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

Is Flickr a reliable source as to photo contents

This photo was taken on October 25, 2007 in Lilongwe, Lilongwe, Malawi.

Commons has a photo that was downloaded from flickr. The photo shows people standing in a posed group in normal street clothing. The flickr page claims it is a netball team in Malawi, but the person who uploaded the photo to flickr is not the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it to Commons. Is flickr a reliable source for the fact that this is not some other group of people? This situation will come up many times in the future. Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, flickr is not a reliable source. Is the picture being used to illustrate or verify? For some reason, Wikipedia has adopted lower standards for the reliability of illustrations. See Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken" Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The original flikr photographer describes it as the netball team and the commons upload reflects the original information. So as a reliable source to what the photographer thought he took then I dont see a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How do we know who the original photographer is or whether they misdescribed a photo. Most photos are subject to verification. Somebody will recognize a political figure or a geographical feature. I think that a group of people standing together raises special concerns. I could take a random photo and claim it is the winning group of the 2007 hog calling contest and there is no way for anyone to verify my claim. How do we know whether there was a 2007 hog calling contest or a Malawi netball team? Racepacket (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus(talk) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't, but we wouldn't know it with a Commons editor misdescribing it either. One needs to apply a measure of common sense, in many cases pictures are working fine as illustration and you can be relatively certain that the description is correct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it count as WP:SPS since, you know, anyone can upload whatever they want to and claim that it is what they they think it is? Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My immediate response was "no", but as noted the standard is "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". The publisher is contactable on flickr, the date, time, and place of the photon is given, so it's theoretically verifiable, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt his description. The publisher of a photo would be an RS for the content of the photo. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that flickr is not a reliable source, but a self-published one, and hence reliably only to the extent that individual contributors are. However, reliable sources are not required for illustrations, so the question is moot. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that this photograph is useful for the purpose for which it is being used (to illustrate articles about Netball and Netball in Africa). As Insider mentions above, the standard is that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". The women in this photo aren't dressed in netball uniforms, nor are they playing netball or standing on or near a netball court. All that connects them to netball is the original photo caption that claims they are a netball team. Suppose, on the other hand, that we were editing the article about American football for the Wikipedia edition in some African language. If we had a photo of the Green Bay Packers standing in an auditorium, not wearing their football uniforms but wearing business suits, and some of them holding their young children, would we consider that a useful photograph to illustrate American football even if we could be sure that the players really were the Green Bay Packers? I hope not, because such a photo wouldn't "look like what it was meant to illustrate," namely, a football team. By contrast, a picture of Adam Sandler and his fictional teammates playing football in the movie The Waterboy might actually be a better choice to illustrate the article, because at least it would look like it had to do with American football, even though it didn't depict a real team playing a real game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well I think that that is cogent, Metropolitan90. We do allow more leeway for illustrations. We would allow, for instance, a editor to upload an original-work drawing of (his conception of) a netball team. But I would say that if an illustration is challenged then its incumbent on the person providing the illustration to show that it's an accurately representative picture. One way this could be done would be to provide links to unfree images on other sites. If the person defending the image can point to images on sites X, Y, and Z and say "See? These other netball teams pose in this way, it is a common way for netball teams to present themselves" or something, then fine. Absent that, remove the picture. (And it is up to the person providing or defending the picture to come up with verifying information). Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it is a question of credibility. When I upload a photo to Wikipedia, I know it is supposed to be serious and earnest. However, when someone uploads a photo with caption to flickr, it can be tonge in cheek or a practical joke intended for a limited audience. How does Wikipedia know that the flickr caption was written in good faith? Racepacket (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, but is there really a big difference to an IP or some new user uploading something to Commons. Considering that WP is constantly plagued by joksters (being interested in anything but serious work) I'd expect Commons to be affected by that to some degree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, given your recent and acrimonious history with the uploader of this image, I think you are probably the least suitable person possible to be raising this issue. It could be interpreted as bad-faith hounding. I also note that you failed to notify the editor in question of this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Kmhkmh; your argument is FUD and NIH rolled into one. User contributed content from any project (inc. our own) needs to be carefully considered. In the case of this netball image, the bona fides of the Flickr uploader is only a few clicks away, if you had bothered to look. And this is intentional harassment to boot. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am discussing the general problem which I noted "will come up many times in the future." I have no antimosity toward anyone, but rather want to get guidance on the correct answer from a consensus of disinterested editors. The uploader to commons is aware of this discussion. However, in this photo we have several different issues. 1) The authenticity of the photo, for which the standards are low and have clearly been met. 2) The copyright license, for which we trust flickr and take on face value. 3) The relevance of the photo to a particular article where the above discussion about "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" is on point. Finally, 4) the sourcing of the photo caption in a particular article, which is governed by WP:RS. If a photo is reprinted in a reliable source with a caption, or is discussed in a reliable source, then we can clearly say that our Wikipedia caption is sourced. But if a photo of a group of people standing in street clothes is captioned "1982 Oakton High School Pep Band" can our only source be the file name or flickr title? Racepacket (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If the caption asserts something then it is open to challenge. "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything; only quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material." Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not quite the standard for illustrations as pointed out above, only for images used as sources for facts. Illustrations can be removed as simply wrong or inappropriate or misleading or any number of reasons like that but not just because they aren't backed up by a reliable source, if they look okay and aren't shown to be wrong they're okay. A caption that says 'The Lilongwe netball team' is perfectly okay if there's no indication it may be wrong, it does not need a reliable source saying it is right. For images used for verification a reliable source is needed but they would normally need text pointing out whatever it is anyway in the source as otherwise it would normally be original research, e,g, saying Nixon had brown eyes citing an image from a reliable source would be original research. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a caption that is not challenged stands. But once challenged, it needs a reliable source. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Was that in relation to 'A Malawian netball team' or 'Nixon has brown eyes'? Dmcq (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In relation to whichever of them, or any other caption, makes an assertion which is challenged. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In theory, Hyperdoctor, you are right. However, anyone who challenges any statement in Wikipedia -- be it a portion of article text or a caption -- without a plausible reason, either explicit or implied, will find their time at Wikipedia unpleasant & short. Common sense always overrules any policy. In the case of the photo from Flickr, no one has presented one beyond some hand-waving. I'm not convinced there is an implied rationale for challenging its reliability; what harm is there if this photo is wrong? That is, in the final analysis, why any assertion should be challenged. If someone thinks this is not the best image to illustrate the article, there is always the recourse of finding a better image & replacing this one with it. But to argue that it should be removed because of the reliable source policy serves no better purpose than to be an annoyance, & at worse is being disruptive. -- llywrch (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Very likely -- challenging for no reason is disruption. I gave a general answer to a general question. If there is a detailed challenge, then it can be discussed in detail. I'm not aware that this image has been challenged, and if it has, I take no position on it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that [if images] "aren't shown to be wrong they're okay" is the standard, exactly. That's a pretty broad standard. It's pretty hard to prove a negative like that. If I upload a drawing and say that it's a picture of a planet in the Fomalhaut system, would you have to prove that it isn't in order to remove it it? How could you prove that? As to to picture in question: it doesn't look like a netball team. They're not playing netball, which if they were would provide reasonable veracity. On the other hand, the article says "The Malawi word for netball is Nchembre mbaye, where Nchembre means "mother". This name links the sport to women and those who are responsible for taking care of their families." So I don't know. Maybe this is a common pose for netball teams in Malawi or something. Herostratus (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far a solution, if the image has been challenged -- and it has, as I am challenging it now -- and people really want to defend the image, perhaps an RfC or something is in order on the question Is it almost certainly true that this is a picture of a netball team? (If you want to use a lower standard, the question could be Is it probably true (i.e., greater than 50% probability) that this is a picture of a netball team?, which in my opinion is too low a standard and would lead us to potentially feature a lot of incorrect images.) I would say No it is not "almost certainly" a picture of a netball team, but Yes it is probably is a picture of a netball team (after all, why would the original Flikr uploader have lied about that)? Herostratus (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe this policy applies to illustrations. Policy describes accepted practice in Wikipedia and it is accepted practice that reliable source is not the standard for illustrations. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The following bit from WP:Images may apply: "For example, a photograph of a trompe-l'œil sculpture of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate". This implies that if the photo does not look like what it says then it should have extra support for the statement that it is a representation of what the caption says. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus, your challenge so far boils down to "The missionary in question could have lied in his description of the image." Which would be more FUD as part of this harassment by Racepacket. The photographer has uploaded over 4,500 images to flickr. That provides a large contribution set from which to assess whether or not there is any basis for deciding that this image could be inappropriately described.

Will you also be challenging File:Ivorian woman.jpg, as it is not "almost certainly" a picture of an Ivorian woman—her nationality and ethnicity are not provable unless we contact the flickr uploader and seek verification. What about File:Soweto township.jpg, uploaded by Matt-80 who we know so little about? Do you agree that flickr contributors khym54 and babasteve are more reliable than our own Matt-80? Challenging any of these images based on only a theoretical problem means they are all theoretically unsuitable for use on English Wikipedia.

It isn't important to me whether or not this image stays or goes, as there are better things to lose sleep about. However the unsubstantiated accusations that the flickr contributor khym54, whose real identity is linked to the image, is lying need to stop, and threads like this one mean that the unresolved matter between LauraHale and Racepacket isn't going to go away and community or arbcom sanctions will be necessary.

