allegations), I would consider it reasonable to expunge such sourced claims as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a journal of allegations and rumours, especially ones shown to be false in kind and nature. Collect (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the core requirement is not "a mechanism for finding and correcting factual errors ", but rather "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The first can exist without being properly employed. The second is earned over time. "Truth" is indeed a problematic criterion, but, on the other hand, there is no reason to include obviously mistaken reports, even if they are published in usually reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think that finding and correcting factual errors is not "fact checking"? A tad outré, that. Collect (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To be finicky, no, its not, although it's close enough. The important semantic distinction is the one between "having a method" and having earned the reputation to reasoably apply it. I have a method for getting up at 7 am every day... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize what sources say. Obviously we want that content to be factually correct, but sometimes things will simply get through that are incorrect. The best way to minimize that is to follow what folks aid above, but also avoid WP:RECENTISM by waiting a bit after a report comes out. If it is a case of publisher that has a reputation for fact checking, most errors should be corrected within a few days at least. Not fullproof, but it should take care of issues like you described in most cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry it's taken me a while to process these replies.

So here's my next part: When we make articles on WP it requires reliable sources, or more specifically, reliable articles. I understand we aren't exactly looking for facts or truth.

The question: What happens when facts are available that completely oppose an article that is being use as a source? Does the article lose reliability? OR Does it require another article of a sufficient "quantity" of reliability to discredit the reliability of that article used? (Is there a way to quantify reliability?)

To put it simply, I understand that articles are are not required to stand up to facts on Wikipedia. But are the sources Wikipedia uses required to stand up to facts?

It seems like this should be a no brainer, but from the things I've seen lately I really believe this needs to be addressed. If Wikipedia doesn't rely on facts to some degree then it just becomes a propaganda echo machine for the mainstream/"reliable" media. Has this been addressed before? TyTyMang (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedias principle is to include all significant viewpoints, not to chose any one as "fact", or to reject any one as "conflicting with fact". That does not mean that we have to include every obviously erroneous statement, and it does not mean we give every opinion equal weight. But when reasonable people differ, we include all positions with their due weight. Whom would you trust to define "fact"? The US government? The government of North Korea? The Pope? I tend to put much of my trust in the scientific community, but scientists are usually very reluctant to claim absolute facts, and they still get it wrong occasionally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Not to reject any viewpoint as conflicting with fact." What? Then how do we determine reliability? Does that mean all viewpoints that are published in the "mainstream" or somehow already considered "reliable" media are all inclusive viewpoints? Even when they make such big allegations as the UVA rape article did? Is there any actual objectiveness when it comes to the reliability of sources or is it all just on personal feelings?

I don't think we really need anyone to define fact as it's already a word with a definition. "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case." Now if you're talking about who can verify facts, then yeah, I guess there is a certain amount of trust required. However a lot of times facts can verify themselves. Though it is possible for some people to ignore them or disclaim them due to their own personal beliefs.

In any case, should Wikipedia take the stance of belief on one side of a contested subject/article or should Wikipedia take the side of skeptical on the subject/article until the contest is resolved? If there is evidence that a "reliable" article is not factual aka false aka untrue, should that content be left on the page until that evidence is verified or debunked? Or should that content be taken down until the article content is proven fact? And because of Circular Reporting/Citogenesis potentially causing others to copy the article should it matter how many different "reliable" sources post the same non-factual story? These issues can have some pretty big implications on what Wikipedia is. TyTyMang (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it important to distinguish between reliable sources and reliable facts. Even a reliable source built on specific facts includes interpretations of those facts which a careful reader will recognize as an interpretation of those facts. Just because it appears in a reliable source does not mean an interpretation of certain facts should be given as much weight as the facts themselves. That's one of the issues that I've seen come up in some contentious issues. Even though the fact and opinions should be relatively easily determined using the critical reading skills one learns in high school, some editors hold that an interpretation of the facts given by a reporter and or experts interviewed should be treated as "facts."

Opinions in reliable sources certainly deserve coverage, but interpretations given in reliable sources must be treated differently and not confused with a fact, other than the fact that "this source interprets the evidence this way." A lot of contention can, or at least should be solved, by attributing the source of the interpretation of facts. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't mean that source (much less all of it's contributors) should be accorded the final say in interpreting any particular set of facts.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A few things to remember... 1) Sources can become outdated... new information may cause a re-evaluation of things that previously were accepted as "fact". 2) Experts often disagree with each other... and different experts can even disagree over what the facts actually are. (in which case, we stay neutral and present both sides as being opinions) 3) our articles are never "finished"... we re-write sentences, paragraphs and even entire articles all the time. If an article states something as fact... and it turns out that there is a reason to question it... we can discuss the situation and change the article as necessary. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks everyone for the insight. It's been very helpful. I just have a couple more questions then.

I do understand we have guidelines for determining RS and then we have this Noticeboard here. But in the end it all seems to end up being subjective. Some people will argue for the reliability of a source and some will argue against it. And even sometimes people will admit a sources is questionably or plain unreliable but will consider a specific article from that source as reliable for a specific instance. But it all seems to come down to a consensus of opinion. Is this correct?

When things like this happen, how do we settle disputes like this? And to what extent can we cite evidence for or against the claims of that disputed source? Sure some "facts" may be up for interpretation of course, but when facts point to an article/source being unreliable should that not also be up for consensus here? I'm pretty sure that WP:NOR is not violated by preventing material used on WP articles as it specifically mentions that the policy doesn't apply to talk pages.

Thanks again! TyTyMang (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article on 2014 NYPD officer killings contains some somewhat inflammatory claims sourced to The Daily Caller and, second hand, The Daily Beast and could probably do with more eyes on it. Artw (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? Added here at Demographics of Filipino Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it should not be used in this context. It appears as though that source has been added to deal with the {{One source}} tag, however, the credits at the end of the document state:

Source of all information except remittances:

“Filipino Immigrants in the United States.” Migration Policy Institute

“Revisions to Remittance Trends 2007.” The World Bank

Given that the Migration Policy Institute appears to be cited immediately prior to this one in the diff you provided, we have some sort of circular referencing going on. - Location (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have moved the content and replaced it with its original information source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to take part in an RFC on rather Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the America: Imagine the World Without Her. The RFC can be found here. My view is the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE and there is no reason to use them. Thanks for your time. Casprings (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And the sources are all perfectly acceptable for opinions cited as opinion, and "IDONTLIKETHEM" is a remarkably poor anti-policy-based concept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's really a matter of context... in the context in which they are being used, they are reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Australian Business Traveller is on the blacklist of references, so any reference citing ausbt.com.au gets automatically reverted by XLinkBot (eg this revision). I assume that this is because someone considers ausbt.com.au a spam/self-promotional site or a personal blog with content that can always be found elsewhere.

My feeling is that, though it's certainly a special-interest publication, it meets the criteria in WP:RS and, at the very least, shouldn't be automatically removed as a reference on site. It acts much more like a reputable news source than a personal blog. It tends to reports things like new routes served by airlines and changes to schedules. As such, it is often a good source for changes in destination lists on airport pages. (Normally, by practice, airport destination lists are uncited with the implicit reference being the airline's current schedule. I think that dated articles with a permanent link and an author from Australian Business Traveller are much better sources than this implicit reference to airline schedules.)

This was brought up here in 2012, when Australian Business Traveller was a new publication. It was brought up by an editor of the publication, which probably raised conflict of interest concerns, though there was essentially no discussion.

Any thoughts? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been reported for ref link spamming in January 2011 link to report. Generally, you can search on the User:XLinkBot/RevertList_requests/log page for the regex in the revert edit summary and get a link to the reason it's on the list. Ravensfire (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I searched in several places to find where and when it was added without success. (I'm still a little confused, as ausbt.com.au is in the log but not User:XLinkBot/RevertList.) The history of spamming and the usage of AusBT as a source by editors of that site is certainly a bad start. However, at this point, almost four years later, I do think that it's an often-useful and unique source that should be removed from the revert list with the caveat that Wikipedia editors should watch out for future spam. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Source. http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps (The "About" page does not reveal the identity of the website owner or its contributors.)

2. Article. Ike Altgens

3. Content. The italicized section of the following sentence:

While on assignment for the AP on November 22, 1963, Altgens made "perhaps the most well-known of any still photograph"[4] of the in-progress assassination of President John F. Kennedy—a "controversial"[5] snapshot that has led to a decades-long debate among supporters and critics of two official investigations concluding that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is not visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the gunshots were fired.[6]

Further comments on this source are being solicited as Ike Altgens has been nominated for GA status. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The website includes links to a book: 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination by Jeremy Bojczuk. I think it is safe to assume that Bojczuk is also responsible for the website. I can't find any evidence that he is a qualified historian, and accordingly can't see why he should be regarded as a reliable source concerning such matters. Though if the website is being cited for a statement that "official investigations conclud[ed] that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is not visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository", one would have thought that other sources would be available anyway, unless I've misunderstood something. Or is it the assertion that "a decades-long debate" has gone on concerning the photo? That would also clearly need better sourcing, or perhaps rewording - I'm sure it is still being debated, but is the debate of real significance beyond the conspiracy-theorists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is this a reliable source that there has been "a decades-long debate"? While conspiracy theorists believe that everything is up in the air, there are no mainstream sources indicating that is the issue that fringe (i.e. conspiracy) sources make it out to be. - Location (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As the article's primary contributor and its GA nominee, may I weigh in?

