Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

The Register at Santorum (neologism)

1. A link to the source in question. [1]
2. The article in which it is being used. Santorum (neologism)
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. See [2]
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism#.22Navel_Gazing.22

Some editors claim that The Register is not reliable in quoting Jimmy Wales or Seth Finkelstein (the latter individual however wrote the quote is accurate). FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an area in which I would argue that the Register is a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree; the Register has consistently pushed a ... rather firm editorial position concerning wikipedia. If we were using the Register article for an exact quote of a third party, or some other concrete fact not subject to interpretation, I could live with it; but we shouldn't be relying on qualitative comments made by somebody who starts their rant with "The world's Wikifiddlers are obsessed with santorum..." The Reg likes words like "wikifiddler". bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I agree with Bobrayner on his line of reasoning, but not his conclusion in this case. Most of the added material is direct quotes from Wales and Finkelstein. The only interpretation by The Register seems to be: "the line between participant and documentarian is inherently blurred". Which is not controversial, I don't think. We should be really careful about material from the Reg, but I think this narrow case is acceptable. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's an editorial position at The Register regarding Wikipedia, as opposed to a few of the writers who often cover it tend to be critical of Wikipedia. However, the mere fact of being critical of Wikipedia should not be evidence of not being a reliable source. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is a material difference between "the Register having a certain editorial stance regarding wikipedia" and "A couple of the register's handful of writers like to rant about wikipedia from a certain angle" then I acknowledge it, but it probably doesn't affect my earlier point. ;-) I'm not concerned about whether they are broadly "pro" or "anti"; but when the Register gets a bee in its bonnet - given away by their choice of wording and selective reporting - I think we should no longer treat it as a reliable source for qualitative stuff. The same would apply to certain earlier Register articles on climate change, "Stuckism", &c... if this stuff is significant, surely a more credible source covers it? bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the argument above is that it effectively ends up defining particular Wikipedia-critical aspects as per se not credible. That is, if The Register covers a part of an overall story that's critical of Wikipedia, and you say other sources must cover that specific Wikipedia part too before it's OK to mention it, it's problematic, as all sources don't covers all aspects of every story. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Full stripping of unsourced articles

Hi, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it usually works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled and we commit to improve the content over time. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of local myth, for example, have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have all their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content otherwise looks reasonable then I think such stripping on a large scale would be disruptive. However, there is a lot of unsourced cruft and speculation out there, especially in less-visited articles; if the text already suffers from other flaws (ie. It doesn't look plausible or neutral) then I won't be shedding any tears. Is this activity confined to a particular subject area?

Sadly, we're not going to build a better encyclopædia by leaving flawed articles with long-term tags. It would be nice if those favouring deletion could put more effort into finding sources first, but removing unsourced content will often be better than the status quo. If any other person really mourns the lost text they always have the option of going back and find a source for it. I realise some may not like making that effort, but building a high-quality encyclopædia inevitably takes more work than just building a big pile of text. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that stripping entire articles is a bit drastic, although you're right--a strict interpretation of the policy is removing all unsourced content, even if all the content is deleted. I've found that articles that are poorly sourced need improvement in all areas, so the solution is for editors to dedicate themselves to these articles. I've also found that those of us who are committed to doing that are few and far between on this project. The temporary solution is tags, which should alert the reader that the article they're about to read is crap. My advice is be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and work on these articles to bring them to a higher quality. Christine (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We occasionally have to strip libelous content very quickly, especially when there's a complaint, and it's good to have a policy that allows for that in these situations. But it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all helpful, thank you. Quadell, or anyone else, do you have a policy page link that suggests something along the lines of "it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing"? The articles I'm thinking of are around myth/folklore, no BLP or liable involved, in an local area I know absolutely diddly squat about. I'm not sure when uber-zeal becomes 'disruptive editing'. Cheers Span (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge any assumption that simply putting up a label saying "this content is flawed" - without actually fixing the content - is inevitably better than removing the flaw. Tagging has its place, but it's not a substitute for solving the problem; removing unsourced content is a solution. (Adding a source would be a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What's missing is the time dimension. The addition of tags establishes a start-date for a good-faith cleanup. Straight-away slash and burn doesn't do that. Of course, it is still better than having to use AfD: there's a preserved history. Is there an easy way to bot-notify all prior contributors to an article that it's been put on notice? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb for articles I'm involved with editing is that if someone adds uncited material and I can't supply a citation for it myself, I give it six months tagged as needing a citation before I remove it. (Assuming, of course, that there's no BLP or other issue that requires immediate removal.) That's long enough to give other users plenty of time to fix it if they can, but short enough that it doesn't turn into indefinite retention. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So it seems from the above there would be support for an editor whose main role was working through non-BLP articles, stripping out all long standing unsourced text (say extant 6 months+), reducing the content to basic lead information. Is that so?Span (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "no" on two counts. First is the removal of "all unsourced text". This suggests that all text must be sourced, which is not the case. Second, this suggests that the editor would be removing content without even a cursory search for sources, and while such removal is acceptable (I'm not opposed to it), it's not preferred (I don't support it). cmadler (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content has been tagged for 6 months and nobody else has found a source, then taking it at face value I could hardly object. However, I would be concerned about pointiness, and if the deletion is selective in any way - maybe it only covers certain types of content or certain articles - I would be concerned about a hidden agenda (or, at least, an agenda which hasn't been mentioned in this thread).