If you are quite seriously concerned about the provenance/metadata of this specific image, and are challenging it specifically (rather than theoretical hand-waving about a well known problem with user contributed images), we'll need to take it seriously and AGF that it isn't intended to be part of the harassment. However, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a more clear assertion that you believe the image is problematic, and more detailed rationale for that assertion. Thankfully the photographer is identified by their real name, so it should be possible to obtain further verification in order to address any concerns you may have.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if "The photographer has uploaded over 4,500 images to flickr" and they are all accurately described (or there's no reason to believe they're not), that's very different. I did not know this piece of information. It's useful information, and if what you say is true, then I'd be inclined to accept the photo. Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We should not apply the full standards of reliable sources to pictures. If there was *any* indication in the picture to indicate these were netball players, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think generally we should trust photographers to not stage fake photos. So, I'll trust this photo is exactly what it appears to be. It appears to be a bunch of a women standing around, wearing clothes, that are incompatible with playing sports like netball. It might be useful in illustrating what some women in the area wear. The photo really has nothing to do with netball. Netballers are not some unique special looking people. The reader viewing the photo will not be better informed of what a netballer looks like. Perhaps there are some sports where the players have a very unique look (like Sumo wrestlers or jockies), and a photo of some players would help illustrate this. Even then, that would apply to the elites (it would be stupid if I did Sumo wrestling, and then photographed myself later in plain clothes, and said that was what Canadian Sumo wrestlers looked like). --Rob (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, this is about illustrating not verifying. If, for example, the picture were used to support a statement about the racial composition on the team then it would fail under the full force of WP:V -- a policy we have to prevent ad hoc and personalised debates about individual contributors.

Since there appears to be no serious challenge to the picture, and this is not the place to discuss changes to image policy, and no specific sources are in question, perhaps we can close the discussion now? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The caption should be verifiable and sourced (which it is not), and I find the arguments advanced by Rob to be far more convincing than the responses offered by the image proponents. We need to guard against editors finding obscure pictures on flickr and then insisting on their inclusion in articles just to show off how they can find a really obscure photo. Do we need a group photo in street clothes of the Jamaican bobsled team or should we use a photo taken at the Winter Olympics? The talk page says, "The point of the picture is to illustrate who plays netball in Malawi. It is not intended to illustrate a game of netball being played in Malawi." If the text of the article does not describe or characterize the demographics of who plays netball in Malawi, how can we justify including a photo in the article on such a rationale? Finally, should the picture's caption have a footnote? Racepacket (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you being diverting into some campaign to change the guideline on images or do you just want to deal with this image? You are of course entitled to try and change the images guidelines if you think it does not reflect consensus. Otherwise you can simply say as an illustration it does not directly illustrate the topic but is trying to say something more and so is not a plain illustration but required verifiability of what's being said extra. Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that a number of people have raised serious concerns here regarding the use of the image and an unreferenced caption that appears in a particular article. I agree with Rob. Based on this discussion, Rob took it upon himself to remove the image from that article. Rob ran into an editor with WP:OWNnership issues, and she and her friend reverted the removal incorrectly claiming that the consensus here was that the picture and caption should stay. Although Rob did not violate 3RR, the friend blocked him in violation of WP:INVOLVED. Racepacket (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute which is not relevant to this forum, I think the question on reliability of the original photographers caption has been answered. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal animosities aside, how can you tell from the picture they are netball team? It seems a poor illustration to begin with, not being self-evident. So it requires a citation to make that claim in the article (even just in the caption). Is the flickr photographer who took/posted it a WP:RS? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

journal of forensic nursing

Is this a reliable source? I have seen only 2 articles from this site and both are filled with misquotes and misrepresentation of information despite appearing to be referenced. I followed the references back until I found the original source and it didn't say what was actually quoted, in fact 1 person is referenced despite in fact being against the very position attributed to them and I can find no information about anyone citing articles from this publication. Daffydavid (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My preliminary thoughts are that it appears to be a peer-reviewed journal from an established publisher of scientific and medical journals, so would expect it to be reliable. I do note however that it publishes papers that discuss controversial topics such as shaken baby syndrome, so further views are needed. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I have doubts about this Journal is actually related to shaken baby syndrome and an article that is being referenced on the Wikipepia article about SBS. The problem is not a misquote by the Wikipedia author but rather the quoted reference "Mraz" is a hatchet job at best. To illustrate -- Mraz states 903,000 children were victims of SBS. Unfortunately for her if you follow her references back until you find the original author you find out the number refers to the number of children abused, neglected and killed by ALL causes. There are more examples but this is why it seems it is not in fact peer reviewed. Even to the casual bystander 903,000 seems like an outrageous number of children to be killed and thus should have been caught as an error or misrepresentation.Daffydavid (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an official journal of the International Association of Forensic Nurses http://www.iafn.org/ The journal or so it says is seeking reviewers http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1556-3693 so clearly has some sort of peer review process. So it appears to be a reliable source, not agreeing with the content or the assumptions is not the same as being unreliable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This journal doesn't seem to have an impact factor listed anyplace, which isn't a good sign. Generally we look at whether a source is reliable for particular information. It certainly doesn't seem like it would be reliable as a source for deaths caused by shaken baby syndrome, given that the author has misrepresented a source. I would think that if there are exceptional claims such as this, they may need to be corroborated by another source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to this being a pay site I have been unable to review any other articles, but counter to what MilborneOne suggests I am not taking exception to to content or assumptions, but rather erroneous citations. Almost every reference to Miehl http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515880_2 made by Mraz http://www.slideshare.net/mmvera/the-physical-manifestations-of-shaken-baby-syndrome-journal-of-forensic-nursing has additional information or erroneous information. Sure errors occur, but to add info and then cite an author who didn't write this info is wrong. For the reviewers to not catch erroneous citations of an article available on their own site would seem to indicate that the review process is lacking. Does anyone have any advice on how to verify further if most sites are pay sites? Daffydavid (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear that this particular article isn't a reliable source. I don't understand your question about pay sites. TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My question about pay sites is that when I try to verify references I often encounter a site that will only let me view it if I pay. Is this good practice on Wikipedia? If it is good practice,is there a way to verify information without paying?Daffydavid (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding Nobody's Perfect (Jessie J song), are those sources reliable?

Well, I've been expanding Nobody's Perfect article, but there are some claims that some sources I initially provided are unreliable, however they provide some key informations (physical release date, impact date, videoclip review), so I'd like to know if these [2][3][4][5] are reliable, thanks in advance. Regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

These specialized areas are a bit of a challenge. I generally look to Wiki Projects for guidance. Maybe try the Talk page of the music project.[6] AAA Music appears to have an editorial team.[[7] Stereoboard seems to be selective regarding who they hire to write reviews, which is a good sign.[8] The Music Fix has a content editor.[9]. It's not self-evident that these sites are unreliable. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Atari HQ

Is Atari HQ (also called Atari Gaming Headquarter) high-quality enough to be considered a reliable source?
It's a gaming website that has been recognized with awards by USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, and several others. The staff seems to be quite small, but it consists of Les Caron (more or less unknown, but the founder of the website), Keita Iida (a published video game commentator who has been cited here at WP several times in several articles), and Marty Goldberg (another published video game commentator writing for Retro Gamer magazine, and former site director/editor of GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming.Com). The website has been cited by several other video game websites that are considered reliable (e.g. kotaku citation, 1up citation, gamespy citation, etc.) and it is also cited by numerous WP articles. From my brief review of it, the information appears to be factually accurate and well-written. But there have been some questions regarding its reliability recently. I've invited the relevant parties to review the discussion I'm starting here, but I am most interested in outside (3rd party) views. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: A few more reliable sources that have cited or otherwise given notice to Atari HQ include: Wired magazine and a number of books including Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World's Most Colorful Company, Design and Use of Serious Games, and Phoenix The Rise and Fall of Videogames. -Thibbs (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See the Wiki Project WP:VG/RS. Atari HQ isn't considered a reliable source, based on past discussions. If you feel strongly that it's RS, then maybe discuss it there. TimidGuy (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

At WP:VG/RS I see that there has been no past discussion on Atari HQ. Because I'm interested in using it as a source, I've started a discussion on it. It seems kind of bitterly ironic that I'm told in the very discussion concerning its usability that it is unusable because it hasn't been discussed. By all means I'm inviting discussion on it. I simultaneously posted a note at WT:VG/RS pointing to this query. I was hoping that many editors could come together to discuss this so that some sort of consensus could be achieved. Let's not just give up before the discussion has occurred. I'm nearly certain that WikiProject Video Games follows Wikipedia's rules for determining reliability (WP:RS) so all editors should be capable of giving their opinion. -Thibbs (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for covering all the bases. There's no indication of editorial oversight that I can find, but your evidence supporting use is strong. What are the objections to using it? TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that the main rationale for excluding the source in the places it has been excluded is because it hasn't been discussed and so no examination of its reliability has been made and no consensus exists regarding its usability. The additional point has been brought up in at least one instance that Atari HQ does not have a stated editorial policy. On the other hand, I have gotten in contact with one of the members of the staff and he has explained to me that the editorial policy that is in effect is the same as is used at ClassicGaming.Com. I find this claim to be credible considering that this person was also the former site director/editor of ClassicGaming. He is staying out of this discussion for COI reasons, but he's offered to say a few words specifically about the editorial policy if it would be helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I also saw one post where an editor had discovered what he believed to be an incorrect release date published by AtariHQ, but I'm having difficulties re-locating the post... -Thibbs (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the "incorrect date" post. A few other posts in favor of AtariHQ can be located at the following: [10] and [11] -Thibbs (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that given the evidence presented we can consider it a reliable source. Would be nice if they'd add an About page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

User:John Smith's tried to use an Evangelical Christian author's book (he has no academic credentials) as a reliable source regarding Chinese history

Boxer Rebellion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:John Smith's has attempted to use a Book written by an author with zero academic credentials, as a source, despite the fact that the book claims war crimes are the result of a "generational sin pattern", and that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies.

the only thing about him when i googled him that stated his credentials were- Esther C. Stanley is a published author. A published credit of Esther C. Stanley is Abundance of Rain.