I chose 22november1963.org.uk because it is a measured, sober compilation of the various theories, which in turn arrives at measured, sober conclusions where there are conclusions to reach. The instant page, for example, lists the questions raised and the evidence—or lack—presented, properly dispatching that which I would consider fringe (if not outright lunacy). I argue that a lack of "mainstream" coverage does not define "fringe" when the "mainstream" appears to have chosen to leave the issue entirely in the hands of researchers and historians.

The issue is balance within a presentation of fact: while Wikipedia cannot be seen to support any conclusion or theory—be it lone nut, multiple lone nuts, conspiracy to assassinate, conspiracy to cover up, or even the demonstrable shortcomings of the official investigations—neither can it be seen as a participant in a whitewash. Please know that this is neither accusation nor insult. Most if not all of the Web sites like 22november1963.org.uk, mcadams.posc.mu.edu and jfklancer.com, and even repositories like AARC, maryferrell.org and history-matters.com, would not exist were it not for the persistent questions of Oswald's actions and locations when Kennedy was murdered, and the hard work (with varying degrees of legitimacy) by the Weisbergs, Meaghers, Lanes, Bugliosis, Grodens, Marrses, Posners and McAdamses of the world. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How does this source not violate WP:USERGENERATED? - Location (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, beyond the sobriety of the material. I have been looking and continue to look for a better source, but this site outlines the problem in a stinging, ironic indictment. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: now written out. Should pass muster. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

I recently came across an editor, FACT CHECKER repeatedly reverted for adding poorly sourced material. I reverted as well, but didn't want to get into an intense edit war. The editor used this as their source for all the information added, and said they were removing non-factual information. This relevant history explains it all. Is the source stated in edit summaries a reliable source or should the article be kept without the additions? Can anyone help us reach consensus here? I also think the most recent edit is a sign of quacking pretty loud, but I'll leave that to a different noticeboard. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've said in the history, I consider bigeyesmovie.com to be not only a primary source but a "conspiracy theory"-type source that has an axe to grind and emphatically "debunks myths". FACT CHECKER's angry tone and choice of sources look very much like a form of suspiciously specific denial. That's just me, though. ekips39 06:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Would articles from the website magazine "spiked" be considered reliable for their opinions on issues that touch upon their sector? It appears to be an established political source, commenting on mostly British politics and other issues such as free speech. It would appear reliable from my own limited experience, but I'd like to know from someone with a bit more experience if it would be acceptedable on WP. Thanks! Ries42 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Every source is reliable for an attributed statement about what it says... however, reliability only addresses part of the question. We also have to consider how much WEIGHT to give to Spiked's opinion. Not every opinion merits being mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like some thoughts on the usability of:

Eby, Jay W. (Fall 2012). "John Gosper, Arizona's Would-be Governor" (PDF). Territorial Times. VI (1). Prescott, Arizona: Prescott Corral of Westerners International. OCLC 384616745.

as a source of general biographical information for the article John J. Gosper. The journal is published by a local chapter of Westerners International, a group who's purpose is to promote "fun and scholarship related to the North American frontier West". As such, I am not sure if they can be accurately described as a historical society or if they are something less formal. Conversely, as shown by the OCLC number in the citation, the publication is available in several regional university libraries. The article will used primarily for information on Gosper's personal life (marriages and business dealings). I own personal copies of the Goff and Wagoner books mentioned at the end of article and know of a couple other sources available via Google books, but they all focus primarily on Gosper's public life in Arizona Territory (time in office as well as his divorce from his first wife). --Allen3 ^talk 16:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Several articles have recently been created based on the following source:

• Other Systems of Units (a sample chapter from Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures)
• Author: François Cardarelli
• List of articles at editor's talk (permalink)

The sample chapter shows tables of units such as at section "3.3.1.1.1 UK Linear Measure" which includes "Other units of length which have been used in the UK are:", then lists 18 entries such as "1 wrap (UK) = 240 feet". I asked the editor (link above) whether there is any additional information in the book, so far without response. I suspect that the book is not sufficiently reliable to be used for novel information. For example, Wrap (unit) states the wrap definition from the book, but no other source for that information has been located. Further, a comment here states that the OED includes a definition of wrap as 3564 yards. Is the book a reliable source for the definitions of these units? Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Springer is a respectable publisher and the author seems to be a qualified and practising scientist. As a Frenchman, the author is perhaps a bit clumsy at dealing with traditional English measures, that's all. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Looking more closely, I see that the work has a translation credit, "M.J.Shields FIInfSc, MITI" and it's in its fourth printing. It contains extensive information about units from many cultures and periods of history such as "Arabic Units of Weight (System of the Prophet)" or "Old Balearic Units of Capacity (Dry)". As it is a huge compendium across such a wide field, there are bound to be occasional issues, but so far as I can see, it's of reasonable quality. The wrap, for example, seems to relate to yarn manufacture. We don't have an article on the corresponding measuring device - the wrap reel so I'm going to start one now. For detailed cases such as that, we need more specific sources but this one provides a reasonable overview or start. Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I have a copy of this book. The bibliography is split into four sections: 1) Specific references, 2) References about the metric system and the SI, 3) References of general interest, 4) Historical references. And it says - These references, which contain formulae, definitions, and conversions factors, are books specializing in scientific units and their conversion. They are listed to their publication dates. There are 170 books (total) listed in the various four sections with dates of the books ranging from 1728 to 1998.

A comparison from the book to this article - Circular millimetre; Referenced to pg 33, 3.3.1.2.3, Circular Units (text below copied from book, book emphasis - not mine):

Very rarely, so-called 'circular' units have been used, mainly for wire sizes and then only as the circular mil in the USA. In an analogy to square measure, circular units represent the area of a disc of a diameter equal to the equivalent linear unit. A circular mil is the area of a disc one mil (0.001 in) in diameter, and hence equal to 7.85398163398 X 10^-7 in² or 5.067 X 10^-10 m². Circular units should not be confused with circular measure, which refers to the expression of angle in radians.

The table (from book, 3-11) associated with the above text:

No comment on the reliability or accuracy of book or comparison posted above, not an expert on these matters. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a dispute (see Ramzy Baroud above) about the interpretation of a prior discussion's results, concerning Counterpunch as a source. No outside editor has pitched in as yet (Looks too complex?). Could experienced wikipedians please read and interpret precisely the 'majority view' at this discussion which took place in 2008. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if 2008 tells us much anymore, but I fail to see why Counterpunch should be considered a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been a number of editors throughout the years who have argued that it is not rs. The argument is that the magazine presents writers whose opinions tend to be on the left, which is not a valid reason for exclusion. Most of these editors use the term "left" to mean someone who would never consider voting for The Tea Party or UKIP. The fact is that most articles are written by respected journalists whose articles are also published in the most repected news sources. Robert Fisk for example "holds more British and international journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent and has been voted British International Journalist of the Year award seven times." Ramzy Baroud's articles have been published in hundreds of newspapers. The only issue I would mention is that columns are rarely reliable for facts and something only reported in one source is rarely significant.

A 2008 discussion does not bind us today.

TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions. Amazingly enough, opinions are not facts, thus the cavils about this source or that source being biased in their presentation of facts is a tad useless when considering using properly cited opinions. Collect (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is also a problem is our facts/opinion distinction. What appears to have happened is that 4 mainstream newspapers within hours of the incident reported that the PFLP had claimed responsibility for the atrocity, drawing on one wire service. This is in wiki use a fact,(both the fact that they reported this, and a fact that the PFLP claimed responsibility). Fisk as an historian and journalists is reliable for facts,- and it would be odd to argue that his books can be cited for facts, but a piece of his in Counterpunch cannot be thus cited because he uses that venue. I think Baroud's reportage with links for what the PFLP websites say is reliable. Attribution is the solution, surely, not blanket dismissal of the medium in which this or that article appears.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude. CounterPunch has been brought here more than once. Stop trying to make arguments based off a single discussion. This migt be in regards to yet another attempt to put it in or it is based off above. If it is the later, just chill out and let the conversation develop without freaking out.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

At my age, I am a dud, not a dude. I came to this board because shouting 'garbage' at a source as you did, is not a sound argument. It is just an attitude. Secondly, my analysis shows that both you and Epeefleche are distorting the result of the 2008 discussion. Thirdly, you opposed Baroud, and supported a text that is now known to be false. Fourthly you had a thin number majority to enforce the suppression of Baroud, and refused to reply to detailed analyses showing that the conclusion you drew about the 2008 discussion was incorrect. WP:IDONTLIKEIT was thrown my way. So I have requested neutral colleagues to review. At the moment, it would appear that the issue is far more nuanced than you would make it out to be. I don't freak out or get inflamed to the point that editors ask me to chill out, so please desist from the hostility. This is a request for technical construal of a discussion, and a review of the merits of including a scholarly source, and attitudinizing or not assuming good faith are atmospheric noise. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why CounterPunch should be excluded from consideration as a reliable source because of its radical leftist stance, or because of its sour view of Zionism and Israel state actions. The founder, Alexander Cockburn, was a highly respected writer for publications as widely varying as Village Voice, Wall Street Journal and Nation. CounterPunch writers are real journalists. CounterPunch sources are referenced in more than 140 Wikipedia articles. The CounterPunch source should be considered a notable opinion, and its conclusions should be enough to question the "facts" of other sources. If CounterPunch says one thing and another source says another thing, then none of the sources ought to be conveyed to the reader as fact. Instead, the conflicting opinions should be attributed. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Are these sources suitable for including the comic book Priya's Shakti on the List of feminist comic books?