I would prefer that sources were added, or if an agreeable source can't be found then I would prefer that the text be changed to fit what sources do say - however this can be quite slow work. Those who care about WP:V cannot work as quickly as those who just want to put lots of text into blank spaces. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the article, it's very possible that no one is actually working on it. I've got articles in my watchlist that have had {{refimprove}} templates for years. But no one is actively working on these articles. The fact is that we simply don't have enough editors to try to fix everything. Fortunately, we don't don't have a deadline.

A common practice is to 'draw a line' in the sand as far as new content goes. So if someone adds something new to the article without a source, I'll usually try to find a source and add it myself. If I can't find one, I'll add a {{FACT}} tag to it. If, after a few months or year or whatever, no one has added a source, I'll remove the statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles". No, this is incorrect. WP:V only requires that material be capable of being sourced, not that it be sourced. IOW, verifiable is not the same thing as being verified. For example, if I were to write that '"Germany is a nation in Europe", the only requirement is that a source exist somewhere in the world that supports this material. I don't need to necessarily need to cite it because it extremely unlikely to be challenged. If someone is blanking material simply for not being cited, I would explain to them the difference being verifable and verified. Ask them which material in particular they think is actually wrong and why. If they can't actually indentify which material is wrong and why, it sounds like the editor is being WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If they cannot be reasoned with, I would report them to WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V requires that ""all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". If the content had previously been tagged by somebody else, I think that's a pretty clear challenge. Hypothetically, if anybody were deleting really obvious stuff like "Germany is a country in Europe" or "The sky is blue", that would be disruptive, but it's unlikely that the deletion is of such extremely obvious content. Hard to say without more case detail - who is deleting what?

Requiring a would-be deleter to demonstrate that content seems wrong is, I think, putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. We can't build a high-quality encyclopædia by giving a free pass to any content which passes a "meh, it looks plausible" test. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of articles have {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} templates. That doesn't mean that anything specifically is wrong. If there's a particular issue with material, then the {{verify source}} can be used. If someone is deleting out unsourced but valid material soley for the lack of sources, they they either don't understand our policy on verifiability and/or are being disruptive. As for burden of proof, see WP:PRESERVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We still seem to be arguing about subtly different things (for instance, I had in mind things like cn tags rather than a whole-article tag). I would like to emphasise, again, that it's difficult to have a detailed discussion without knowing the details of the case.

As an aside, WP:V contains neither the words "capable" nor "verifiable". If we're going to haggle over policy detail, I think it's best to stick to wording that's actually in the policy. For instance, "that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". That's good, clear wording and I cannot fathom how somebody might conclude that it's "incorrect'" to remove unsourced content. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I was responding to the original question which was about "Full stripping of unsourced articles".
2. Sorry, I guess I should have used the term "verifiability" rather than "verifiable". Either way, my point's the same.
3. You need to read the entire policy as a whole. I see this a lot, editors inadvertently focusing on a couple of select phrases while missing the big picture. To put a fine point on it: Only material that has been challenged (or is likely to be challenged) actually require cites. If you find material that is both unsourced and you honestly believe is wrong, that's one thing. But challenging material simply for the sake of challenging is WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE and that's what the OP seems to be about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you're right that verifiable doesn't appear in the policy. The reason for this is that the word was changed to attributable as part of a (failed) attempt to merge WP:V and NOR into a single policy called WP:Attribution.

But Quest is 100% right: the policy requires that it be possible to supply a citation. That is the plain meaning of the -able suffix, and it is the meaning that the community uses. The policy does not require that anyone have already typed up the name of the source into the article. And the only community-approved solution to the presence of verifiable encyclopedic material that is one of the four types that must have an inline citation is to boldly add the citations yourself, not to delete it on the grounds that the other editor didn't get it perfect on the first try. (Non-encyclopedic material, such as errors and trivia, should be cleaned up in compliance with the last half of PRESERVE, which is titled "Problems that may justify removal".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no cut and dried solution to dealing with an article that is virtually unsourced. One thing I advise is checking for copyvio - quite a few of these are just lifted from elsewhere. Checking isn't necessarily easy so you have to be careful you aren't looking at a copy of the article. If there's no obvious copyvio problem, then a general template may be the first step. If you are at all familiar with the material you may find some unsourceable stuff, or obvious OR or pov - not unusual in unsourced articles, but that's a different issue also. I try to add a couple of sources if it looks easy to do so and I'm interested in the article. Then there's the time scale. If the article looks like a real problem, 6 months, let alone a year, may be too long and I see no problem in removing anything obviously dubious earlier - but only if you try to source it first and fail. Having said all that, there are times (not many) when the best thing to do is turn it into a stub almost immediately (but do try to ask at an appropriate Wikiproject if there is one, or if others have edited it recently, definitely discuss it with them). Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your responses. Span (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For non-copyvio, non-libelous, purely unsourced-but-sourceable material, don't forget a full reading of WP:BURDEN which lays responsibility at the adding editor's feet, but also advises it has always been good practice [for a deleting editor] to try to find sources. In other words, no rampaging without good faith effort at sourcing. This is a hard pill for many eager deleters to swallow. --Lexein (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. supporters

I wonder if we could have opinion on some sources used on this page, where it has been suggested the editing has been too "fanzine like" and has some sources open to question.