Absolutely NO Phd, degrees, MB, or anything in General history at all, let along chinese history.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books"

Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources

Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable

Abundance of Rain is NOT a reliable source. A book that says- "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" does NOT qualify as a reliable source.

"it was her own sin and generational judgements and bitter root expectations which barred her from experiencing the blessing and love of god"

Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history.

I might as well quote "lord of the rings" or "harry potter", and claim wizards really exist here on wikipedia.

Now, suppose I give John Smith some leeway, and allow that Esther C. Stanley, despite the fact that his entire book is about how christianity is the one true religion and all non christians are damned to torture and suffering, and claims atrocities are the result of a "generational sin pattern" that he did use some citations, like Forsychth and "The boxer rising" (not neutral by the way, since they were made by the American Bible Society), that did state how many Chinese christians were murdered. However, at the last sentence regarding rape , torture, and mutilation, he provides no source!-[12]

And I have removed the edit that User:John Smith's made.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source. Xulon Press is a Christian vanity press, the book is about prayer and does not purport to be a well sourced historical work, and the author does not appear to have a historian's credentials or prior publications sufficient to pass our ban on self published sources. This was correctly removed from the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is reseolved, this can be archived now.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Should BR-Bullpen be disqualified as a source?

The website baseball-reference.com is a highly-regarded baseball statistics website, frequently used as the primary reference on WP. However, it has a wiki called the BR Bullpen. Most of its material was copied from WP in 2006, but can and has been updated since. Since it is also a wiki, sourcing can be a problem. Therefore, isn't this a fork and shouldn't it be disqualified as a source or external link (not 100% of the time of course). There is a Template:Bullpen that is concerning (it seems to be used mainly in the baseball portal). Here are the pages that use the Bullpen website: [13]. I was going to add the site to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks but figured I should check here first. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log-off.) --64.85.220.34 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. Since BR-Bullpen is a wiki that anyone can edit, it's not a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've used this a few times. But yes, if it's an open wiki it isn't a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about changing sourcing methods may be of interest

• The discussion pointed to here involves sourcing methods rather than source reliability.

Duplicate references in articles are routinely merged by automated and semi-automated procedures (such as AWB). Some editors feel their editing efforts have been adversely impacted, when the citation method has been changed before an article reaches some stage of completion.

I have started a sub-discussion about the practice of routinely merging duplicate references here (Village Pump Proposals).

This is a part of a larger discussion on the same page, about a bot proposal, which is here (Village Pump Proposals).

There is also a side discussion, here (Bot Owners' Noticeboard). I invite discussion at the Village Pump article (rather than here), if article editors are so inclined. Richard Myers (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RIA Novosti and the official Russian position in areas of geopolitical and historical contention

An editor has contended at Talk:Russophobia that RIA Novosti is a reliable source—without reservation, and suggested that should an editor feel otherwise they bring the issue here. RIA Novosti is the official media outlet of the Russian government. As such, general considerations of reliability aside, I maintain that where RIA Novosti reports on areas of contention between itself and its near-abroad neighbors, it can be held to be reliable only insofar as it reflects the official Russian position, and should regarding all topics in such ares of contention (Baltic states, Waffen SS, Nazis; frozen conflict zone: Transnistria, South Ossetia, et al.,...) be appropriately attributed (i.e., official Russian source, Russian source, etc.) and not be represented to be objectively reliable. At the article, the specific example centers around a Latvian individual who was a member of the Waffen SS Latvian Legion. The position of the Russian government is that the Latvian Legion were SS war criminals convicted at Nuremberg—when, in fact, the Latvian Legion served as Allied guards during the trials. Accordingly, any declaration by RIA Novosti regarding Latvia, the Latvian Legion, and Nazism in this particular case—and regarding other geopolitical/historical areas of conflict—can only be represented as official Russian opinion.

I should mention that in the past, editors favorable to the official Russian position regarding these areas of contention have maintained that RIA Novosti is the Russian equivalent of the British BBC. Nothing could be a further misrepresentation as the BBC is an independent news organization while RIA Novosti (also including their English language TV presence and web site, Russia Today) is most certainly not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Such an approach would be WP:DISCRIMINATION. National media should be treated equally, and RIA Novosti certainly is a reliable source, at least as reliable as other national or corporate media organisations.

The comparison of RIA Novosti with BBC is perfectly valid. BBC is funded by money from the British government; BBC is governed by the BBC Trust where trustees are appointed by British monarch on advice of government ministers. No wonder that BBC promotes national British agenda and points of view. In different terms, BBC is governed by those who own it and who fund it, likewise the American media and many other countries' media. "Independent" media is a myth. When it comes to non-government media, they are owned and funded by corporations and people such as Rupert Murdoch, having their own positions and interests - so, should we always mention those corporations and those people when we report some fact using the sources from the media owned and governed by them?

In the case of the issue at Talk:Russophobia, there are two different points of view on Latvian Legion, and it seems that RIA Novosti in this case represents not an "official" Russian point of view, but rather a dominant view among modern Russian historians who cite various war crimes connected with the legion. Latvian state and historians have a different view, unsurprisingly, saying that Latvians were forced to do what they have done etc. Such sources as BBC may take more neutral approach or lean to Latvian position, which is understandable due to the UK and Latvia common membership in EU etc.

Those different points of view might be both represented in the article, of course. But that should be done without discrimination of the sources, such as highlighting that some sources are "Russian or sympathetic" or state-owned and at the same time not saying that other sources are "Latvian or sympathetic" and state-funded. GreyHood ^Talk 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You've certainly conjured up many parallels you contend are, by your very invocation, appropriate. However, I remain gobsmacked you would contend that the official media mouthpiece of the Russian government is as reliable—in all aspects of reporting—as independent media, say CNN, and that no mention should be made of such affiliation in areas of known contention where Russia's view of regional and world affairs is objectively demonstrated to be more self-serving than serving facts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW the official Russian position is that the Latvian Legion Waffen SS are SS Nazi war criminals convicted in Nuremberg. I fail to see where "Lācis = Nazi" is not representing the "official" viewpoint. This has nothing to do with objective historical analysis by historians of any nation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My emphasis, official Russian position. Note that the Latvian Legion was formed well after the Holocaust and had no role in it, also that Waffen SS were not accepted as "SS members", and the Latvian Legion was specifically exempted from Nuremberg having also been conscripted: The criminal nature of the SS organization was totally recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg which stated that "the SS was utilized for the purposes which were criminalized by the Chapter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of the occupied territories, the administration of the slave labour programme and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war… In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf units and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS.… Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts criminalized by Article 6 of the Charter… The Tribunal finds that knowledge of these criminal activities was sufficiently general to justify declaring that the SS was a criminal organization". Moreover the Tribunal stated that "Article 10 of the Charter stipulates that the judgment about the criminal nature of the accused organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned on any following process of independent members of the organization". And as it clearly comes from the judgment, the Latvian legion is also recognized criminal because the Tribunal included to the SS the "Waffen-SS" members and the members of any police units emphasizing that "it is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activities". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't CNN, as a top national channel, also report some official events and official statements by the U.S. Government, the same thing that RIA Novosti does? Does that make it "official media mouthpiece" and unreliable? Why big corporate media serving their specific interests (strongly connected to and forming government agenda) are more "independent" than state-owned media? Independence, indeed may be from something or someone. But one couldn't be independent from anything or anyone. And objectivity and reliability is a different thing from independence. GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question is, quite frankly, bizarre. CNN is not an extension of the United States government. Novosti is the official media outlet ("official mouthpiece") of the Russian government, "mouthpiece" is not a figure of speech indicating some sharing of interests or happening to report on something the government stated. Your generality that objectivity and reliability is a different thing from independence is meaningless in the absence of scholarly evidence that, in this case, Novosti is editorially independent. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not my task to prove that RIA Novosti is editorially independent, it is your task to prove otherwise. RIA Novosti is the most cited Russian news agency abroad; it positions itself as politically independent and objective ([14]), it describes relationship with the Russian Government, State Duma, etc. as relationship with its "regular clients" to whom it provides broadcasting services [15]. It is state-owned, yes, but BBC is also state-funded. RIAN directors are appointed with state participation, but so are BBC governors. It is not an "official media outlet" in the sense that it is not necessarily that everything RIA Novosti says should correspond with the government position and opinions. It just regularly provides broadcasting services to the state institutions, the same thing that BBC and CNN do. GreyHood ^Talk 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to see reporting online or via broadcast which contradicts the official line. Novosti is not just another service provider/outlet, like the BBC or CNN. To your quote below about the piper, it's not who pays—in the case of Novosti, it's who owns. There is a difference which you appear to not appreciate. I don't expect Russia Today to feature an English-language version of Kukly any time soon. What I do see featured prominently is an attempt to reign in younger viewers with shows that appear more hip, e.g., the Alyona Show, but which underneath, after listening to a number of episodes, you eventually realize are fairly sophisticated hatchet jobs on the West in general and the U.S. in particular. The USSR is dead but radiomaskirovka is not. And of course Novosti is the most widely quoted Russian news service. "That's the plan." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you know, that some of the most prominent Russian media contradicting the "official line" are owned by state companies, such as leading opposition radio Ekho Moskvy wich is owned by Gazprom Media. This is a very striking counterexample to the false assumption, that any media owned by the government would be pro-government. As for the "maskirovka", I'd say that such companies as BBC or CNN mask itself as independent, however their highly slanted and selective coverage is clearly pro-British and pro-American. And I don't remember any Kukly-like stuff to be featured on BBC or CNN. GreyHood ^Talk 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, have you seen this article from RIAN? Would you say that this present information which contradicts the so-called official line? Perhaps you also know of inosmi.ru? This is a RIAN project. As is russiaprofile.org. And others. All RIAN projects, which clearly present opposing views to so-called official lines. These are links to keep in mind when you present what you have above :) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, yes, inoSMI is a good example of RIAN project which shows that RIAN is perfectly able to go against any real or imaginary "official lines". The project specializes on translation of various stuff about Russia which is published in other countries, including highly critical stuff. I wonder, if there are such projects in the U.K. or the U.S. or they still live behind a self-imposed iron curtain? As for the article, the situation may be compared to the Western media reporting something like this. I can't find this stuff on CNN or BBC by the way. GreyHood ^Talk 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As a logical parallel, another example is that there's been an "opposition" party in Transnistria for years and the same folks are still in power for life. There is a difference between presenting viewpoints and advocating viewpoints, between what is presented for public consumption and what boundaries are not crossed. On the links, interesting reading (news story), but how does reporting that someone non-Russian denounced someone Russian contradict the party line? Or on iniosmi.ru, it's admirable that Western news is being translated but it's being viewed through tainted glasses, that's not advocacy for something other than the party line. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral and reliable media should concentrate on presenting viewpoints, not advocating them. GreyHood ^Talk 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)"Independent media" is not a complete myth, though sometimes it should be noted "independent from what." Independence and quality are not absolutes, but we do need to judge the quality and independence from time to time, e.g. on this noticeboard. RIA Novosti's quality and independence is nowhere near the quality and independence of the BBC. I've spent lots of time watching/reading both these sources and I would almost never take RIA Novosti at face value, they do have an agenda - and it is safe to assume that that agenda is very similar to the Russian Government's. Quite often I will take the BBC at face value, at least to the same extent that I'd take the NY Times at face value. Sometimes, if the topic is very close to the interests of the British Government I might look to another source - but I'll say that that is very rare. In short - on specific Russian Government related topics - RIA Novosti is not reliable or unbiased.