• "Comic Book: Priya's Shakti". priyashakti.com. Rattapallax. Retrieved December 22, 2014. Led by Priya, her followers, both men and women, spread the message of women's equality across the Earth, and not to remain silent in the face of violence against women and injustice.
• Chowdhury, Jennifer (December 15, 2014). "India's Newest Heroine Breaks Rape-Talk Taboo with Comic Book". NBCNews.com. Retrieved December 22, 2014. Devineni wants the murals to resonate with people that pass by them. 'We want people to tell their friends "I stand with Priya," he explained, 'and support women's equality and the struggles of rape survivors to seek justice.'

Releated discussion at the List of feminist comic books talk page.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The NBC News piece, surely is. The site http://www.priyashakti.com can also be used within the limits of WP:SELFPUB - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it says "women's rights" and not "feminism". Why didn't they say feminism? Why did they just say "women's rights"? There hasn't been anything presented AFAIK where the author or an RS said Priya's Shakti is feminist. Why does this matter? Many women are for equality, but not for "feminism" (example of RS saying that). Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

These are certainly reliable sources for saying that the publisher or creators said the things that they've said. However, "feminist" is a judgment, and even if they had explicitly said that it was feminist, "feminist" is a subjective analysis, and we would normally look to significant third-party sources for subjective views. Basing a list on what people want to promote their work as would seem to be a bad path to go down. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. Stay close to the sources, always. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I don't know what it means to call feminism" a "subjective analysis." Feminism is advocacy for the empowerment and equality of women. (There are different kinds of feminism, but there's no need to delve into that here.) The creators of Priya's Shakti offer it in opposition to patriarchy and misogyny, and describe Priya and her followers as "spread[ing] the message of women's equality across the Earth ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I emailed Ram Devineni, one of the creators of Priya's Shakti, to ask whether he regards it as feminist. He replied that he regards it as a "very feminist comic book," and gave permission for this to be posted. He also said he is willing to answer editors' questions about it.

The project's website says: "The project centers on the Goddess Parvati and Priya, a mortal woman devotee and survivor of rape and is rooted in ancient matriarchal traditions that have been displaced in modern representations of Hindu culture." Here is an article by Lina Srivastava, Priya's producer, discussing matriarchal traditions:

Our narrative dives into the matriarchal origins of Hinduism from millennia ago, mining that narrative to understand that Hinduism and Hindu-based cultures which affect millions of people does not support the subordination of either women or men and does not need to be interpreted as such. ... Additionally, Priya is not docile, light-skinned, hyper-sexualized or objectified in the way mainstream Indian or global media often presents women. She is both an everywoman as well as a superhero who starts to build her own movement through the help of a powerful ally in Parvati. This framing helps us focus the story not on perpetrators or punitive action alone, but on a woman honing her own voice to speak out against the oppression she faces and gather a force of allies through love, song, and connection.

We're not allowed to use emails as sources, but combined with the published primary and secondary sources, it seems to make clear that the work is appropriate for List of feminist comic books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Given this information, both in primary and secondary sources, as well as the self declaration, I see no problem with adding that book to the list. No harm done if it's listed.- Cwobeel (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. Lightbreather (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I was leaning against this one because it was depending on interpretations of statements that didn't explicitly mention feminism though I personally saw it as a work that embodied feminist principles. At the same time @Chess: rightly pointed out that the sources used express ideals that aren't only in the purview of feminism. Then SlimVirgin's email correspondence pretty much sealed the deal. I can't see how there would be any issue with including in the list at this point. Though it would be nice if Mr. Devineni put that statement on the internet that's easily linkable too. Capeo (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Slim, two people can look at the same work and come out with very different judgments about whether it's feminist, and neither one of them be wrong. That's subjective. Is Red Sonja feminist? Is Omaha the Cat Dancer? There are strong opinions on both sides of those. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Going by your logic, it seems we would never be able to describe anything as "feminist". That there is some dispute about Red Sonja being feminist does not mean that the dispute extends / pertains to Priya's Shakti too, which is under discussion here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Take attention to this edit summary: "close ref tag - if you want those page numbers, get the UTex library to order them on interlibrary loans - Marshall's thesis and Morton's book are must reads and not ethno-history tubthumps like other sources being compiled onto th[...]" (from this edit). The same Wikipedian criticizes "ethno-historians" in many of his edit summaries.

Can someone please clarify this? I think that "ethno-history" books are perfectly fine to use. I also think that they can establish WP:GNG for a subject, can they not? I should be able to use "ethno-history" books as sources, shouldn't I? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Referred by many reliable authors, published by a good publishing company, yes it is reliable enough for citing. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

From: Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Enough_sources_to_prove_standalone_notability_of_Vancouver_Chinese_and_do_an_article_split.3F

Books:

• Johnson, Graham E. "Hong Kong Immigration and the Chinese Community in Vancouver" (Chapter 7). In: Skeldon, Ronald. Reluctant Exiles?: Migration from Hong Kong and the New Overseas Chinese (Volume 5 of Hong Kong becoming China). M.E. Sharpe, January 1, 1994. ISBN 1563244314, 9781563244315. Start p. 120.
• Ng, Wing Chung. The Chinese in Vancouver, 1945-80: The Pursuit of Identity and Power (Contemporary Chinese Studies Series). UBC Press, November 1, 2011. ISBN 0774841583, 9780774841580.
• Yee, Paul. Saltwater City: Story of Vancouver's Chinese Community. D & M Publishers, Dec 1, 2009. ISBN 1926706250, 9781926706252.
• Anderson, Kay J. Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980. McGill-Queen's Press, November 4, 1991. ISBN 0773562974, 9780773562974.

The reason why I ask the question is that I want to add content from the ethno-history books and also confirm the notability of Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver. Even though there is a talk page discussion at Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Enough_sources_to_prove_standalone_notability_of_Vancouver_Chinese_and_do_an_article_split.3F about whether the article should be split, I think that the existence of many other similar "ethnicity in city" articles which have a precedent in surviving AFD should help confirm the notability of Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver as a standalone subject (examples: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Armenian_Americans_in_Los_Angeles, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irish_Americans_in_New_York_City, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Merced,_California). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly enough material out there to support an expansion of text devoted to Vancouver Chinese, but the question is whether your proposed text can be incorporated into the article about Chinatown, Vancouver. You will have to determine whether the sources focus on the people or the neighbourhood. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The focus is supposed to be the entire metropolitan area's Chinese, not only those in Chinatown, Vancouver. Richmond, british Columbia, for instance, has a large Chinese community. So do other areas in Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about the answer engine Evi.com? Should that be considered as a reliable source? http://www.evi.com/ DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It appears to use some sort of AI algorithm to answer questions, using unspecified sources. I can't see how an algorithm can have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and we have no way of knowing whether it for example uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. There is also the question as to whether it counts as a 'published source', given that (as I understand it) it responds directly to questions, and doesn't 'publish' any permanent record. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just checked it asking "What is the capital city of Belgium" - it links Wikipedia in the answer, suggesting that it uses it as a source - accordingly, it cannot be used, per WP:CIRCULAR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

of the 6 relatively simple questions I asked, it only had answers for "what is the square root of 25" and "when did adolf hitler die"? - and the second one linked to Wikipedia. so no - it seems to be nothing more than a text version of Siri. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Khare, C. P. (2007). Indian Medicinal Plants - An illustrative Dictionary. New York: Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-70638-2. a reliable source? It was used in the Portulaca oleracea article but was deleted with the reason being given that it did not meet wp:medrs. WP:DIFF = edit deleting text and citation. See also Talk:Portulaca oleracea#Pharmacological effects, and the introduction to C. P. Khare's book at http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/702/Contents%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf where it says, inter alia, The text is based on authentic treatises which are the outcome of scientific screening and critical evaluation by eminent scholars. As I have already indicated, readers, if they so desire, can always refer back to a particular research paper cited in the original source. I did not follow the trend of enumerating research papers which were not actually consulted by me. Researchers should consult the Database on Medicinal Plants used in Ayurveda series (CCRAS) and Reviews on Indian Medicinal Plants series (ICMR) for detailed bibliography. See Googlee Scholar for the 1430 citations to this work. --Bejnar (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends greatly on what article this source is being used, and the material used from the source and its context. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: that is why I provided the article Portulaca oleracea and the DIFF above. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The apparent problem is the use of rat and rabbit studies. The reader might infer that what works on them will work on humans, so we try to avoid such statements except in specialized "research in XYZ" articles. We don't usually do vet-med, and it doesn't seem that is what was intended here.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So, am I to conclude that it is a reliable secondary source, but that the material cited was inappropriate to include in this article at this place, because of concerns related to the giving of medical advice as expressed at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? --Bejnar (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Foth-Regner, Kitty (2010-05-10). "Guest Review from Kitty Foth-Regner: "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry Bergman". The Discerning Reader. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
• Bergman, Jerry (2011-04-11). Slaughter of the Dissidents. Washington: Leafcutter Press. ISBN 9780981873404.