1/ Glasgow based Celtic have developed a strong fan base since their foundation in 1888. No source. Is that acceptable?

2/ However, since then Celtic have developed new fan bases in; South Korea, Honduras, Mexico, Kenya and most significantly Japan where an estimated 7 million people support Celtic.[4] This means Celtic have a global fan base of over double the population of Scotland. No source for South Korea or Mexico. Honduras source comes from an agent brokering a deal to take a Honduran player to Celtic. [3].Kenya source comes directly from Celtic FC [4]. Japan source comes from a sports marketing company - not sure what there relationship to Celtic is [5]

3/ in June 2011, new signing Adam Matthews, who had been linked with Arsenal and Manchester United, described Celtic as being "the second most supported team in the world" The statement that Celtic are the second most supported club in the world comes from a player signing for Celtic. Is that good enough? [6]

4/ Celtic have become very popular in Nairobi ... The Celtic jersey is now the most popular in Nairobi, outselling the likes of Man U and Arsenal. The source for this is again the club, i.e. Celtic. Is that acceptable. [7]

5/ Noel Gallagher AND Liam Gallagher are listed as Celtic Fans. The brothers are in fact fanatical Man City fans, but a reference says they have a "soft spot" for Celtic. Is that good enough? [8]

General comments on this page would also be helpful. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's precisely the kind of unhelpful comment we can do without. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the page maybe could take a leaf out of the Arsenal F.C. supporters page book? I do agree that it is very fanzine-like in favour of Celtic and has no mention of some of their less than savoury actions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Mattun--none of the things you listed can count as reliable sources, and all the information relying on it should be removed. Claims such as are made in item 1, unsourced, cannot stand either. Thank you for bringing this to the general public's attention. You'll have noticed, no doubt, that this board receives very little traffic, unfortunately--I wish it were different, but I hope that some more editors will weigh in. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Observer article about My Little Pony's 4chan presence

LaMarche, Una (2011-08-03). "Pony Up Haters: How 4chan Gave Birth to the Bronies". New York Observer. Retrieved 2011-08-03.

Noted in the Friendship is Magic talk page, the Observer article consists of interviews of a few convention-goers who misquote Know Your Meme. The article has seems to have no editorial oversight and contains obvious factual mistakes. It is used to cite the firing of a moderator from 4chan, but there are no reliable sources for this claim, and I feel the article itself is unreliable because of its many mistakes. -IsaacAA (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't question that the article is basing a lot of facts on what the writer likely got directly from fans. It is the fans' estimates in timing and numbers that are certainly off from what I know to be true but can't source directly. But that said, the use of the NP article within the WP article does not cite any of the questionable figures, and instead primarily used to detail the events (not the exact timing) that did take place at 4chan which did correctly get reported by the fans and correlate not only what I know is correct but at least 2 other sources. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Know Your Meme is an unreliable source to start. They may have editors improving the various meme articles, but they're not 100% infallible, and users are still free to add info w/o oversight. So saying that the fans are misquoting KYM may actually be more that both fans and KYM may have different facts in their head about how the numbers work. More reason not to try to work in the exact numbers but stay with the parts that are consistent. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason the article is unreliable is because it relies on people apparently quoting KYM. It would be very helpful to have a reliable source about the alleged firing of the moderator by Poole. -IsaacAA (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The source usage in the article as it is right now [9] looks ok to me. Details like exact dates or related firings seems like material that could be skipped anyway. A Wikipedia article should provide a summary overview on a topic. It doesn't need to include every turn of an event, just outline the broad strokes. You could make the sourcing issues clearer to readers by in text attribution, ie that the 4chan events are described by fans from their point of view of how events unfolded. Siawase (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -IsaacAA (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives

There's one of those standard "sources say" reports on various sites that the TV show Desperate Housewives will end after the upcoming season. ABC is supposedly making an announcement Sunday. I would think that this is a matter where encyclopedic values would call for us to wait until the announcement, or at least until someone with actual knowledge says this on the record. This isn't exactly an earthshaking matter that we need to urgently stay on top of in real time, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, who's the source? Are you referring to the Deadline Hollywood source cited at the end of the Lead? I believe Deadline is considered a reliable source. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sovereign Independent

Is this site reliable for this addition to the Zeitgeist: The Movie article? In addition, another editor pointed out that it features articles like this, and I myself became a bit suspicious by the tone of their About Us page. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the other editor, and it looks like a conspiracy website, carrying 9/11 truth material. I'd say it's not RS - something which Nightscream has already decided, given that he's deleted the material added sourced to Sovereign Independent. Obviously, I support that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look reliable to me. I note that the web site devotes itself to the kinds of things mainstream sources refuse to print, which should set off alarm bells right away. Also, the article is written as an editorial. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Vsevolod, I had not removed it, I just summarized it. I did, however, just remove just now. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes - sorry, my mistake - I was going by edit summaries. (And btw, thanks for signing for me a day or so ago...(>_<)...)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