I can't leave without an anecdote. Biased government press is nothing new in Russia. Referring to Izvestia (rough translation "News") and Pravda (translation "Truth"), there IS an old saying that Russians still repeat: "There is no news in News and no truth in Truth." Smallbones (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal evaluation of objectivity, personal preferences, anecdotes, etc. are all very good. But there could be different (and opposite) personal opinions and different personal preferences. And those are facts what I've written about how BBC is governed. Here I can't leave without an old English saying who pays the piper calls the tune. (Your anecdote actually is Soviet-era, very old-fashioned. I strongly doubt it is repeated in modern Russia because those two newspaper titles are not among the top media for a long time. But I wonder, why the cited English saying is not as popular as it should be) GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact - I have heard several Russians tell that anecdote within the last decade, and they were referring to state run media in Russia. There is simply a deep seated distrust of state-run media in Russia. Russians do not have a lot of experience with reliable media of any sort. I suspect that anybody who would seriously say that RIA Novosti is as reliable as the BBC doesn't have a lot of experience with reliable media. Smallbones (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones, do you know the difference between a fact and hearsay??(Igny (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Fact - that dissident anecdote is very old-fashioned and is characteristic mostly to people of certain age and certain political views, not to Russians in the whole. Yes, there is deep seated distrust of state-run media in Russia, but not only Russian media (as well as not only state media), and this is not a reason to discriminate between Russian and non-Russian media. Russians do have a lot of experience with unreliable media of various sorts. Including the media like BBC and CNN - their coverage of 2008 South Ossetia war was a major blow to their reputation in Russia, not to mention many other instances. Saying that BBC is more reliable than RIA Novosti is simply a discrimination, based on myths that still persist in the West but not in Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 12:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

RIA Novosti is a 100% reliable source and widely used as such in the academic world and the world press. Like most media organisations, in addition to plain news they publish all kinds of opinions - those which are highly critical of the state and those which are not. The specific piece which caused Vecrumba to launch this thread is [16] - and there is nothing wrong with it. The author is Aleksander Vasilyev, Member of the Board and Executive Director of the Baltic Forum [17], a credible expert. Simply because an editor doesn't like one opinion piece is no grounds for calling the publisher an unreliable source. Vecrumba has provided no evidence to support his claim. If no evidence to support the claim is provided, editors are forced to only judge the claim by Vecrumba's own credibility. Nanobear (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (refactored) Nanobear (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Alas, personal attacks. This has nothing to so with "I don't like it," yours here referencing block logs is just another vicious attempt on your part to personalize a simple question on my part. To yourself and TFD, if you wish me to expand this discussion with demonstrated examples of bias where Novosti proselytizes the official Russian line in violation of reputably verified facts and events where it suits the Russian government, I can certainly do that. To TFD below, "without reservation" is not rhetorical or unhelpful, it is crystal clear in its intent. This is no different from the debate over the GSE (Great Soviet Encyclopedia), which, while generally quite reliable, is less so when it comes to topic areas where history serves politics. @both: Please address my question, not deride it or counter with personal attacks. I should mention, so far, everyone defending Novosti here appears to have a partisan interest in doing so. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nanobear: Thank you for the refactoring, but it's not much of an improvement. And I haven't complained about the piece you mention, although in your case the individual would be a member of a group that is officially associated with the Russian government. Odd that you'd get it wrong considering it was you who complained about my edit @ Russophobia in the first place. My issues were with the use of the following as reliable objective reporting:

• a clearly partisan article assaulting Latvian neo-fascists;
• "Former Nazi Latvian MP" making Lācis out to be, first and foremost, a willing volunteer to further the Nazi cause (when in fact Waffen SS were conscripted and none ever swore allegiance to the Nazis except the first 300 who were forced to do so under pain of death)—Voice of Russia being another official Russian government media outlet (NOT meant to comment on the section below).

That brings up the issue of Novosti, as it is also owned by the same parent, the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, property of the Russian government, also raising the issue of Russian state-owned media in general where official Russian pronouncements and portrayals run counter to established facts where the Russian government has taken an antagonistic position regarding its near-abroad. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• And so, please explain to me why attributing "Lācis is a Nazi" should not minimally appropriately include "per Russian state media." Lācis is not a "Nazi" and never was a "Nazi." At best, the source expresses an opinion—policy is to attribute opinions, to do so is in no way a case of WP:DISCRIMINATION as has been alleged. At worst, the source is simply not reliable regarding the subject and topic area. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• The real issue at Russophobia is that it inappropriately conflates true Russophobia and allegations of Russophobia. I proposed quite some time ago that both topics would be better served as separate articles but no one was interested. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to "expand this discussion", but to narrow it. We do not determine whether sources are reliable by conducting original research. Your question is rhetorical because the only possible answer is no. The Glenn Beck show on Fox is not reliable, Doonsbury cartoons are not reliable etc. Yet Fox News and papers that carry Doonsbury are reliable. TFD (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment When posting to this board one should provide a link to the specific edit that the source is used to support. The question whether a source is reliable "without reservation" is rhetorical and unhelpful. TFD (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Specifics from Russophobia article provided above. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion to bring this here was more in jest, seeing as attempts to exclude Russian sources from WP has been the modus operandi of numerous editors for sometime now, most often in their attempts to present WP:TRUTH (their version of the truth). Take for example Talk:Lists_of_most_common_surnames#RIA_Novosti.27s_scope_of_reliability where that verifiable fact that Ivanov is the most common surname in Estonia was removed from the article based only on the fact that RIA Novosti was the outlet responsible for printing what was inserted. Nevermind that it quoted an Estonian source, which in turn referred to the census, the mere fact that RIA Novosti printed it was enough reason to remove the information from the article --- of course based purely on it presenting information that one doesn't want to see because it casts doubts on their facts and truth. I never said thaat at any stage that RIA Novosti is reliable "without reservation" but as I have said many times it meets the requirements of WP:RS as much as any Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, European, American media outlet. I do wonder if we would be having this discussion if http://www.chas-daily.com was being used as a source -- it is the largest Russian-language media source in Latvia, and often takes a harsh line on official Baltic histiography. As is the case with all media outlets, as noted below, is opinion must be separated from fact, and attributed accordingly. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ria is about on the same level as Press TV or People's Daily in that (unlike say Fox) they don't just make crap up, but they are very selective and slanted in their coverage of more or less real events. The biggest problem with using such sources is that we can fall prey to undue weighting. Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, is the Western press (not only Fox, but BBC and CNN too) non-selective and non-slanted? The way they reported the 2008 South Ossetia war, the way they report current events in Lybia and Syria proves otherwise. GreyHood ^Talk 09:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the mantra of "official Baltic [name any anti-Soviet nationals] historiography" = bad (maligns the Great Patriotic War, etc.) and "official Russian historiography" = correct (recognizes the sacrifices of those lost in the GPW, ignores the initial Soviet invasions of the Baltics and other sovereign Eastern European nations) attempts to make this a Russophobic spat when, in fact, all reliable scholarship on events, even by Russian scholars, disagrees with the official Russian "version." That is the heart of the issue here: the denunciation by official Russia of near-abroad "versions" of history labeling them nationalist and libelous to the memory of the GPW. In particular, anyone who fought against the GPW "anti-fascist heroes" is a fascist.