Creation-evolution controversy#Public policy issues Creation-evolution controversy#Freedom of speech

'Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution'

These two sources appear representative and reliable witnesses to the views of the community they respresent, one corroborating the other. This has been contested. Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#RfC: Claims of discrimination against Darwin sceptics Cpsoper (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The first appears reliable that the view is held by the person (can't check the second). However, the issue appears to be weight in dealing with fringe opinions, which isn't the purpose of this board. Rwenonah does seem to have summarized the standard approach to tackling fringe content at the RfC you linked to, but I'd suggest taking additional questions to WP:FTN as those folks are more experienced with dealing with the general topic and the the range of reliability/weight issues that come up in these topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

These sources do not meet rs (except for the opinions of their authors.) TFD (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems one source meeting some RS. However, since there is no literal question in the original post I think they were just giving notice that there is a RS question at RfC Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#RfC: Claims of discrimination against Darwin sceptics Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The above article has been on my watchlist for over 7 years now and I had some dispute with the creator and main editor of the article way back then. My problem was/is it was originally completely unsourced, then sourced with a single publication. The publication in quesiton is the School's own magazine, which I have a feeling may be biased. To make matters worse, the magazine has no online presence and seems to be inaccessable to anyone outside the school.

Most of the claims in the article aren't a problem, but a new editor has cropped up and slipped some content in (perhaps accidentally) before an existing ref.

The details are as below;

1. Source. Anushilan: 2002-2003 issue (Page- 158). Retrieved on November 17, 2008.
2. Article. Government Laboratory High School.
3. Content. diff showing latest edit although my problem is also with the sentence before.

-LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

LookingYourBest: I think this is an acceptable use of a primary source, however, notability of the subject needs to be determined by coverage in reliable secondary sources. There appear to be no secondary sources cited. An opinion from someone more familiar with the application of WP:NSCHOOL (Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools?) is likely warranted.

In the above diff, I think it is reasonable to doubt that the citation provided backs up both sentences. I would move the added material behind the citation, add {{citation needed}} to it, and ask MD. Sakibur Rahman to provide a source for the material. - Location (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What does it take for something to be considered a reliable source for darknet sites? "Mainstream" publications that report on sites like Silk Road (marketplace) and Agora (marketplace) have policies against including links in their published stories (e.g. ), so the addresses themselves seem to provided almost exclusively by sites that focus on darknet information, such as and , and in the headers/sidebars of darknet discussion forums such as . It seems rather ridiculous that Wikipedia be sucked into the mainstream blackout of darknet addresses when they are posted all over the rest of the web. What would it take for, e.g. deepdarkweb.net, to be considered "reliable"? Three ferns (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Please help us evaluate the following sources for the article Arba'een. The link after each item takes you to the citation as used in the article.

1. The blog of "Faith Leader, Theology Lecturer, Author" Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi on huffingtonpost.co.uk.
2. Al-Alam News Network, owned and controlled by the Iranian state.
3. Shaykh Saleem Bhimji of al-mubin.org, "Translators, Publishers & Distributors of Islamic knowledge based on the Teachings of Prophet Muhammad and His Illustrious Family", writing on al-islam.org.
4. IslamicFinder's scripted Hijri calendar.

--Anders Feder (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This older discussion dealt with some parts of current request. Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to get opinions on some articles from TechRaptor. Its reputation is rather nascent, but I don't think that is a basis to dismiss it out of hand. Here are Alexa statistics[]. It is third-party published material, not user-generated, and it has an editorial structure. It has and enforces a code of ethics[] for its contributors, indicating editorial control. There are specific examples of corrections and retractions.[][][][] There is no evidence of conflicts of interest or specific failures to correct errors. I think its unreasonable to expect more than this from a source for claims that are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

It is proposed to be used in the article Gamergate_controversy for the following claims:

From [],

1. An attempt was made to boycott the game SeedScape based on the developer's identification with Gamergate.
2. The incident caused a dramatic increase in support for the game on Steam Greenlight.

From [],

1. Information about investors in Polytron, developer of the game Fez, was leaked in August 2014.
2. Kellee Santiago made a monetary investment in Polytron in 2009.
3. Kellee Santiago was the chair of the Indiecade awards jury in 2011, when Fez won Best in Show.
4. The chair of the awards jury bears primary responsibility for coordinating the juror process.
5. Santiago recused herself from voting, based on her financial interest in Polytron.

From [],

1. Edward McMillen, developer of Super Meat Boy and Binding of Isaac, believes that in specific instances IGF jurors have voted to "help out" particular developers rather than on the basis of the submitted games.

From [],

1. The Warehouse Group, a New Zealand retailer, has made a decision to cease offering all games and movies rated R18.
2. This decision was motivated by criticisms of Grand Theft Auto V, particularly its depictions of violence against women.
3. Grand Theft Auto V features much more violence against men than women and generally disincentivizes violence against women.

Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

To pick just one item out of your shopping list: the story implying skulduggery by Kellee Santiago. It's written by a guy identified as "BA in Computer Science from NJIT and is a fledgling software and video game developer." The story is predictably dire and inaccurate. To the website's credit, they do publish a correction by Indiecade that says Kellee Santiago recused herself (ie: there is no story). These fellows are literally amateurs. Not a reliable source. No news website with a functional journalistic process in operation would have published that false story. --TS 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There were no inaccuracies in the article, even before being updated with Indiecade's statement. It would be easy for a person to draw incorrect conclusions without the update, but that was the state of the best available information prior to Indiecade's input. Rhoark (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a rule, reputable news organizations will not publish articles making negative claims or implications without first seeking a response and comment from the person or organization accused. In this case, the non-story nature of the "story" would have been revealed prior to publication and there would have been no reason to proceed with such unfounded implications. This is as per the SPJ Code of Ethics, which states that ethical journalists should Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing. Sending a single request may or may not constitute "diligent" efforts.

Regardless, there is no reason to include a debunked allegation that amounts to nothing - contrary to what the headline still claims, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest at Indiecade. The fact that someone properly recused themselves from a situation of potential conflict of interest is not likely to be newsworthy or encyclopedic. The fact that the only source discussing the situation - and the only source making such an allegation - is TechRaptor, suggests that it isn't a real issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Their Staff page includes an editor with no editing credentials and many, many writers, none of whom appear to have previous journalism experience or degrees. I find very few sources responding to or reposting their content, which is not only a sure sign that they lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but also that nobody really knows about them. Their Facebook page has under 1400 likes and they are very prominently looking for Patreon funding. (Seriously, that ad is on every single page.) And they do change.org petitions, apparently. That just seems...odd for a news source. According to a previous discussion, they pay per article view—which they admit—and authors have stated they edit their own articles and TechRaptor itself does not do any copyediting. This is the very definition of an amateur, unreliable source. Woodroar (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The people involved do not seem to have a lot of experience, and the site has not had a lot of visibility. For which claims do you feel that makes them unreliable, and why? Rhoark (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For all claims, short of the exceptionally rare circumstance we would use them as an SPS about TechRaptor itself. Look, WP:V requires that we "[b]ase articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and TechRaptor doesn't have that reputation. Even if they were factually correct in every article published from now on, it takes time to build that reputation. It's not like The New York Times hired some schlubs off the street, printed a few copies and were considered reliable overnight. That takes time, sometimes years, especially if they start by making amateur mistakes like NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned above. But that's really what they are: amateurs, and it will be some time before they gain a positive reputation for us to consider using them. Woodroar (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a determination of reliability for innocuous facts ought to be capable of being made within the next 6 months, otherwise this is becoming a backdoor requirement that sources themselves be notable as topics. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand WP:V. We don't accept just any source to support claims that you feel are innocuous. Sources must be reliable, full stop. In the case of claims regarding living persons, they have to be impeccably reliable. We really only accept questionable sources when being used to support claims about themselves, and only in very specific cases is that allowed. This isn't one of those cases. Sure, you can try adding questionable sources to articles—as long as they aren't BLP claims—but they'll probably be removed eventually and per WP:BURDEN you won't be able to add them back. It's better to start with proper sourcing in the first place, especially since we're dealing with a controversial topic. As far as notable sources go, that isn't a requirement, but in many cases it goes hand in hand: sources must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and that typically means other reliable sources are writing about them; so if we don't have an article, it's very likely that we'd be able to write one. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I had hoped by posting this here it would attract more attention besides the usual suspects from the article talk page. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a tea house host helping a new editor who wants to either create a new article or add info to an existing article. Here is the draft article which has been rejected several times: Draft:The_Property_(Malibu_artists_colony)

I'm wondering about all the refs he currently has there. They all seem borderline to me, not great but not necessarily invalid. The specific refs are:

A book by Jay Ruby called Coffee House Positano: http://www.upcolorado.com/book/2726 I searched for this book in my local library (San Francisco... and the system searches all libraries in the city) and also in the Link+ system which is a collection of academic libraries in the Bay Area and didn't find the book in either although I did find that Jay Ruby has other published books in the system.