James Naismith

Hello. My name is Joel Templeton. I have just received some news on my family tree that James Naismith(he would have been her uncle)was related to my Great grandmother Mrs. Peter Templeton. The Templeton side of my family came from Scotland, then to Canada, then some came to Wisconsin(that's where I'm from). Any information regarding this is helpful and appreciated. Thanks. Joel Templeton

Welcome to Wikipedia, Joel. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is for examining whether sources that editors ask about here are reliable enough to be used under the WP:IRS policy. It is not a resource for answering miscellaneous questions. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk for that. Good luck! :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail in race-related matters

I have edited an article about Anjem Choudary, I included some detail from the Daily Mail, another editor on the article talk page Talk:Anjem_Choudary insists the Daily cannot be used. Is the Daily Mail an acceptable source on wikipedia? Other editor is reverting claiming justification under BLP that Daily Mail cannot be used --Hemshaw (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the article being used, and to support what content? Generally, it is my present view that the Daily Mail is a reliable source; it is published, and has editorial oversight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Mail is published, and yes, has editorial oversight. It also has a reputation for making crap up. A tabloid newspaper, with pretensions to be otherwise. I'd be very wary of using it as a source for anything contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article states that the publication is the second most purchased paper in th UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no automatic correlation between popularity and truth. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope opposition to this source is not because the paper is right of center, as indiciated in the wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also per the article Tabloid, the meaning is meant for the size of the paper used. How does that impact the reliability of the content? The tabloid article list the Chicago Sun-Times and the San Francisco Examiner as prominent tabloids in the United States. Does this mean that their content is less then reliable? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an intersting word. It has two distinct, but historically connected meanings. The second sentence of the lead of Tabloid says ""tabloid journalism", which tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, and TV and celebrity gossip is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers". That's what's being discussed here, a greater interest in popular (not necessarily accurate) content, rather than factual, in depth news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid is frequently shorthand for a paper that reports on stuff we don't consider important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So this example is something that "we don't consider important"? Sure the way it is presented maybe be more glammed up, but that doesn't mean that within it isn't some useful information that can be used to support content within a wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If something is 'important', it will also be reported in sources with a better reputation for objectivity. Why use a tabloid (in the 'sensationalist' sense) when you can find better ones? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting that example. I have big problems even with the headline, especially the first and fourth words. It unnecessarily sensationalises stuff. I also wonder what the third paragraph (and do note the tabloid rule that one paragraph equals one sentence) has to do with this item as news. It provides added colour, but is also blatantly guiding the reader in how to think about this. It's a lot more than news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage supported is "When younger he was known as 'Andy' and was proud of his Pakistani origin".[10] I would question whether a newspaper, especially one that is middle market, is a good source for a WP:BLP for events that happened thirty years ago. And something that does not make the quality papers is probably not weighty enough for inclusion. TFD (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, here is the 'Daily Mail' source being cited: [11]. Rabble-rousing bigotry of the worst sort, full of weasel-words and insinuations - so entirely consistant with the Daily Mail's usual standards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, swilling and leering are not really objective words. I also love the line "He also mixed with hook-handed demagogue Abu Hamza..." That's a gem, straight out of the tabloid journalism textbook. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the Daily Mail is right-wing; you'd get few left-wing British wikipedians seriously challenging The Times as RS. It's that the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid, whatever else its pretentions might be. Best to be avoided if at all possible.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers. The claim that it has more libel cases than other papers is inaccurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's reliable. Like I said, editors wish it wasn't, because it covers subjects they don't feel worthy of an encyclopedia. That said, it is sensationalist, and shouldn't be used for controversial BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine, you seem to be saying some people don't like it because it covers sensationalist topics, which you yourself admit it doesn't cover so reliably.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Peregrine Fisher's point is that the Daily Mail falls under our policy as a reliable source, but that it is also sensationalist. As such we should not use it for BLPs for anything that is controversially. I agree with that, and I agree with Andy the Grump evaluation of this particular article. I note that the article contains a wide variety of statements that are inflammatory and the tone is very far from objective. For the purposes suggested by the OP, I think this article does not meet our standards of reliability, and we shouldn't use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the approach we should be taking. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail where it comes to anything contentious about BLPs and even more so if we can't find a reliable source saying the same thing. (I'll also note that I wouldn't trust some of its stuff on Atlantis, etc either, someone there seems in love with that sort of cult archaeology stuff). There are times even with the most reliable sources that we have to take a more finely grained approach and focus on a specific article or writer. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mail doesn't make everything up, of course. It's just that if you can't source something controversial in the Mail to somewhere better, you should always be a little concerned, especially where it concerns immigration or science.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Second most purchased paper in the UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content." Ha! You clearly don't read the Daily Mail or live in the UK. Span (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a very good source for what the Daily Mail has said and that is about it. Even then, its notability is debatable if it doesn't appear anywhere else. To reiterate a point made above, very few Wikipedia editors will argue against quality right wing British Newspapers like the Times and the Daily Telegraph, who tend to check facts and separate leaders and columns from news. The Mail may stay the right side of the law and the now obviously flawed watchdogs most of the time, but their position on race and other issues is well known. For the benefit of US editors it is usually said that in the US newspapers strive for neutrality and TV news is often partisan and that in the UK it is the other way around (not entirely true but it is useful), so imagine the Daily Mail as having the same veracity as say an opinion piece on Fox News. Although that may be unfair to Fox.--SabreBD (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope the above statement by Spanglej is not a personal attack, for now I shall assume good faith.