Also, I have no objection to using Russian or even Soviet sources, I have used the Concise Latvian SSR Encyclopedia and other Soviet era sources. I only object to the opinion of the (departed Soviet or) Russian government sourced as factual and objective without being attributed to an official source. That Lācis is a Nazi is at best an opinion (aside from BLP issues) and should be attributed. Period. There is no WP:DISCRIMINATION in doing that. The concept and function of Russian state media is a Soviet anachronism and I find that anyone would paint it as equivalent to western media outlets such as CNN quite remarkable. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in Latvian affairs or Soviet historiography and have made no statements here related to those issues; I agree that in case when there are two significant and different points of view they should both be represented, but treated without discrimination. If sources should be attributed, than sources from both sides should be attributed in similar manner. The way Russian media function is a different question, and this way is very different from Soviet. Those who argue otherwise seem to stuck back in time, missing the last 20 years. GreyHood ^Talk 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

First, opinion must be attributed. To do so is not "discrimination." Clearly you and I have different views over progress (and regression) in Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union. The same individual that was negotiating Soviet recognition of Baltic occupation when the USSR disintegrated now denies occupation per the old party line (Lavrov). I don't know if it's available on RT's web site, but Peter Lavelle's interspersed commentary trashing Edward Lucas in his interview of Lucas after Lucas published his book on the new Cold War is quite enlightening. Lavelle would ask a question, Lucas would respond. But instead of countering Lucas in the interview, Lavelle stopped the playback and trashed Lucas after the fact without (obviously!) placing himself in a position where Lucas could counter back to expose Lavelle's gross misrepresentations and outright lies. I regret that all I see in today's Russia is backsliding, as in the restoration of Felix Dzerzhinsky's bust to its place of honor in the central courtyard of the Moscow police. I do hope your far more sanguine assessment of Russian progress proves right and mine wrong. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, we've pretty much had a rehash along party (no pun intended) lines, that is, an airing out of the status quo on both sides of the issue by interested parties. Some outside observations would be helpful. Perhaps if all participating here to date promised not to bite... PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Related inquiry

How are the credentials of Voice of Russia viewed? I wish to use it as a source for some information regarding the current civil war in Libya. I do know that Russian state sources are viewed as being on the sketchy side of things, so I wanted to come here to see if a *NEUTRAL* party could weigh in. That means you guys above me should refrain from commenting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

VOR is state owned, and is on par with Voice of America, in that they are both govt owned, and both of them present news from their own national perspective. Nothing news media (regardless of country of origin) says should be taken as gospel, particularly if there is likely an opposing viewpoint, in which case it should be attributed to the media outlet. As the conflict in Libya is not yet going to be subject to scholarly works, go with what you have, and if in doubt look at what you are inserting from the viewpoint of the opposite pole and see if it would conform to WP:NPOV. But at no stage should ANY source be discounted simply because of its country of origin, nor its ownership. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit leery of Russian government-affiliated news sources because of some of what RT puts out, which occasionally creeps into the realm of WP:FRINGE (e.g. catering to NWO theories). The article is neutral enough, so I think it fine to use. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest for everyone to read this wonderful essay. As about Voice of America and other national media, let's check media freedom index in every country. A widely spread censorship (e.g. in China) does not make their sources especially reliable. Quite the opposite.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that we could go with a simple rule of thumb here. News publications from countries that are not in top 50 in the Press Freedom Index require attribution ("According to Mongolian national TV channel MNB,..."). Publications from countries which are not in top 100 are considered generally unreliable and not acceptable as BLP sources - and should be evaluated case by case basis for other articles.

Perhaps this should be one of Wikipedia base rules?

--Sander Säde 06:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the manifesto of a particular group. So I can assume that Latvia is in the top 50? If that is the case, if a Latvian paper was to print Vladimir Putin raped babies and ate them for breakfast afterwards, that this could be presented as fact? But if a Russian paper printed the same thing about a Latvian figurehead, and had undeniable photographic evidence of such, that it would need to be attributed? Uh-huh, if I were to see such a "rule of thumb" being even so much as being pushed by editors, there would be another visit to somewhere that one does not want to go. Oh, and to see how reliable the so-called "free press" is, take a look at Karinna_Moskalenko#Poisoning_by_mercury; so Pravda on the Potomac is more reliable that RIA Novosti on this case? Yeah, right lol. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That could be just because you just don't like the fact that Russia is rated below Zimbabwe in terms of press freedom. Has a Latvian paper actually printed such things? If not, then such a scenario is really irrelevant here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Russavia, don't you know that all Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, Economist, WSJ and CNN are anti-Russian sources? That is how an extremely racist Wikipedian (now thankfully permbanned) described them.

Reporters Without Borders is a non-governmental NGO from France, highly respected in their opinions. If you think they are a "particular group" with "manifesto", do find us a better way to gauge a general reliability of a news source of a certain country - Freedom of the Press (report) by Freedom House is another, for example. I am sure someone will describe it as "Russophobic" and "CIA".

Presenting stupid scenarios is really not helpful at all - do try to be at least a bit constructive in the future.

--Sander Säde 07:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think the idea of using the Press Freedom Index as a way to weighing the reliability of a news source is an excellent one. I suppose we could incorporate some kind of rule of thumb into WP:RS? --Martin (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom and reliability are two different things that should not be mixed. If one is free to publish any kind of stuff, that does not guarantee neutral and objective reporting. As for the Press Freedom Index, I fail to see how their method of compiling the rating is objective. Unfortunately, all such ratings that try to measure non-material things, such as "freedom", "corruption" etc. are just instruments of discrimination and political manipulation. GreyHood ^Talk 09:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom and reliability are different things, indeed - every country has "yellow" newspapers, weekly news releases of political parties and so forth. No one considers such publications reliable (or at least I hope so). However, the difference is also whether journalist can report government actions without fearing for his/her life afterward - or just won't write anything, knowing that he cannot publish it anyway. That is what makes journalism in one country more "free" than in another.

Or to put it differently, freedom means you can publish anything you want without being afraid of retributions. Reliability comes from exercising that freedom within constraints of standard journalism rules. You cannot have one without the other.

The change in WP:RS would not be a blanket statement to remove every single source coming from a country with non-free press. Sources would be evaluated case-by-case basis, exactly same as before. What would change is that in case of highly controversial statements - like described above - they could be challenged for accuracy and would then require a secondary source from a country where press is not government mouthpiece.

--Sander Säde 09:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a recommendation that belongs in the discussion page of reliable sources, as it would represent a change in policy. TFD (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping for a bit of throwing ideas back and forth before going to WP:RS, so we would have a clear-cut and solid suggestion for a policy. --Sander Säde 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would invite participants of the discussion above this one to not participate in this discussion so we don't repeat the same discussion (as anticipated and originally requested by the editor posing their question). And let's dispense with Putin eating babies, such rhetoric only polarizes the discussion and immediately drives off any outside editors. No one is going to enter a discussion where ludicrous contentions are being made which reduce the discourse to yet another nationalist on nationalist mud wrestling match. I will keep my participation to the section above. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pilot studies

first source - Would that be considered a RS for a fan made remake of Maniac Mansion or even the original?陣内_Jinnai 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What kind of information is it being used to support? — e. ripley\^talk 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Used for gameplay info on the MM article, mostly the original and possibly some basic info for the fan remake.陣内_Jinnai 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be an unpublished manuscript, and as such wouldn't typically be considered a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-published book, etc. at Raymond Cottrell

Does this self-published book that lists a previous version of the page, or this page which does not even mention the word "progressive" sufficient sourcing to say, "Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.", or would it fail under WP:RS, WP:SYN, WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR? BelloWello (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No and no :) The first link appears to be a dead site, so sadly that fails verification. The second source is already problematic for being a SPS (though it might work as an opinion if the author is significant) - however the specific text under dispute (i.e. progressive) is, as you point out, cited directly to the Wikipedia article. So it is circular and unusable. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad, an archived version of the page is here. Basically some writing the man made, which never mentioned the word progressive. Thanks for the confirmation of my position on the book. BelloWello (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked the first link and it strongly connects Cottrell as a Progressive Adventist. The second source is not what I am going off anyways. The argument for him being progressive is based off more than the Wikipedia article. It has context there as well. For example "Cottrell was what is known as a progressive Adventist. He did not actively push his progressive ideas until after his retirement. He was the founder and editor of Adventist Today, a liberal/progressive Adventist magazine which was first published in 1993. According to Ron Corson in an article published in Adventist Today, called “Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined,” he points out that Progressive Adventists commonly believe" and then lists several key points which Cottrell also believed. The sources from this book seem to include a lot of good material that is verifiable. Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is all material almost quoted verbatim from a previous version of the wiki page:

Cottrell could be labeled a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.[14] While mostly dormant during his academic years, Cottrell's progressive/reinterpretative views began to increasingly manifest themselves after retirement.

Cottrell was a founder of Adventist Today,[6] a liberal/progressive Adventist magazine first published in 1993. He and others at Loma Linda had conceived of the idea for a new magazine in the Autumn of the previous year.[12] As well as contributing articles, he was editor and had the title of editor emeritus for the remainder of his life.[6]

The non-notable, self-published author can quote whatever he wants from wikipedia, it does not provide a WP:RS, in my opinion, but I am willing to hear other opinions on this. As for the first link, please point out where the word progressive is even found. BelloWello (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No there is a strong difference. Yes there are PORTIONS from Wikipedia, but not all of it is from there. For example the list of what Progressive Adventists believe has been taken from several sources such as verifiable magazine articles and books. This is more than a wikipedia quote. Basically the only reason I use him is to make the connection between Cottrell and Progressive Adventist. The author does this by giving a description of Progressive Adventist then giving a description of Cottrell's beliefs and showing how they match. Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It still is a self-published source and hence ineligible for wikipedia. If he used a reliable source to back up his claim that Cottrell is progressive, then use that to prove it if it actually makes the claim. As far as I can see, none has been provided. BelloWello (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I used this source only b/c it makes the connections more clearly than the others. He used several reliable sources "Ron Corson" for example and the magazine articles. The difference is those articles didn't make the connections as strongly since they come from that persuasion, but don't necessarily like that identification. Those connections, btw, are more than just wiki. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS that explicitly says that he is a progressive as you claim. If the connections are as clear as you claim, surely you have a WP:RS for them? BelloWello (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would require me to post 2 articles to make that connection strongly. This source is the most direct one, hence I argue it is the best to use. It also quotes from other reliable and valid source.Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been already made clear, that source is unacceptable as it is self-published. Can we see these reliable sources on this forum? BelloWello (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