A story in a small local paper called the Malibu Times: http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3d0d3bdf-4267-50fb-a6c8-6d6fee3654e4.html Not sure how credible small papers like this are.

An article in a journal called Anthropology Now also by Jay Ruby called Studying Sideways in Malibu: http://anthronow.com/current-magazine-cover/september-2014

The two options we are considering are either writing a new article about "The Colony" or (probably more likely) adding the info to the existing article about the Coffee_House_Positano Do any of these references seem strong enough to establish notability for the new information about this artist colony that grew in the ashes of the Coffee House? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea if this is to be considered reliable or not? From what I can see some of the information seems to be added by registered users; I've tried to register in order to figure out how much but something failed during confirmation. I'm specifically wondering if the credits listed are user-contributed or added in other ways. Bjelleklang - talk 15:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of this site, but based on the About page, it's either a user-generated content site or a fan site, neither of which are considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, thanks. Bjelleklang - talk 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear all,

I am having a bit of a problem with the book History of the Popes by Joseph McCabe (London 1939). Mr. McCabe, who never had formal education in history, "was an English writer and speaker on freethought, after having been a Roman Catholic priest earlier in his life."

In the article for Pope Leo X (1475–1521, one of the Medici, confronted Martin Luther) we find this statement:

Two of the leading papal historians of the time (...) shared a belief that Leo engaged in "unnatural vice": these were Leo's governor Francesco Guicciardini, who wrote "At the beginning of his pontificate most people deemed him very chaste; however, he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named" (...)

The statement has a reference to page 409 of McCabe's book.

The problem is that Guicciardini's text is very old and anyone with internet connection has access to lots of editions. All of them contain the first part of the citation: that at the begninning of his pontificate Pope Medici was known to be chaste and of good morals. It so happens that in every version of the text, the second part of McCabe's quotation is missing.

Anyone with internet connection has free and immediate access to the following editions:

Italian (original language):

• A XIX century edition, Florence 1836, page 418.
• Another XIX century edition, Paris 1837.
• A XX century edition, Florence 1929, page 49.
• The italian wikisource version.

German:

• Darmstad, 1849: "Er wurde fur keusch gehalten und fur einen Mann von vollkommenen Sitte." Page 66.

French:

• London 1738: "la réputation qu'il avoit lui-même d'être liberál, poli, & de moeurs irreprochables", page 317.

Spanish:

• Spanish Manuscript: "estimado por casto y de perfectas costumbres", page 958. Copied by hand 1691-1697.

English:

• London edition of 1753: "the reputation of a chaste person and of unblameable manners", page 144.

None of these include anything similar to what McCabe quotes "he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named".

I ask your opinion, because to me it seems as if McCabe had quoted the first part from Guicciardini and invented the rest. I believe that McCabe's book should be considered "not reliable", and that the false quotation should be mended to reflect what Guicciardini really said. What do you think? El Huinca (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only looked at the English translation (page 114 btw, not 144) and didn't find anything resembling the second half. I tried searching the book for various phrases that might have been used but couldn't find anything. I have seen several quotations probably originating from McCabe though, such as the "Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to the Mid-Twentieth Century". They also claim to quote Guicciardini, but doesn't make it clear what edition was used. Based on what I've seen I'd say that the book should be regarded as unreliable, but given how many other sources there are that uses the quote it should probably be mentioned in the article somewhere. Bjelleklang - talk 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a strange one. On the one hand, multiple sources don't include that sentence, which points toward the unreliability of the sole dissenting source. But on the other hand, Joseph McCabe appears to be widely cited and quoted, and I find no sources commenting on his faulty quotations, so I'm not sure we could consider him unreliable. I am unable to find any sources speaking to this discrepancy, either, so any explanation we give would be WP:SYNTH. It may be that we state by source: multiple sources say X, and Joseph McCabe says X+Y. I could also see an argument for WP:DUE, where were simply go with the words favored by the most translations, which doesn't include the second sentence. Of course, whether or not Joseph McCabe is reliable is irrelevant at that point. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle has used a link to a YouTube clip of a segment from the television program Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe broadcast in December 2014 to support the following claim in the Vladislav Surkov article, 'He also backed anti-Putin parties, but then said that this was what he had done, with the result that uncertainty arose as to what was real, and what fake.' For convenience, an apparently accurate transcript of the segment may be found here: The excerpt in question is a short piece by English documentary film maker Adam Curtis. Curtis is a reasonably well-respected documentary film maker. However, my concern about this as a source is the use of weasel-words in the source itself: 'those who have studied his career'. It is very unclear from the transcript whether the statements are supposed to be factual, are the opinions of the unnamed 'those who have studied his career', or are the opinions of Curtis himself. Additionally, the claims made are so vague as to be unverifiable. He is claimed to have backed anti-Putin parties, but these are un-named. He is claimed to have said himself that he did this, but where and when he said this is un-stated. This is biography of a living person so we need good sources for claims. It seems to me these claims are currently poorly sourced, and I would like to see them removed unless better sources can be found. I post this here in case anyone can provide another perspective. - Crosbie 08:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

this is the guardian in 2013 - He was considered one of Russia's most deft politicians, crafting Russia's system of "managed democracy" and steering its powerful propaganda machine, mainly via control of state-run television.

Yet his star has been steadily falling since Putin returned to the presidency last year and pursued a path of open repression over the cunning manipulation favoured by Surkov. - the portrait is clear enough in RS whatever . Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I like Adam Curtis, but this film isn't a suitable source for a biographical article because it's light on detail and because Curtis is not well-known as an reliably uncontroversial filmmaker. It's a also a copyvio. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

and the economist As the political mastermind for Vladimir Putin for most of the 2000s, Mr Surkov engineered a system of make-believe that worked devilishly well in the real world. Russia was a land of imitation political parties, stage-managed media and fake social movements, undergirded by the post-modern sense that nothing was genuine. ideologuesexit - the economist, the guardian, peter pomerantsev in the lrb - the portrait is clearSayerslle (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Source in question: Ramzy Baroud, 'The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists,' Counterpunch November 27, 2014.

Is Ramzy Baroud writing for Counterpunch a reliable source for facts concerning the obscure Marxist splinter group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?

I tried to raise a discussion on this, providing detailed sources that showed that the text at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was false, by citing Baroud's article. This was dismissed by a mechanical reference to an, to me, inconclusive debate back 6 years ago, at RSN. I don't think a single, dated, unsatisfactory discussion here can be taken as binding for eternity as though it were established policy. My view is that one must examine the quality of the source (Baroud, not Counterpunch), the standing of the author, and the nature of the material requested to be used. It turns out that later sources I turned up confirmed what Baroud had documented, yet regardless of this (a good test of reliability) some editors just refuse to accept him, since the article appeared in a journal they appear to dislike.

Counterpunch 'muckrakes', a perfectly legitimate branch of Investigative journalism which was the particular area of expertise of its founder Alexander Cockburn, and of one of its leading writers Patrick Cockburn, an expert on the Middle East. It specializes in getting over authoritative opinions that are not aired in the mainstream press. Counterpunch exposed the New York Times presentation of the fabricated data leading to the decision to invade Iraq (and was cited by mainstream historians like Chalmers Johnson for doing so. See his The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, Macmillan, 2007 pp.351,352,363,364). The mainstream source got everything wrong, and Counterpunch proved it. It publishes ex-Wall Street financial experts turned academics like Michael Hudson, Reaganite economists like Paul Craig Roberts, retired CIA analysts like Franklin C. Spinney, U.S. Senate national security expert and Congressional Budget specialists like Winslow T. Wheeler, Christian political conservatives like William S. Lind, historians like Robert Fisk, Israeli Knesset figures and pundits like Uri Avnery and Ari Shavit, historians like Gabriel Kolko, Peter Linebaugh and East Asian specialists like Brian Cloughley and Gary Leupp. None of these are known for their ideological brow-beating or slipshod use of facts, for example. To the contrary. They are polished, notable and established experts in their respective fields.

As to Ramzy Baroud, he is an Arabist, has 3 well-received books to his credit, and as a journalist, publishes widely in such mainstream press outlets as The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, Arab News, The Miami Herald, The Japan Times, Al-Ahram Weekly, Asia Times, Al Jazeera etc., as well as working on a late doctorate at Exeter University. Baroud's Counterpunch article is scholarly, analytic and cites all the statements by links to the relevant primary sources in Arabic etc., so they can be independently confirmed.

In reply to Cptono's note about editorial control over content. Well, why is it partisan I/P editors never raise queries about quality control the following sources used throughout the article, none of which is known to exercise editorial control on fact checking, none of which to my knowledge has a reputation for reportorial or in depth accuracy by area specialists, and many of which are dubious. The answer is, they are all, save 2 'friendly' to a POV (which Baroud's article is not).

• Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned.
• The Hindu
• Al-Araby
• Israel Hayom.(once in Hebrew six times in English), a free distribution paper created by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate on behalf of the Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu. Notoriously partisan.
• The Jewish Press, an orthodox hence sectarian community newspaper.
• Algemeiner Journal notorious partisan
• Jspace community paper
• PFLP website Primary Source
• The Daily Star (Lebanon) (3)
• Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts
• La Información Dominican Republic University newspaper
• Sputnik (news agency) mouthpiece of the Russian federation, i.e., political.
• Daily Sabah Turkish paper created this year
• The Hollywood Reporter
• New Jersey Jewish News

Independent outsider reviews of this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion for the following reasons:

• CounterPunch has historically been less than suitable here at RSN (attribution has been a way to use it for prominent opinions by established writers)
• Regardless of the author's merit's, what CounterPunch deems appropriate to publish and what they have potential editorial control over is problematic. The source has been called "extremist" but I think it is safe to simply say that they tend to have some sort of agenda and are contrary to the point of sensationalism ("edgy" is a nice way to put it). I question the appropriateness of a needlessly long quote and even giving it a potential page hit through the ref section.
• Ramzy Baroud doesn't seem that prolific at a glance. I'm not as familiar with the writer as others but nothing jumps out as so important that it receives weight (attributed in the text or not). A Google search shows what could easily be considered a heavy bias.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Question. We are under an obligation to be neutral and coherent in our application of policy. If these are your criteria, why have you raised no objection to the many sources I have cited above, which have been used to document the article. They all fail the high bar you set for Counterpunch(none of those sources, furthermore, can boast of the quality contributors some of whose names I have listed as published by Counterpunch). Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Both you and Epeefleche have misinterpreted (see below) a RSN discussion. It is perfectly normal to request clarification as to why you object to Counterpunch and a Palestinian author, while quietly accepting sources all over that page that are POV-pushing, mediocre, and fail RS. Neither on the talk page, nor here, will either of you clarify this point. I too certainly think this should be reviewed by independent outside editors, but in the meantime, I am perfectly in my rights to request that vague pronouncements and a failure to actually do anything but rehearse an opinion be clarified. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I believe it is long-settled here at RSN that Counterpunch is not an RS. This is especially the case for anything controversial. I see no reason to change that judgment. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't settled, and your judgement is a mischaracterization.

11 editors pitched in. 3 were neutral. One was dismissive. 7, a majority, tended to suggest it was citable for opinions if the author was notable, or the opinion of 'substantial interest'. I.e. whether Counterpunch is citable or not depends on who is writing, and the editorial circumstances (substantial interest of point cited, which is the case here).

• ChrisO posed the question. No longer active. Neutral
• PelleSmith (corrects hostile characterization of Noam Chomsky, a contributor to Counterpunch) neutral
• Itsmejudith (corrects characterization of Robert Fisk (a Counterpunch writer) as left-leaning. Neutral

• Jayjg. Negative (‘strong political agenda and bias’ a 'left wing version of [[FrontPage Magazine’)
• Zeq (banned editor): ‘CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts.’
• Relata refero. No longer active. removes links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right.
• Crotalus horridus No longer active. ‘None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself.’
• Merzbow (No longer active: ’I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right.’)

• User:Blueboar
• User:eleland
• User:Nishidani (Agree with refero, i.e. ' It depends on who writes there.')

So, back in 2008, in a short discussion, Counterpunch was not dismissed out of hand. The majoir commentators put an unless/if condition on citation. Both Epeefleche and Cptono are taking it as a thumbs down, when the verdict was mixed and conditional. Secondly, the question I posed is not whether Counterpunch is reliable, but whether a notable author specializing on the I/P area, who, unlike all the other newspapers cited in the article, examined the primary Arabic sources, and correctly noted what the newspapers on day one failed to note, is citable. If we say he isn't, we are potentially laying down a precedent that a notable author/specialist cannot be used to correct an error on Wikipedia if his views are only cited in a non-mainstream newspaper. That is fatuously absurd.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is now another discussion below on this. To get things on track, it would be awesome if people completely involved could discuss if:

A) Counterpunch is reliable?

and

B) Is the author Ramzy Baroud's and/or his column significant enough to warrant inclusion?

Edit in question: here. Article is 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack (by the way, if we had another source we wouldn't have to even worry about it)Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We should not give carte blanche to Counterpunch as a reliable source - although I can see the appeal to editors who want to push controversial points. However, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to cite it, since it's reasonably well aligned with what we get from genuinely reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob -- Tx ... I think, actually, that the rubric is that where there are "genuinely reliable sources" that state x, and others such as Counterpunch that state "close to x", we are to cite to the genuine RSs for the proposition they support. Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EP, Baroud gives a very detailed analysis, not 'close to x', but 'x' and much else (w, ..y,z). The article is far more comprehensive than the other newspaper reports, which (a) got it wrong or (b) got it right but were minor 'RS' not quite your western mainstream press, and were overlooked. The question is not therefore 'Is Counterpunch reliable' (I don't think any mainstream source is reliable in itself, and try to multiple-source in this area to make sure details are not partisan). The question is, 'Is Ramzy Baroud's article a qualitatively solid one' for the detail in question, and only secondly, 'does its appearance in Counterpunch invalidate it as a source?'Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop replying to everything. We can't get a reasonable consensus going when you run away with the conversation. You are obviously outnumbered on the article. You failed to create a neutral request here. We finally have an outside editor providing some reasoning but you just won't stop. So far we are looking at 4 editors to 1 with 1 involved going your way. No one else is going to chime in if you won't stop commenting. Just shut up for a couple days and let it run its course. This is why you get bullied.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with wiki boards? Questions are asked, and discussions take place. Through rational exchanges, a consensus is met. One does this to avoid mere vote/opinion stacking. This is the procedure I follow, and your repeated interruptions of my attempts to engage with interlocutors in a thoughtful analysis of the issues is, as you allow, 'bullying'. Wikipedia is not Athens, still less am I Socrates, but you are behaving like a sulking Callicles in the latter part of the Gorgias. I regret personalizing this, but you keep needling, rather than addressing substantial points. So let's drop the animosity.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned (@Nishidani)

It's not correct information. It was banned as radio station before 10+ years and I've already notified you that there is legal Galei Israel station in this radio niche. What we are talking about as a source now is Israel National News - one of many different quoted sources in a broad Israeli media spectrum.

• "Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts"

What about CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. so criticized for their bias in Arab–Israeli conflict? :(

• "Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press" - what else? :) as "Notoriously", "partisan", "orthodox", "sectarian" (what about Ynet, Walla!, Haaretz ownres, sectarian...?)

Such your private & negative characteristics have no sense without concrete examples approving their not-reliability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel National News was rendered legal by a law that was then repealed, so it appears to operate without a licence. It is used all over Wikipedia and is thoroughly opinionized, with an overwhelming concern for reporting emotions and weird theories. No respectable journalist writes for it. All the other sources are browbeating, sectarian and not mainstream. I don't use them, but I don't run a campaign to elide them at sight automatically, without even consulting the cited page to evaluate it, as several editors are doing.

As noted above - Counterpunch is usable for opinions cited as opinions. It is not specifically known for fact reportage, nor is it considered a secondary reliable source for claims of fact. At least per discussions here. Collect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with attribution. But the question is not about Counterpunch, but whether a scholar and widely published journalist like Baroud, when he publishes, not an opinion piece, but an analysis of numerous Arabic reports regarding an obscure group of militants, can be summarily dismissed simply because his report was published in Counterpunch. Our stringency about RS is not ideological, but functional: it aims to ensure factual reliability above all. It is being used however, selectively (against anything that throws light on the higher intricacies of Palestinian factional politics) here, by editors who reflexely remove Counterpunch at sight, and let the blogging opinionizing of minor Israeli sources pass without challenge. This is what I find deeply disturbing. No coherence in editors' excision of material.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion on CounterPunch is done. Is the author Ramzy Baroud and his column significant enough to warrant inclusion even with attribution? Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I err, but the outside consensus was that there is no intrinsic reason to deny citation of Counterpunch, that we are not beholden to the 2008 discussion, and that citation with attribution if the author and his views are notable is acceptable. Only Collect and User:bobrayner has taken the trouble to add a comment here specifically on Baroud, i.e. 'is usable for opinions cited as opinions,' echoing his other remark that 'Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions.' Given that Baroud is has a solid journalistic curriculum in major mainstream newspapers, I can't see any objection from four of the five disinterested editors who have commented (User:The Four Deuces; User:Collect; User:Binksternet, User:bobrayner vs User:Thargor Orlando who, by the way, said the 2008 discussion is not informative). The rest of us are partisans, and our views have no weight.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this source a reliable source for labelling living and dead persons as "Jewish" where no other sources in their articles make such a claim? I would note this book includes people of "Jewish ancestry" on any type as "Jewish". Kurt F. Stone has no apparent academic credentials other than writing two books about "The Jews of Capitol Hill". gives his c.v. -- he is a rabbi, and teaches at Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University but his c.v. does not seem to establish him as an expert in the field AFAICT. He is not a Professor AFAICT at either university., ("Adjunct Instructor"). Scarecrow Press generally appears RS otherwise - but I am concerned about using this particular source to simply label people as "Jewish" especially since at least one was specifically Roman Catholic in life as far as I can tell. I would also ask separately - is being buried in a "Jewish Cemetery" proof of self-identification as "Jewish"? Thanks to all. Collect (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as I created an article on wikipedia about Female Lieutenant Governors, I am now focussing on creating on for Jewish members of Congress. There are articles on wikipedia about members of Congress being Asian, African-American, Female and LGBT, I thought it would be a nice edition to add one about those who are Jewish. I have sourced the editions to my article so the information is neither incorrect nor wrong. SleepCovo (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment of an uninvolved editor. Jewish is not just a religious designation it is also genealogical. Rabbi's are usually reasonable experts on the topic of being Jewish as they have specific criteria laid out that they must follow. But I make no determination on the book itself or this person. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