Perusing these page particularly, I have seen multiple attacks against Fox News, and Wall Street Journal, and other right of center leaning in their opinion content, stating that they are not reliable sources within their news content. Those attacks very much are, IMHO, part of IDONTLIKEIT.

Imagine if editors were out to say that the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and New York Times were not reliable sources because their commentary/editorial content were left of center. The community would not stand for it; so it shocks me when it is allowed to continue against right of center reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for this board is to determine a consensus of editors whether a source is a reliable source. One does not need to source whether a source is a reliable source. Here we are to look at a source, match it up against the guideline of what makes up a reliable source, and form the consensus.

Would it matter if Blog X had hundreds of other blogs saying that it is a reliable source, or one strongly political leaning journalism professor?

No, not really.

That being said, on contentious BLP articles it's always best to find multiple reliable sources on contentious content. Therefore, the question that should be raised in the article in question's talk page is, is the content supported by more than one reliable source, that isn't a reproduction of the same source (i.e. multiple papers posting an AP article)?

If the answer is yes, then it should be kept; if the answer is no, then per BLP the content should be flagged, or removed until it can otherwise be supported by multiple reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are merely asserting that the Mail meets WP:RS? Fair enough, that is your opinion - which seems to be in the minority here. The material being cited is contentious, and the reliability of the source is questionable. WP:BLP policy is clear - in such circumstances, the material should not be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, I can't help but notice that you seem to be making an issue of whether a source leans right or left. POV of a source is not generally an issue of reliability, as it is expected that source will have a point of view. People sometime try to make an issue of it in the case of Fox, WSJ, or NPR, but those arguments generally bear little weight outside of those areas in source that are opinion pieces, and in those cases generally the problem is solved by attribution. In BLPs the bar for reliability of sources is very high, and in this case the article in the Daily Mail simply does not meet that bar, at least in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. The language of the article in question is clearly inflammatory, and thus inappropriate for a BLP. If the information is truly important, it will have been covered in other sources, and I suggest you hunt such down. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand BLP policy, and please re-read my last posting. I stated quiet clearly, that per BLP policy that contentious content should be supported by multiple reliable sources to ensure accuracy.

That does not mean that the Daily Mail is any less a reliable sources even if the wording is inflammatory or sensationalized; even if this opinion is in the minority.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Mail website. WP's Daily Mail article shows a recent front page. My attempts to view nationalenquirer.com in the usual way are greeted with the retort from 209.81.89.177 that "The content of this website is not available in your area", but I can read its headlines this way; it's closer to the Mail than is the New York or even the London Times. Yes, the Mail does energetically pursue such issues of our times as which celeb is dating which other celeb, and which hairstyles they are sporting, and which swimsuits they have worn where; for all I know, it may be a reliable source for this area. However, for celeb-unrelated matters, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that in this particular area (race/immigration) the Mail has been shown to pervert its sources to suit its political ideals, so it should not be considered a reliable source for this type of reporting. Since the tidbit in the article in question is precisely one of this kind, it follows that another, less politically biased source must be found. (And heaven forbid we cite any of their columnists as sources of facts, see Melanie Phillips, for a sample). FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is perfectly fine for factual matters. I know some "dontlikeit" but the fact is that the number of libel suits against it is similar to the other UK papers -- even The Times errs. As for adjectives used? All the UK papers use stronger adjectives than Wikipedia likes. Opinion columns should be treated like opinion columns from any source, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Mail is not 'fine for factual matters'. They frequently report things as facts that aren't. Hoary has already linked this [12]. Have you read it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. It depends a lot what the facts are about. See the article in New Statesman linked by Hoary at the end of his post above for some shocking examples of "fact reporting" in the Mail in the area of immigration. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not directly related to the area under discussion at hand here, but the Mail's Phillips on evolution: "For many, the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far -- not least because, by the standards science itself sets, it fails the test of evidence. It is merely a theory. To go even further, as some scientists do, and make the leap from evolutionary theory to the claim that this somehow explains the origin of life itself clearly fails the test of logic. [...] Scientific knowledge may have dealt a serious blow to religious belief, but science does not fill the gaps in our understanding of existence. It does not explain the irreducible complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together." Note the "subtle" writing that starts with "For many" but then 99% endorses that view, leaving 1% for plausible deniability of merely being "journalistic" reporting of others' ideas. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard

The article in question now quotes only the Evening Standard for the questionable stuff. At the time of the article this was a struggling tabloid that belonged to the same Daily Mail and General Trust, sold for £1 to Lebedev soon thereafter. It does not strike me as more reliable that the Mail itself for this story. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Ironically, the only non-tabloid source here is Johann Hari's quote in the Independent. But then, he's not exactly squeaky clean either, being known for changing quotes from his interviewees. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And the concern is less than theoretical. One of Hari's other terrorism-wannabe interviewees complained about it: [13]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pambazuka News

Pambazuka News, published by Fahamu since 2000, is a pan-African electronic weekly newsletter and platform for social justice in Africa providing: contemporary commentary and in-depth analysis on politics and current affairs development, human rights, refugees, gender issues and culture in Africa. It is designed to be a tool for progressive social change.