First, there has been no conclusion as to the validity of the first source. It is still "under debate". As for the sources within the questioned source I could show them but it requires someone or something to tie them together. The source in question did the best job at it hence I used that reference. If I had to I could use two separate references which combined say the same thing, just not as explicitly. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can tie them together without violating WP:SYNTHESIS, then feel free. BelloWello (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I could tie them together, it's just WAY more difficult. This source ties them together in the nicest possible manner. Also the tie wouldn't be understood by someone outside of the "faith community" therefore, this tie in provides an explanation that is more under-stable overall. Just curious; Do you really see Cottrell as a mainstream Adventist? I would argue that his history and relationship with the church suggest otherwise. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what I view Cottrell as, what matters is what reliable sources have labeled him. I am yet to see a reliable source label him as "progressive," are you going to provide this or are we wasting our time here? BelloWello (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable source that clearly labels him as "progressive" based on his ideology. Why need I provide more? Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you still claiming that a WP:SPS is a WP:RS? BelloWello (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it "might work as an opinion" and as a way to provide the reliable sources. Considering the source uses a lot of other reliable sources I argue this is more than simply the typical WP:SPS. Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would work as an opinion if the author is somehow notable enough to lend due weight to his comments. Maybe you should write an article on Adrian Welsh if he's really that notable in order to show how his very opinion is worth plastering on a respected theologian's page. Otherwise, it's just another SPS from a nobody. BelloWello (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would argue he uses enough notable sources to give credence to his work. This "respected theologian" has been viewed as a Progressive Adventist for a while. If worse came to worse though I could simply edit it to mention his disagreement with mainstream SDA church teachings. Arguably that would be the same thing, but easier to cite since the theologian himself admits this point (unless the sanctuary doctrine is no longer "mainstream". Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If he's really viewed as a "progressive" adventist, then it should be easy to find a WP:RS saying so. You can edit it to say he disagreed with "mainstream" church doctrine if you have a reliable source that says so. This means, you need a source that specifically says he disagreed with "mainstream" doctrine (and says mainstream in the source), anything less would be synthesis. BelloWello (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It has to say "mainstream"? Sure. Just like the other source says "discontinued" right? I know they are 2 separate issues but I figured I would use your own logic. The source just needs to "imply" mainstream doctrine or be "accurate and reasonable" as you said. Mainstream can be demonstrates by looking at the church's doctrines several of which Cottrelll has publicly attacked. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just like the other source says "discontinued" right? I know they are 2 separate issues but I figured I would use your own logic. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

|}

The source just needs to "imply" mainstream doctrine or be "accurate and reasonable" as you said. Mainstream can be demonstrates by looking at the church's doctrines several of which Cottrelll has publicly attacked. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, this is an issue of WP:LABEL, you can say that he "attacked doctrine x" (based on a source), but you cannot say he "attacked mainstream doctrine x," unless you have a source that says that, not if you only have a source that says he attacked it, and another one that says it is mainstream. BelloWello (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can have sources that say a doctrine is mainstream and that Cottrell is not mainstream because of his views on certain issues. Or I can say that he has challenged key mainstream doctrines and list them. Doctrines which are clearly cited as mainstream. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTHESIS and is thus unacceptable. BelloWello (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That would not be WP:SYNTHESIS. Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be. BelloWello (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No because the material could all come from the same source just combined in a different manner. Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's see the source. BelloWello (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We would still need to establish the validity of the other source.Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC

See discussion above, the question is, is this self-published book on the web a reliable source for the purpose of verifying ""Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment."? BelloWello (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that the sources within the source should be noted since they provide the strongest material. The source above merely provides a clearer connection. Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would question the use of this self-published source. If he was clearly a progressive adventist, then it should be possible to find a source that says so. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All right I found a stronger source, one that uses the term "progressive". [18].Fountainviewkid (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you found it? [19] Apparently, they don't teach much honesty at FVA. BelloWello (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That was rather un[WP:CIVIL]] of you. Thanks for the compliments.Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a statement of fact, you claimed to have found something that another user found. That is patently dishonest. BelloWello (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did find a stronger source. The one from the La Sierra website. Last I checked you hadn't posted anything from them. As for the other one, yes you did find it. Thanks.Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that Advertist Today would be an acceptable source for this assertion. TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Christian Broadcasting Network as source on Omar al-Ghoul

(Let me know if this should be at BLPN instead - I wasn't sure.)

In this edit, I removed these statements from Hamas school bus attack:

In lead:

A Palestinian Authority official commented that "the bus wasn't that badly damaged", adding that Israel is racist and apartheid.

In body:

Omar al-Ghoul, senior advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, said on Palestinian Authority television: "The bus wasn't that badly damaged. Israel uses the attack on the bus as an excuse for its latest war crime against our people. Israel is a country that was founded on aggression and colonialism and it lives on the continuation of bloodshed, war and violence. The racist Israeli apartheid aggression is currently focused on Gaza, under the pretext of a shell being fired at an Israeli bus."

This is cited to this article from the Christian Broadcasting Network. Jalapenos do exist restored the text without commenting on the source's reliability.

I searched further in Google News and couldn't find it anywhere else but in other laughably partisan sources. I argue that if al-Ghoul really did make this statement, we should be able to find a real source on it, not a source whose agenda includes discrediting Palestinians. Absent a real source for this claim, it should be removed per WP:V and WP:BLP.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, if I see Pat Robertson, I run the other way. I would second, unverified until carried in a non-partisan mainstream news source or al Jazeera. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. CBN is notoriously partisan, and has frequently promoted some real "howlers". If the statement was made as quoted, it would certainly appear in a mainstream source.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy

Is this a reliable source for facts related to the Israeli-Arab conflict? The website ([20]) provides no details about the people behind it, just a PO box address and a phone number, alongside an info@... e-mail address. It seems like an advocacy site, featuring "Move over, AIPAC" logos and an "Israeli Lobby Archive". A Google News search shows not a single mainstream source quoting its research (http://www.google.com/search?q=Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=diX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2f302dc92096f810), just two press releases issued by the group itself and one blog carrying a reprint of an article form the "Israeli Lobby Archive". Two for the show (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not reliable. Apart from the indicators of "advocacy source" that you mention, much of the stuff is very out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is notable about the IRMEP? It has no addresss (only a post office box), and many of its articles have no author provided, nor do they it provide any references. The contact page doesn't even list a person (only a post office box, phone number (not listed in 411.com, and an email address). I looked through the internet and the only person that seems to be involved with the IRMEP is someone named Grant F. Smith (who is the "director" of the IRMEP). This does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability or reliability. There are hundreds of websites which have colourful opinions about controversial issues, but Wikipedia is not a clearing house for such views.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

There is no dearth of advocacy sites. If there is something of genuine use it will have been reported in reliable sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Like any non-profit, IRMEPs tax filings are available to the public. Here are their 2009 filings. The organization has a budget of less than $100,000 and while it has three board members besides the Director I don't see how it could support more than one researcher. (Crossposted from Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute.) GabrielF (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A BRIEF, ANNOTATED INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD OF ADVENTIST STUDIES FOR HIGHER DEGREE STUDENTS

Is this source sufficient to cite the claim that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on the Raymond Cottrell article? BelloWello (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Nelson Patrick possesses a relevant PhD from a research intensive Australian university (Newcastle, 1991: "Christianity and culture in colonial Australia [manuscript]: selected Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan and Adventist perspectives, 1891-1900"). While he has had a limited research career (two books, one his PhD, both by partisan presses of a higher quality), he is an expert in religious history. As such Arthur Patrick (2009) A brief, annotated introduction to the field of adventist studies for higher degree students (unpublished) Cooranbong, NSW: Avondale College. (available online) is reliable for the statement that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on Raymond Cottrell. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Input needed at Transgender

Another editor and I disagree over whether the following text with the following source is permissible at Transgender. I hope to have the input of other editors to help forestall the obvious edit war:

"Anne Lawrence, a sexologist, physician, and self-identified autogynephilic transsexual suggested that the BSTc finding was instead caused by the hormone treatments the study participants taking."

With this essay as the RS: http://www.annelawrence.com/brain-sex_critique.html "A critique of the brain-sex theory of transsexualism" by Dr. Anne Lawrence.

The essay appears on Dr. Lawrence' website. So, the essay is a WP:SPS, but becuase she is a well-published expert in the field of that essay (transsexualism), her comments are a legit WP:RS for the above statement.

At least, that's my view.

Examples of Anne Lawrence' published scholarship on the topic include:

• Lawrence, A. A. (2010). Societal individualism predicts prevalence of nonhomosexual orientation in male-to-female transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 573-583.
• Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Erotic target location errors: An underappreciated paraphilic dimension. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 194-215.
• Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Transgenderism in nonhomosexual males as a paraphilic phenomenon: Implications for case conceptualization and treatment. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 24, 188-206.

Her complete c.v. is also downloadable from her website: http://www.annelawrence.com/lawrence_cv.pdf

So, my question is the basic one: Is Lawrence' SPS a legit RS for the above claim?
— James Cantor (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Given that Lawrence is a physician, and is making a medical claim, MEDRS really ought to be the standard for sourcing this kind of claim. An SPS of opinion, even expert opinion, is not sufficient to establish medical claims for wikipedia purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Fifelfoo. She's very qualified, but medical claims are held to a standard that outweighs those qualifications. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

sandiegostreetcars.org

In a recent edit, content was added referenced to the website in question that appears to be an advocacy organization. Furthermore in this specific edit, it does not link to specific content that supports the newly added material.