However, could a Rabbi designate someone as Jewish by Jewish law without that person being Jewish in an otherwise meaningful sense and/or without them wishing to be identified as Jewish. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Such as not being in any way self-identified as "Jewish" noting the many discussions about people adding "Jewish" because of "Jewish name" or "Jewish grandparent" etc. Where an author is only an "adjunct instructor" the person is not specifically to be regarded as a scholarly authority. It reads far more like a selection of anecdotes about people with Jewish names than a sourced book -- which it is not (one reviewer pointed this out as a problem - as it contained simple errors about people he knew). The removal of problem examples was reverted -- including a reversion of a strange typo ("Suceeded from the Union" I found a strange way to describe a person). Scholar.google.com shows a marked paucity of anyone else even mentioning the books en passant. BTW, a rabbi can not define a person to be Jewish who does not so self-identify. Collect (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment or two on the last point. Of course a person can be Jewish who does not self-identify. As with a newborn, born to Jewish parents. Separately, Judaism is not just a religion. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law [Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co.] [The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press] Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Only just noticed this. Those are all points, dear EP, made in the lead of our articles Jews, an atrociously bad piece of WP:SYNTH and selective highlighting and erasure of alternative sources, that falsifies a hugely complex inframural refusal to agree on a viable definition (that, I think, is one of the wisest things the Jewish traditions bequeaths the rest of us - the indefiniteness of the category. Classically, 'Jews' are as much the creation of anti-Semitism as of anything else. In any case Brandeis was writing in 1915, without the wisdom of post-Holocaust hindsight. I suggest you, on behalf of his deceased spirit, read Alain F. Corcos, Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist Wheatmark,2005, or at least the intro. Both he and his brother Gilles were born to French Jewish parents, survived the Nazi genocide and emigrated to the U.S. Corcos, a molecular biologist, decided he wasn't 'Jewish', he thought the term a misnomer. His brother Gilles self-identified as Jewish. Both were right. There is no legitimate definition from any group, outsiders or insiders, that can objectively fix such a subjective and deeply complex, intimately personal issue like identity, which is no business of others to determine. For him, you're Jewish if you practice Judaism (whether as a convert or as someone satisfying rabbinical criteria, it doesn't matter) Suffice it to read Raul Hilberg's chapter on this to realize how fraught this is with dangers. There is a refreshing and rare sanity in Wikipedia's policy of denying editors the right to define biographical subjects in terms of any ethnic 'brand' that would not be acceptable to the subjects themselves.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is this has been discussed many times on Wikipedia - always with the same result. We do not call a person "Jewish" because they had a Jewish ancestor, or have a Jewish name. We do not call a person "Jewish" in any BLP per WP:BLPCAT without strong sourcing. The book presented does not even give its sources, or any footnotes, has no sign of being fact checked, is not written by a person with academic credentials in journal publications, or any publications other than being from an "adjunct instructor" who wrote two books on the exact same topic.

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Is fairly clear, I trust. Collect (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another comment. It appears that this page isnt the only WP article on the subject. List_of_Jewish_American_politicians seems to be a rather well sourced list that includes members of Congress. While it is off topic for this page, I wonder if WP really needs two pages on this topic. AlbinoFerret 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't like these classifications,in fact I detest them, but they're here. I think as Collect says, one has only to include self-identifiers, duly attested by reliable sources. Barry Goldwater had Jewish ancestry on his father's side, but was raised Episcopalian. Religiously he was not Jewish, in rabbinical terms he wasn't either. He occasionally noted his Jewish roots, as I suppose he occasionally mentioned his maternal Anglo-Saxon Protestant roots. Since, as AlbinoFerret notes, there is a better sourced page on the same subject, this article should perhaps be merged into that, always taking care to source the new claims accurately (self-identification).Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Barry Goldwater was just added to the Jewish members of Congress list Will someone please set that editor straight on the rules for labelling anyone with Jewish ancestry at all as "Jewish"? Thank you! Collect (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure it is rs. But the author only says that these people are in his opinion Jewish. (See p. xv) He is clear that other people may have different opinions. Furthermore it is a tertiary source about a topic that has been "largely overlooked in the history books." So it is of pretty limited use as a source anyway. TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

On p.xiv, there is the example of LaGuardia, another Episcopalian like Goldwater, who was, unlike Goldwater, in rabbinical terms a Jew, since his mother was Jewish. But the author fails to note that LaGuardia did not self-identify as Jewish, rarely mentioned the connection and preferred to see himself as Italian. He mentioned his mother's origins only when a Jewish opponent, Henry Frank, smeared him as an anti-Semite, and, wonderfully, challenged the latter to a debate in Yiddish, which he spoke, but Frank didn't. Italian Jews lived in one of the least anti-Semitic countries in the world at that time (according to Zeev Jabotinsky) so these factors did not matter as much as the political and cultural identity.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with Collect - I think that's the second time in recorded history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This question arises from a few talk page sections here and here. In the Cheng article "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" Cheng makes two statements:

" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "

From later in the journal article:

"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production "

Is the Cheng article a secondary source on these subjects seeing as the source article itself expressly tells us there are no primary sources for it to look at or review on these subjects? AlbinoFerret 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it still is. It is a review article and they performed a systematic literature search. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The only literature search (newspapers in this case) it did found information on advertising and battery disposal. Those are not part of the question, and in those areas, it is a secondary source. The question asks in the cases where there are no primary sources, and it clearly sets forth there are none, is this article a secondary source. AlbinoFerret 14:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to say what "Cheng" is. It's PMID 24732165 (actually the author is "Chang") and this is a review article (as PUBMED rightly categorize it). It is a secondary source of the kind favoured as WP:RS and in particular as WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how a source can be secondary without primary sources on these topics. It does review some newpaper articles on battery disposal. But that is not part of the question. In those areas it is a secondary source or review.v The question is, if there are no primary sources to review, is the source secondary in these specific areas? AlbinoFerret 14:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources are all the studies that the review reviewed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you talking past each other here? If the review itself says that on topic X there are no sources - then within topic X it would be a primary source (or a secondary for the information that topic X has no sources). On all the other topics Z,Y and V the source is still a review/secondary source, since for those topicareas it relies on primary sources. Correct?

So on some topic areas this particular review is partially reliable, and on others it is fully reliable. Just as with any other source :) --Kim D. Petersen 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a secondary source. The value of review articles is that in reviewing primary literature, they not only tell us what findings were important, but areas that are not covered well in that literature as well. In either case, a review is commenting on the primary literature it reviews. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Just pointing out, there are no primary sources on the subjects in question. Chang sets that forth in the source in the quotes above. I am not questioning if the article is a secondary source on topics it had primary sources for, even poor ones, but the topics that source said it didnt have primary sources for. AlbinoFerret 15:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources for the two quotes you provided are the sources reviewed by the Chang for those topics. Maybe I'm just not seeing where you going very clearly, but are you saying that those primary sources reviewed by Chang do not support the general idea that "No study found/discussed X"? My feeling is that you're having trouble with the idea that the author made a statement about the studies they review, but don't cite a specific study. If that is the case, the author is citing all the studies they reviewed. If that isn't quite what you're getting at, could you clarify a bit more?