Can this source be used reliably to establish that a blogger is notable enough to have their views included on Wikipedia? User:Halaqah claims it can. Shii (tock) 08:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This editor, skipping the talk page has a Specific issue with a specific comment from a person more than qualified to make the statement. the section refers to an opinion which years ago we (who edit the article for years and are very familiar with the history or Africa and the opinions and scholars). balanced this section by representing a controversy with the topic. I have seen nothing writing on the Arab slave trade cite that makes it false history, unreliable history, junk, unscholarly, fiction, or unreliable. two source, one of them the no2 website on Arab slave trade (after Wikipedia)Google rank] is not a blog and our personal hatred of different views does not make something trash to be deleted at whim. In this article the quality of other references are far lower yet only this specific comment is targeted by this new editor to a page I have worked on for over 5 years. Pambazuka News is a well respected African based opinion on many matters, as opinions go why are African opinions not coming from BBC and CNN all of a sudden RS issue? RS has become a place to throw out anything from a minority news group.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an international spam factory as far as I can tell. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Span (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it is good enough all across wiki, and as i said there are TWO references. And no it is not a SPam factory, I think beyond personal views you will have to prove that it is. BBC on Fahmu [BBC Fahmu] and here is another reference to them as a credible info source. [Al Jazerra Pambazuka ] So how is this a bloggers site? And here is ALL AFRICA All Africa on Fahmu] so please prove it is a bloggers site and unreliable for an opinion made by an author on Fahmu who is a UNESCO winner for work on slavery. Now All Africa who is reliable beyond doubt, saw the article suitable enough in quality to republish it [All Africa republishing article]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That All Africa link is just a repost of material from Pambazuka News. Shii (tock) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, now why would they do that if it was a BLOG? Does a credible news agency repost blogs? I dont think so. One of the biggest new agency on Africa saw it news worthy, notable in content from a author who seems to know the topic (as i have seen no junk or false history in any of the arab slave trade, to reprint it in their journal which i subscribe to. And republishing is common with news groups who get sources from other credible sources--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lonely Planet

Is there a reason to consider Lonely Planet guides questionable sources? (See this edit's summary.)  --Lambiam 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that for the material being cited (the meaning of the Armenian word Kaçkar), they would necessarily be seen as reliable. Travel guide writers aren't necessarily experts in the languages of the area they describe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Lonely Planet reference. In fact, we do not need an English language source for a simple translation. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Armenian can confirm that "Խաչ քար" means "cross stone". In general, there is no requirement that we use English language sources – it would create an unacceptable systematic bias. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. – In fact I have undone all of Kuzanov (talk · contribs)'s edits here and on the Georgian Wikipedia. This does not seem to be about sources but about some kind of ethnic pov-pushing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, how well do you speak and read Armenian? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask. Is there some text you would like me to translate? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, some of us don't have an 'elementary understanding' of how to write Kaçkar as "Խաչ քար". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a more relevant point. The article claims – now supported by the Lonely Planet source – that the Turkish name of the mountains, "Kaçkar" is derived from the Armenian name "Khachkar" (Խաչքար). This requires more than language skills, but I believe we can trust Lonely Planet on this part of the etymology. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

MarksFriggin.com

Can this site be considered reliable for paraphrasing and quotes of Howard Stern and guests on the Howard Stern Radio Show? It summarizes shows daily, it's commercial, so accuracy is in Mark Mercer's interest, Stern expressed approval of it as "a rundown of the show that is absolutely staggering", "it's almost a transcript" on January 25, 2006, and it has been cited by several news publications and listed (minorly) in two books. --Lexein (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Still looking for an assessment. Thanks.--Lexein (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, since it's clearly a fan site. Where do we need quotes from Stern's show? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes news post used as source in Big Boi article

A Tiny Mix Tapes post (http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/big-boi-names-his-next-solo-album-daddy-fat-sax-honor-great-service-he-received-white-castle) is used as the source for a section of the Big Boi article on Wikipedia, purportedly explaining the title of his upcoming album "Daddy Fat Sax: Soul Funk Crusader." The section in question:

"The album's title originates from when Big Boi and André 3000 would visit a local White Castle in between recording/writing in their earlier years before ATLiens (1996), because of an employee known as Daddy Fat Sacks, for his habit of including multiple extra sliders in every 10-sack that they purchased, as he was a fan of their music.[8] Upon hearing of his death after visiting the same location after completing Sir Lucious Left Foot, Big Boi decided to name his follow-up solo album after Daddy Fat Sacks, but intended to use "Sax" instead of "Sacks" as he is "planning on a doing a bunch of sax samples, tenor, soprano, and probably have at least a couple sax players come into the studio for the next record".[8]"

From the humorous tone of the article ("...Daddy Fat Sacks had passed away in a horrible chicken-ring accident. Distraught, Big Boi bought 50 sliders and returned home, where, after eating 30 burgers in one grief-fueled sitting..."), lack of any sources elsewhere online to corroborate this information, and TMT's established penchant for inserting bizarre, humorous anecdotes into their news stories (further reading: http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/david-bowie-says-buy-station-station-again-and-ill-bring-back-tin-machine, http://www.tinymixtapes.com/news/doom-heads-europe-little-tapas-brings-ghostface-london-get-fishscale-and-chips), I think it is safe to infer that this is not a reliable source.

Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable music webzine. It's been accepted by Metacritic as a review source, and I can cite one example in which it's been accepted in a discussion regarding its reliability (WP:Peer review/May 2008#Ghosts I-IV) As that discussion pointed out, 3rd party sources have referenced Tiny Mix Tapes as a source of information ([14]). Also, the article in question is from their interview with Big Boi, and since other sources have mentioned the White Castle bit ([15], [16]), what other doubt could there be about this article? Dan56 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

problematic source

This subject is of a controversial nature. John Corapi is a Roman Catholic priest, but more of a televangelist personality. Over the years he has made some grandiose claims such as being able to bench press 400+ pounds as a teenager in the 1960s, holding a black belt in karate, being a Golden Gloves Boxer while in High School, serving as a Green Beret in Vietnam, being an accountant, millionaire, drug addict, etc. Most of the claims are trivial and easily debunked as there are no reliable sources. For example, he is not listed by the Golden Gloves Association and the nearest venue where he could have participated was 100+ miles either way. However, his actual Army service record shows no Special Forces training, no helicopter crash, no Vietnam service, etc. The Army has no record of any Special Forces Team being "completely wiped out", either. Yet, Corapi gave an interview to an author including these claims and more (visions of the Virgin Mary, Mother Theresa asking him to speak instead of her, being ordained by the Pope, etc.). Are we to write falsehoods as truth because the source is "reliable"? The work is not particularly scholarly and contains no footnotes or end notes or any other sources. The main focus of the book is a medical malpractice lawsuit with which Corapi was involved. My instinct says, use it to source the specifics of the lawsuit, but not the fantasies that the author repeated without fact-checking. Am I off base here?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Mike, you mention a particular book. What is the name of the book? Who is the author? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My, bad. The book is Coronary by Stephen Klaidman: Stephen Klaidman (2008). Coronary. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9780743267557.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Johannes von Ronge

I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on Johannes von Ronge has his name wrong according to every source I can find that hasn't scraped its information from WP. See, for example, many sources from Google Books: [17]. See also all the entries in Worldcat: [18]. According to all those sources, his name is Ronge, not Von Ronge, and there is no umlaut over the o. The German Wikipedia also has him listed as Johannes Ronge. It appears that there have been several attempts to fix this, to no avail. Can someone provide some guidance here and make a definitive determination as to his correct name, and if it's currently incorrect, provide a fix? TIA 75.13.69.146 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly a determined attempt to make this fellow into Johannes von Rönge, and a parallel attempt to make his wife into Berthe von Rönge. Berthe suffers from lesser notability and so it is difficult to find sources with a correct name. All the reliable sources I found call her husband Johannes Ronge. All these articles sources have been removed in the current version. This includes several two encyclopedia articles available in Wikisource. His brother-in-law Carl Schurz calls him Johannes Ronge when he writes about him. This remake effort even extends to fabrications in Wikisource. When I checked the sources for the Whittier and Rossetti poems there, they both called him Johannes Ronge, in one case this source was an original manuscript. I corrected the article, maybe twice, and fixed Wikisource once. I don't plan to make another attempt. I appreciate the attention the problem is getting. From my point of view, this is just sophisticated vandalism. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 8 and 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt

Another editor recently added the following sentence to the article on Mein Kampf in the Arabic language: "Regarding the Arabic version of the book, an employee of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house said, 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd.'" The source they cited was this AFP article from 2007. The issue I have is that it isn't clear to me that the employee quoted in the source is talking about Mein Kampf itself, or the fair more broadly. The relevant passage from the source is: "The fair also has its darker sides, with anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion and of course plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' for sale. 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd,' said Mahmud Abdallah of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house." That publishing house does publish Mein Kampf, but the word "It" (in "It makes up a big part...") is grammatically ambiguous IMO, as the employee could be talking about Mein Kampf, or they could be talking about the fair itself.

So, my question is whether or not that AFP article is reliable for saying that the employee of the Dar al-Kitab publishing house was saying that the Arabic version of Mein Kampf is "a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd." Thanks. ← George ^talk 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page over there, the writer sandwiched the quote in between lines about Mein Kampf. It is more than reasonable to read "it" as "Mein Kampf" in this scenario.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A mention of our "Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt" debate here may well be helpful to bring in the recourses of other editors. However I would prefer not to continue the debate over two forums. So I would respectfully suggest we invite interested parties to join us on the relevant talk page and move on from there. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Article in Malayala Manorama

Citation used: Malayala Manorama, P. Kishore (25 July 2011). "IT Growth Slows". Retrieved 25 July 2011.

Article: Technopark, Trivandrum

Statement: As of financial year 2010-11, Technopark accounts for about 47% of IT exports from Kerala.