More over, in looking at this article, I have found other edits by the user that use the same source which I am creating this new entry on (see the change in the San Diego article which adds basically the same content, same at the Coronado article, etc.); also the choice of the user name may fall under WP:ORGNAME. I hope that by bringing this up, that this is not considered WP:HOUND. I want to assume good faith, and see that the editor is doing what they believe is best by adding content from a source that they have a vested interest in, however to advocate said interest with a reference that may not be a reliable source questions any material attributed to it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping with WP:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification, I am inviting editors from appropriate WikiProjects relating the the Chula Vista article to this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. This user has been putting virtually identical text into the articles for many San Diego neighborhood articles. I don't really have a problem with using their website as a source for the history information, but I have been removing a sentence which is unrelated to the neighborhood articles, namely the one that says "Only three of these streetcars exist today -- surviving only by virtue of being transformed into homes -- and remain ideal candidates for restoration as a historic streetcar line on any of their previous routes." This seems to be related to the website's advocacy and does not belong here. I have put a note on the user's talk page, directing them to this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My question is whether the organization's website is a WP:RS, as much as say the San Diego Historical Society is. His additional additions on articles beyond Chula Vista, and his username, are all secondary to the question of the website's reliability. If the website is found not to be an RS, then all the edits that use it as a reference can be tagged appropriately, and a new reference requested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical Marker Database

In the past this source was not seen as reliable and was quickly dismissed as a WP:SPS. However, per WP:IRS, the source is published, and has editorial oversight. Furthermore, as the material that it is documenting is usually that of historical markers placed by history organizations, or government entities, the information provided on the marker themselves can usually be referenced elsewhere. I ask as I am seeking to use information from the following page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• "You may occasionally find a database entry that violates these guidelines. These got in before the guidelines were tightened, or were snuck in when no one was looking. There should be very few of them and no, they will probably not be purged if you bring them to our attention. At the same time, they cannot be used to argue for the inclusion of your non-complying marker." from the page you linked makes me feel very strongly that this is not meaningful editorial oversight. In addition, The First and Second Filipino Infantry Regiments Association (1984) The First and Second Filipino Infantry Regiments U.S. Army Marker (unpublished, indexed at hmdb) 36° 41.563′ N, 121° 39.053′ W may itself be unreliable due to SPS. Where were you intending to use the source, and what were you intending to support with it? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It has a statement regarding the number of individual and unit awards issued to the regiments members, that would be useful at either Military History of Asian Americans or Filipino Americans article. As the Regiments did not get nearly the coverage by community and educational organizations as say the 442nd, it is difficult to find information on the unit. Furthermore, having done a project on the units for a history course (Professor Tuyay teaching), I had contacted the Center of Military History and their resources on the unit are limited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Something doesn't feel right about the Marker / Inscription itself, which claims, "Considered by many U.S. Army historians as one of the most colorful, publicized, versatile and decorated regimental combat-size units in the Pacific Theater of operations of World War II." 1/2 Filipino Inf Reg Ass (1984) op.cit. This doesn't gel with your research into the unit. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the marker was erected by an organization woes members may have mostly died, it is hard to tell where the statement comes from. Furthermore, it is reasonable that the organization may embellish the units actions; however, given the lack of records, it is the only reference so far that I have found that gives a county to the number awards/medals/decorations for the unit as a whole. It would be reasonable that even the lowest private who did nothing would receive two awards (Pacific Theater campaign medal, and Philippine liberation medal), and given the unit size the number stated is not unreasonable, however presently this is speculation on my part and thus would be WP:OR. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm more concerned with the phrase "Considered by many US Army historians as of of the most…publicized." This indicates that 1/2 FIRA believed that they had been highly publicised and considered by historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly they aren't highly publicized. Otherwise, I wouldn't be looking at this marker as a reference, and could draw upon other references to support the marker's statement. However, presently, I don't have anything to refute the statement regarding the number of awards/medals/etc. either. It is clearly documented by other reliable sources that they unit existed, and where the unit fought, but beyond one decorating ceremony of an off shoot unit (5217th Reconnaissance Battalion (United States)), there is little else regarding what decorations the unit or its members received.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't feel this is an RS, but I've called for third opinions below to fully explore the issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Third opinions are required and solicited. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• It looks OK to me. I think this database can be used for sourcing, exactly as we are using biological databases. For example, sourcing a biological function of a protein to UniProt would be fine. Such databases are usually compiled by "annotators", the people who look at various published sources and place information to the database. However, they frequently do not provide links to the underlying sources and occasionally make errors. Therefore, a more reliable source (e.g. a peer reviewed journal publication) would override information provided by the database, especially when the error is obvious, which is usually the case. Such databases may significantly facilitate creation and editing of articles, especially if done in a (semi)automatic mode. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Secondary vs. Tertiary Sources

Hi,In section Allegations of Disagreement with Ali of article Fatimah I am running into two not-so-agreeing sources. One is Verena Klemm's Book Chapter titled: "Image Formation of an Islamic Legend: Fà†ima, the Daughter of the Prophet Mu˙ammad" published by Brill in this book. The other source is a tertiary one, i.e. Encyclopedia of Islam.

The Tertiary source emphacises that Ali was rude and harsh (Shiddah and Ghelaz) to his wife during their marriage life without showing support (primary or secondary source). The secondary source however, mentions one occasion in the history where the wife complains about her husband's rudeness (Shiddah) to his father, i.e. Muhammad. Due to which the husband promises not to do anythig that his wife dislikes. The author of the secondary source provides primary sources to this incident.

My question: Can I write just the secondary source and not the tertiary? Considering the following guideline of Wiki: ((Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources.)) [21]

Kazemita1 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify the problem,

There are two sources. The first one is Encyclopedia of Islam which is one of most reliable sources on Islam related topics. The second one is another secondary academic book. Both sources are reliable but the Encycoedia is peer reviewed by a larger community of scholars.

Encyclopedia of Islam contains some information not shared in the second source (simply not shared but I do not see disagreement between two sources). User Kazemita1 urges me to delete the information from Encyclopedia of Islam) which are not shared. Is he right to delete the material from the tertiary source?--Behzad.Modares (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Our policy on tertiary sources such as encyclopedias says, "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others." There has been an understanding expressed on this noticeboard that encyclopedia articles signed by known academic experts have more credence than unsigned ones, because much of the time the latter are written by freelancers who don't necessarily know more about the topic than you or I do. I don't think there is any hard and fast rule here; I would typically seek a consensus on the article's Talk page regarding inclusion of the tertiary source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, he's not right, there is no automatic preference of a secondary source over a tertiary. If both sources are higly reputable, the article should in doubt use both sources and report on there differing assessments.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If the secondary source could support the same material and viewpoint as the tertiary source, I would say we should favor the secondary one (ie I think it is OK to replace an acceptable citation to a tertiary source with a better one to a secondary source, when both sources support the same information with similar viewpoints)... but Kmh is absolutely correct when it comes to different sources with different viewpoints or takes on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail, Digital Spy, Daily Express, and reliability for Doctor Who

User 88.104.40.103 has raised questions at this AfD on whether certain references are reliable for referencing the article. I, personally, believe they are, since the references are from widely-read newspapers and an entertainment news website. In short, they are this from the Daily Mail, this from the Daily Express, and this from Digital Spy.

Do note that, for these newspapers, since they are based in the UK, the term tabloid means the style of the layout, page size, and how the pages are formated. It does not mean trashy papers that have sensationalist stories, as it means here in the US. See the lede of Tabloid for more info.

Anyways, reliable or not? Silverseren^C 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While 'tabloid' doesn't necessarily mean 'trashy', the Daily Mail is one of the trashiest rags I've ever had the misfortune to share a country with. In the words of Hugh Laurie, "I'm a Daily Mail reader myself – well, I prefer it to a newspaper." That said, I guess we have to accept them as reliable sources for articles, since they go to great lengths to confirm what they print... ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could probably call quite a few of reliable US newspapers trashy too, but what stuff a newspaper covers doesn't make it unreliable and, especially when we're talking about TV show reviews, I don't think the info would be wrong. Silverseren^C 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wondering what the News of the World phone hacking affair has to do with the reliability of The Daily Mail or the others? Heiro 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Not quite sure either.) Silverseren^C 22:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they're not sure whether a story they have is true, they're clearly prepared to break the law just to get first-hand verification. You've got to admire such a thorugh approach to journalism. They're absolutely reliable. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's News of the World, not any of the ones i'm proposing. And most major newspapers have scandals happen at one time or another. Someone always messes up somewhere and says or does something wrong and it explodes into a big fiasco. It's a lot like Wikipedia, really. But, anyways, what about the ones i'm proposing? Silverseren^C 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, they're trashy and sleazy, but of the utmost reliability. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So to tar these sources as unreliable, you associate them with a competitors misdeeds? This makes them unreliable how?Heiro 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Try looking again at what I've written, this time with your reading glasses on, then have another stab at replying. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I read it when you mentioned the nefarious dealings of another tabloid instead of the ones specifically in question. But you do seem to agree that the 3 sources in question are reliable for the purposes of the article in question. Am I correct in assuming this? I don't know with you half the time, way too many fine line word games and off topic innuendo. Heiro 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no innuendo. I have a huge respect for all trashy tabloid newspapers. They have a widespread cultural effect on society which can only be a good thing. And check this out: in the last decade, the Daily Mail has only paid out just over £300,000 in libel damages, and that coveered five separate cases. Not a bad average for reliability at all! ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Think they'll be sued for libel in this case or is the article reliable?Heiro 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's relatively unlikely that a fictional alien will sue them for libel, particularly given that the aliens in question are forgotten the moment a human looks away from them. But of course, the questions, "Is that source reliable?" and, "Will that source be sued for libel?" are rather different. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the actual problem is regarding Dr. Who, just use intext attribution if your confidence in the daily mail on the subject is not that high.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if TreasuryTag is being ironic or not. But to return to the subject. For direct quoting of others and reporting of events I'd consider the DM fairly reliable. But if an article by them hasn't got an author given , I'd suspect it of having been lifted off the internet somewhere rather than actually a result of journalistic effort. (But perhaps my view of the British press is soured by being a Private Eye reader). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if TreasuryTag is being ironic or not. It's better that way... [22] ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a "reliable source" under WP policies - recalling "reliable" != "infallible." Their libel record is pretty much similar to other British papers - they all have been sued. And DM has a better than average defence rate. As for "lifting stories", IIRC, the New York Times got caught doing that very thing. Collect (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion (2)

A piece by Leonhard, Robert R on the Boxer Rebellion has been inserted into the article as a citation. I asked what his credentials were and was told the following.