Kingofaces43 I will be happy to, the source did not review any primary sources in these areas, the source clearly states in in the quotes that the no studies exist. The only sources that Chang looked at that had anything to review were advertising and battery disposal. I excluded these areas from the question because they had primary sources. In the areas that Chang says there are no studies, he didnt review any, not even newspaper articles or poor reports. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the rest for my comment below, but if the review says there were no studies, then that is what they found. If there was some problem in the methodology that produced some bias, you'll need to wait for another review to correct it. It's not our place as editors to dig into that degree of scrutiny, that's the job of scientists publishing in the field. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is indeed a secondary source, and it is indeed a review, and thus one of the best sources within the med area. But i don't think that this is the question (see my "talking past" post above). The question should be: Is this source useful/reliable for information on "environmental impacts" in the disposal/manufacturing process - given that the source itself states that this particular area isn't covered by any primary sources, and thus must be conjecture by the authors of the study? (of course it can be used for the information that no information exists - but not aside from that) --Kim D. Petersen 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The source appears to state in general (from the quoted sections above at least) that environmental impacts are not well evaluated. That would be the synthesis of the literature in the voice of a secondary source and would be reliable for such in the article (assuming there aren't other sources to equally weigh). When authors are commenting on the state of the literature, that's a secondary source as it is based on the primary sources they evaluated. I can understand how statements of no study found (etc.) something can be tricky here, but those cases are citing all the primary literature they reviewed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem isnt the fact he is pointing out that no studies exist, The problem is he forms opinions on the environmental impact of component manufacturing where no studies exist for him to review. So statements like "A 2014 review stated that the emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled." in the WP article. When he states that no studies have been done in this area. AlbinoFerret 18:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, so that's a different question than what was originally posed at the top. What you quoted should be tweaked slightly if it is as you describe. A "could" in this context without a source to back it up should not be used to mean there is evidence of those emissions, but is reliable to say there is legitimate concern it may happen (would need further study, etc.). Basically, there's science-speak going on a general reader might not pick up on that could lead to the former conclusion rather than the latter. I'm ok with the current wording still in that context, but the main factor there is that the article is stressing concern rather than demonstrating known evidence. I'll take a read through the source and try to make more sense of it in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the section is question (first full paragraph of ii56), which is a summarizing paragraph to the topic. It seems there are plenty of primary sources being discussed in the previous paragraphs between journal articles and patents. It doesn't sound like the scenario being described above. That's exactly what we're looking for from a secondary source to put into context the primary sources. "A 2014 review stated that the emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled." appears perfectly fine now that I've had the time to go through the it in terms of reliability for a secondary source. One could even drop the 2014 review stated prefix as we can state what reviews say in Wikipedia's voice typically, but that's up to the folks at the article. As long as the content isn't stating there is direct evidence, but rather the potential for high emissions, (as the quoted text does alright) this seems fine in terms of reliability too.Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this a curious response... 3 patents and a chemistry paper is "plenty of primary sources"?? There isn't even a review of papers on what practices or manufacturing process that are currently being used for producing nicotine. --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Plenty was relative to there being no primary sources as mentioned earlier for some reason. As I mentioned on my talk page though, it's not our job as editors to engage in peer-review, but relay what reliable sources say. Our job here is to determine what the kind of source is in relation to the proposed content. It doesn't look like the quoted statement is outside the purview of a secondary source as long as the content is mirroring the risk-analysis tone that there is a likely potential for issues rather than a definitive there are known documented issues. What has been quoted above seems to do an ok job of doing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A small group of editors active in articles relating to Creation–evolution_controversy, Fine-tuned_Universe,Panspermia, God of the Gaps, are deleting references to clearly reliable sources and materials. For example they have deleted two books in the further reading section of fine-tuned universe by astrophysicists Stephen Barr and Bernard Haisch, apparently simply because they favor the idea of a fine-tuned universe, (in doing so, justifies the deletion by an ad hominem attack accusing me of "Creationist POV-pushing". The two sources are:

• Stephen Barr, (2006) Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN-10: 0268021988.

• Bernard Haisch, 2010, The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin, and God. Career Press. ISBN-13: 978-1601632777

Within hours of creating a stub article on Maxim Makukov whose peer reviewed paper on panspermia was covered by numerous secondary sources, including New Scientist, and the Huffington Post, The New Indian Express and others, an editor guarding the other pages nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov . He and other editors who collaborate with his POV on these controversial articles have made intimidating and derogatory comments of the type described in examples of ownership behavior ,, and have argued that articles in Icarus, New Scientist, Huffington Post, and the other source I have cited fail to establish that the subject is notable, claiming, by inference, that their judgement of the topic as "fringe" trumps the notability of coverage in mainstream media, including a peer reviewed journal. Their allegations that the coverage in the press was of the "April Fools joke" type is simply wrong and demonstrates a lack of serious consideration of the sources. It is evident that they also intend to object to including these sources in the panspermia article. So, I ask if the following are reliable sources regarding Maxim Makukov and panspermia?:

• Kemp, Christopher (22 December 2014). "Is the answer to life, the universe and everything 37?". New Scientist. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• Speigel, Lee (April 9, 2013). "ET Genetic Code May Be Found In Human DNA, According To Kazakhstan Scientists' Biological SETI Theory". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• shCherbak, Vladimir; Makukov, Maxim (May 2013). "The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code". Icarus. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• Villard, Ray (April 1, 2013). "Is An Alien Message Embedded In Our Genetic Code?". Discovery. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• Do aliens exist? Answer may lie in our genes The Times of India. Apr 3, 2013.
• An Alien Code May Be Hidden Inside Our DNA! George Dvorsky. Io9. April 10, 2013.
• Scientists Think Aliens Embedded Message in Our Genetic Code, Like, for Real Becky Feldman. ScienceFiction.com.
• Alien message embedded in our genetic code? ZeeNews. April 2, 2013.
• Scientists claim aliens put secret genetic code in human DNA Trent Moore. Blastr.com Tuesday, April 9, 2013
• A whole new world By Deepshikha Punj. New Indian Express Published: 27 October 2013
• Discovery – Alien genetic code may be embedded in Human DNA TBU NEWS ⋅ APRIL 27, 2013
• Alien message embedded in human genetic code? the Freepress Journal | Apr 03, 2013

I believe the editors objecting to these sources are treating their own judgement of the the validity of the hypothesis and evidence claimed by Makukov above the fact that his hypothesis and story have been covered by numerous reliable secondary sources. Clearly, anything remotely related to the creation vs. evolution issue falls under the controversial topics category and it accepted that such topics, given the breadth of coverage and controversy, even if classified as pseudoscience by the majority of scientists, still warrants Wikipedia coverage. Editors' personal opinions regarding the validity of a claim related to panspermia, such as that made by Makukov should not trump the notability established by numerous reliable, secondary sources covering the claim. —GodBlessYou2 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Which part of WP:AGF do you not understand? Dominus Vobisdu (talk)

This is a scientific subject and thus needs to be notable in the scientific field you're trying to present it in. Makukov has published 5 papers that I can find since 2007 and those papers have been cited 8 times, in total. They don't meet notability requirements. Aside from notability almost none of your links would be an RS on the subject. Some are literally science fiction or movie websites.Capeo (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as no attempts are being made to qualify this as science, there is no issue in reporting this type of material, if it is well covered. A subject does not need to be scientific to warrant coverage in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much moot now, as Makulov himself has !voted for deletion at the AfD, stating that he was horribly misrepresented in the popular press and, consequently, the article that GodBlessYou2 created, and goes on to list all the errors in the articles listed above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The article about Makukov is just about one paper he wrote. The sources used are not really rs for an article about a scientific theory and the article actually sensationalizes the already sensational writing in the sources. He did not say that there is an ET message in our DNA but that it is a possibility. There is value in exploring all the various possibilities in the chance that one of them may turn out to be true, but that it is not the same as saying this theory is true. TFD (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure where to put this, but I thought some here might find it interesting. A definition for London School of Economics on the Urban Dictionary website claims that LSE has 'produced a quarter of all nobel prize winners in Economics' . Whilst a significant number of such winners have been associated with LSE, far fewer have been produced by LSE: from , I can count no more than five out of seventy-five. Nonetheless, this claim was forced into the lead of the article by single-purpose accounts , , , where it has stayed for around six months. Amazingly, The Guardian fell for this and repeated the claim on its website . I am not sure who should feel most embarrassed: Wikipedia or The Guardian! 86.170.130.156 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, what would the procedure be if a user were to reinsert the information using the Guardian link as a source? 86.170.130.156 (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you know the Grauniad's source was Wikipedia? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I spent some time searching for a source for the claim made in the lead and managed to find nothing relevant (here is an example search ). Other than the Guardian page that came up, the only other sites were the Wikipedia page and pages that mirror Wikipedia (like this) and the Urban Dictionary page. I very doubt The Guardian took it directly from Urban Dictionary. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute about the meaning of the word "produced". Does it mean the Winners studied there, worked there, or what? You say that perhaps around a quarter have been "associated" with the LSE. Well, that's an even more obscure term. I should imagine that almost all major economists have been 'associated' with it in some way (giving lectures there, attending conferences, having fellowships etc), so 1/4 seems rather low for "associated". Clearly Urban Dictionary is not a serious source, but it seems to be merely your assertion that this is the origin of the statistic. It was used as a source by one IP, but it was soon replaced by other sources. I'm guessing it's more likely to originate with marketing material produced by the LSE itself. As with all such claims, it can be taken with a pinch of salt, precicely because there can be no absolute definition of "produced", and the institution has an obvious motive to big itself up. This is one of those cases for which we really need to know where the statistic originates in order to evaluate how it should be presented. Ideally it should be quoted rather than presented as fact. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any such claim on marketing material. It might well be one of those urban myths that some believe to be true. The other source was just a source from the Nobel website stating how many times the award had been given and the editor telling us to make the mathematical deduction ourselves (WP:CALC seems to suggest it is a bit too controversial for this).

I would read 'produced' as 'studied there': it would be strange to claim LSE 'produced' an economist who studied and worked somewhere else and only joined LSE after the award. See here for 'associated': the article cites thirteen (of the sixteen the LSE website claims) as being a graduate of LSE, or an attendee/researcher, or a member of staff prior to, during, or after the award was given. Institutions are notorious for trying to 'claim' as many Nobel prizewinners as they can! Considering I cannot find any reliable secondary sources for the information, I cannot see how we can include it in the article. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The LSE website seems like a pretty authoritative source; they certainly would not understate the number of Nobel Prize winners who have attended or taught at the school. I'd suggest using their numbers, and refrain from suggesting the school "produced" these people (as their affiliations may have come after winning the prize). TheBlueCanoe 17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. The article already includes this information in the lead. The reverted addition involved taking these figures and coming up with the 'one quarter of winners were produced by LSE' statement. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)