Talk page: Talk:Technopark,_Trivandrum#Reliability_of_Newspaper_Report_as_Reference

Malayala Manorama is the highest circulated regional language newspaper, with more than 19 lakh copies a day, with edition from all major cities in Kerala and major metros Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and also Baharain and Dubai. The article in question is a researched article by their business editor, and gives precise numbers.

Is it a reliable reference? DileepKS(talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A regional news paper report can be used for reference in wikipedia articles. However if there is a better reference, we should not stick on the newspaper reports. Here in the article in question, we have OFFICIAL REPORT from GOVERNMENT PLANNING BOARD. Hence need not use a regional newspaper reference. Also, the 2011 export figures are not announced by the government yet. The regional newspaper might have speculated the figures from uncites sources. So, need not rely on regional newpaper since an official report is available. And wait till the government announces the IT exports for 2011.
Please see the figures reported by various news papers. Even a newspaper "Hindu" is contradicting with "Hindu business".

Publication	Dated	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010
The Hindu	Aug 17, 2010	1,387.8 crore	2,192.26 crore	2,412 crore
Times of India	Nov 3, 2009		1,853 crore
Hindu Business Line	Jun 24, 2008	1,568 crore
Thaindian - report from IANS	March 27, 2009	1,750 crore
Kaumudi online	Oct 22, 2010			2,930 crore

Even the report from Hindu (the reference you provided) is not matching with the IT exports published by Kerala IT mission.

Publication	Technopark: 2007-2008	Infopark: 2007-2008
The Hindu	896.75 cr	247.05 cr
IT mission	1,200 cr	368.55 cr

Since we have the information from Kerala Planning board, which says 75% of the software exports of the state is from Technopark, why are you insisting to go with inconsistent newspaper reports? The report from the government planning board supersedes all news paper reports. I hope you too concur and go in harmony with this. --Samaleks (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for violence in Bihar, India

The following is a paragraph from Yadav

Bindeshwar Pathak wrote in 1992 of "the violence that has now become an existential reality in Bihar", much of which has centred on issues regarding land and has pitted caste against caste. The roots of this violence can be traced to around 1970. There have been numerous massacres on both sides and it has become politicised by the involvement of Naxalite groups. Yadav landowners have been involved in this violence and have, for example, been assisted by Maoist groups in their caste war against the Rajputs. Suruchi Thapar-Bjorkert has said that "[with the rise of] backward-caste leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav, caste has entered into the legitimate domain of mainstream politics", and quotes Arvind Narayan Das, who believes that "they feel that they rule Bihar as a caste, [with] even the weakest Yadav flexing muscle physically and metaphorically."

MangoWong keeps removing it from the article on the grounds, amongst other things, that the sources are not RS. To make those sources easier to pick out, they are:

• Ghosh, Srikanta (2000). Bihar in flames. APH Publishing. pp. 4, 9. ISBN 9788176481601.
• Pathak, Bindeshwar (1992). Rural violence in India. Concept. pp. 59–60, 67, 98. ISBN 9788170223191.
• Thapar-Bjorkert, Suruchi (2006). "Killing Fields". In Yuval-Davis, Nira; Kannabirān, Kalpana; Vieten, Ulrike (eds.). The situated politics of belonging. Sage studies in international sociology. Vol. 55. SAGE. p. 142. ISBN 9781412921015.

The Das quote also appears in this book, although I have been unable to locate Das's original book (it is on p. 506 of a work written by him and published in 2000 but I cannot find that work at GBooks).

There are at least two recent talk page threads regarding this, here and here. Only the latter of those raises the RS issue

I am fed up of arguing about RS with MangoWong and so am bringing it to the wider community. I am afraid that there are likely to be a lot more of them coming here. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that Sitush could have made an effort to defend his/her sources on the article talk page before bringing it here. All of these sources look off topic for the Yadav aricle, and the material looks all cherry picked and an exercise in giant generalizations from individual incidents. I had tried to get Sitush around to defending his/her sources and material, but find myself here now. If someone is going to bring things here before defending them on the article talk page....-MangoWong (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a dispute about the reliability of any individual source (most of the sources cited state the opinion of their authors and are automatically reliable for that), but a WP:SYNT or WP:UNDUE dispute. Wrong noticeboard for that issue. Frankly, something like WP:INDIA can probably help you more, because most other Wikipedians have no idea whether such-and-such Indian is worth citing in that article or not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Steele

MangoWong recently removed a fair amount of content from Edgar Steele in this series of edits. Much of it relates to claimed unreliability of the website of The Spokesman-Review. I raised the matter on their talkpage here, as a subsidiary point to something else. Is The Spokesman-Review RS? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. There's a paper edition and editorial staff, appears to be reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The links are dead now, but that's not a reason to remove them. MangoWong did not seem to have removed any text, only footnotes in that diff. Btw, The Spokesman-Review has an article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked three of the spokeman links, none were dead, but one was malformed. I agree, however, that that removing a deadlink is not the best practice, better to tag it a such and give others a chance to fix them, if you cannot yourself. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks. I can fix deadlinks etc but there is so much flak flying around regarding MW that I thought it best to get some sort of input on their claim of the paper being a dubious source before taking things any further. I have quite a long list of problematic edits to go through, unfortunately, and am likely to be pestering various noticeboards in order to deflect warring etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)