"LTC(R) Robert R. Leonhard, Ph.D., is on the Principal Professional Staff of The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and a member of the Strategic Assessments Office of the National Security Analysis Department. He retired from a 24-year career in the Army after serving as an infantry officer and war planner and is a veteran of Operation Desert Storm. Dr. Leonhard is the author of The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle (1991), Fighting by Minutes: Time and the Art of War (1994), The Principles of War for the Information Age (1998), and The Evolution of Strategy in the Global War on Terrorism (2005), as well as numerous articles and essays on national security issues."

None of this seems relevant to China or History, let alone early 20th century Chinese history. I had not heard of the "Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory" until today.

Is this a reliable source for the Boxer Rebellion article? John Smith's (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While he may not be as reliable as a specific expert on Chinese history, is there reason to believe that he hasn't done proper research for his piece? He seems qualified enough in general as a writer. Silverseren^C 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How would one ever have reason to believe someone hasn't done proper research? And he hasn't written anything on China or shown he has published a work that shows good historiography. I don't see how that makes him "qualified enough", other than the fact he can write text. John Smith's (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not aiming to get the source removed from the article. I'm trying to get some clarification as to when a source is reliable and when not. John Smith's (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that, from his other works, he seems to be reliable as an expert on warfare and warfare tactics. And his piece on China is about the warfare of China and with the Boxer Rebellion. So, I would say he is reliable for sourcing about the warfare and tactics used in the Boxer Rebellion, but not for other stuff. Silverseren^C 22:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Leonhard was an American military officer and has a PHd, in addition to writing numerous books on the military. He specifically wrote about the International alliance participation in the Boxer Rebellion, since American military units were part of the Eight-Nation Alliance expeditional force under Edward Hobart Seymour. He is not writing about Chinese court politics, nor delving into Chinese traditions. His article "The China relief expedition- Joint Colaition Warfare in China Summer 1900", is about the international military alliance force which included american troops. He is a former military officer and worked in the National Security Analysis Department, so he is well qualified to write articles on military actions america took part with.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Under Admiral Seymour, Americans made up part of the Alliance force. I'd say that an American military officer is well qualified to write about military actions in which american troops took part in.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And only an educational instution in America can own a .edu site. Its impossible to fake.- "Starting on October 29, 2001, only post-secondary institutions and organizations that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a edu domain"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't even going to bother to the OP's questioning of the existence of the Lab, since a simple google search confirmed it. Kind of a waste of time to respond to that, personally. Silverseren^C 01:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, I didn't question its existence. I questioned its significance/importance. Not every institution has to be Oxford or Harvard, but then one would hope there's a minimum standard as well. Maybe it's prestigious in military technology or something like that, but I'm not sure how it extends to Chinese history in this period. John Smith's (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University is a prestigous and well known university in America, Ranking at #3 is Johns Hopkins University with 54,022 papers cited a total of 1,222,166 times.

As I already said, and obviously if you looked at the source yourself, Dr. Leonhard wrote the paper regarding "joint coalition warfare" during the boxer rebellion, in which his military took part in in 1900. He documents the invasion and military manouveres of the parties involved. It very well has something to dow with the Boxer Rebellion.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting comments on reliability of sources for : Edits made and reverted discussed here

Hi, please let know of criteria of PVO after going through the discussion. Talk:Christianity_in_India#Vandalism_in_edits_.5B.7C_here.5D_by_Gaitherbill_and_user_SpacemanSpiff_.5B.7C_here.5D I would like to welcome decision after through discussion on the topic where everyone ignores sourced content as right wing POV. This behavior may be (may be not) similar to Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1#Why_is_a_reference_to_the_Goa_Inquisition_being_deleted or Talk:Christianity_in_India/Archive_1#An_edit_war_by_compulsive_reverts._Is_this_article_neutral.3F. The sources I mentioned are as follows:

1. http://apostlethomasindia.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/the_myth_of_saint_thomas_and_the_mylapor.pdf

2. http://voi.org/books/hhce/Ch21.htm

3. http://voi.org/books/ca/index.htm

4. http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics

5. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/

6. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/shantivanam/images-of-shantivanam/ - maintained by some Christians in India

7. http://www.upanishad.org/en/summary.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

8. http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html - maintained by some Christians in India

9. http://www.bedegriffiths.com/sangha/sangha_2009_spring.pdf -maintained by some Christians in India

10. http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhce/Ch19.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

11. http://www.upanishad.org/en/chidananda.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

12. http://www.upanishad.org/vandana/vandana_mataji.htm - maintained by some Christians in India

13. http://www.upanishad.org/ishpriya/biography.htm - maintained by some Christians in India Thanks..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 09:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the simple and clear instructions at the top of this page Fifelfoo (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok I am searching for credibility though it is difficult to find something online perhaps because people consider it controversial more than going about checking correctness...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am not against Christianity or Saint Thomas or indeed what is done in his name, till St. Thomas is called martyr to look down upon Hindu cleric class, and worse perhaps and I think it is not proper to blame Hindu clerics for a few or for what has not been done at all, or it is incorrect to put cause of something else on St. Thomas and avoid consequences. This should not happen...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 10:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nice. You still need to supply full citations, the articles they're intended to be used on, and the statements that each source will support. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what I mentioned:

"Some Hindus have accused Christians of establishing "ashrams" in different parts of India and doing many other things in order to look like Hindu sannyasins and are interested in sharing - dialogue is the term they use - only as a means to conversions."

some Hindus..two references 1. http://voi.org/books/ca/index.htm who has written the book with following allegations supported by facts; another reference http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics/ questioning tactics, when in deed the Bible literature is modified to include Hindu scriptures (not the Bible in English) as claimed by those who distribute it as the Bible as well.

"in establishing ashrams and adopting the appearance of sannyasi..." from here which I thought was as impartial as possible, the details are given to justify the claims in the link. Again "in sharing - dialogue is the term they use - only as a means to conversions?".. from http://voi.org/books/hhce/Ch19.htm. The sources have enough information to explain what is meant by these words.

The other links are online, as maintained by some Christians(not Hindus) in India, a few of the links with the name of Hindu literature like "Upanishad" which are indeed Hindu scriptures. .असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is not an accusation and should not be later misused to put consequence on others who are not involved with this at all. Primarily this does look like an open subversion of Hindu literature and lifestyle(and I am sure even this will be called into question). If you notice there is an AUM sign on cross in a picture and this is passed off as Christian tradition and lifestyle which it is not at all. I see no reason why this is to be done other than the allegation mentioned..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• You still need to supply full citations this means: Author, date, title, location published, publisher, page range or portion of cited text. What you have supplied so far are naked web links. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I will do that once I will get enough substantial information..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I just said, I would like to gather more information about this part. My intention to add truthful information(as I understand) as sourced content didn't turn up the way I had assumed. I would like to think over the entire exercise, and hope that the absence of truth(according to me) somehow ends..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary or Secondary?

In the TWA 800 article I sourced every statement of fact, but pretty much all to the same document, the NTSB accident report. That is a primary source, so that makes that article not so good(?) Unfortunately that very long and detailed document is probably never going to be summed up in some secondary form, although some specific parts of it were discussed in secondary science articles which I did try to incorporate into the article.

Now my problem is with the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. This 12-year investigation used both evidence taken in prior inquries as well evidence taken in the course of its own and came to conclusions. It's written much in our style, with ample footnotes and quotations at length from other sources. Is this strictly a primary source and I have an obligation to avoid quoting it directly if possible in discussing the events of Bloody Sunday (1972)? Without any secondary source that analyzes the report in detail what should I do as an editor as to incorporation the information inside? Thanks! LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't (obviously, it's big!) read the Bloody Sunday report in detail, but it seems to me there are going to be parts of it which are effectively secondary source, and parts of it which are primary source. Where it's clearly summing up other sources then it's clearly secondary, but for other information it's likely to be originating source material, ie primary. I find this is often the case for government documents, from court cases to inquiries. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether the report is primary or secondary. I would call it a highly reliable source, no matter how it is classified.

People keep acting as if we are not allowed to use primary sources. That is simply not correct. Sure, there are limitations on how to use a primary source... and it is important to understand how to use a primary source appropriately (and even more important to understand how to avoid using one inappropriately)... but it sounds like you are well within those limitations, and using this source appropriately. Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Book by former Communist

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba

Lia Looveer

Are these sources reliable:

• War Criminals Welcome: Australia, a sanctuary for fugitive war criminals since 1945 (2001), by Mark Aarons, published by Black Inc.. Aarons is an Australian journalist, having worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. His articles have appeared in The Australian and the Wall Street Journal.[23] From 1969 to 1978 he was a member of the Communist Party of Australia and his father was a leading Australian Communist.
• Australian Cold Warrior: The Anti-Communism of W. C. Wentworth (2010), doctoral thesis of Lachlan Clohesy at Victoria University, Australia.[24] The 356 page thesis cites Aarons' book eleven times in footnotes.

According to the administrator, Fred Bauder. use of these sources is in violation of Section 8 of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors warned, "making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies". According to some editors, Aarons' book is unreliable because he was once a Communist and Clohesy's doctoral thesis is unreliable because he used Aarons' book as a source.

TFD (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)