Line 633: | Line 633: | ||
Would [http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/bayhmain.html this] be considered reliable? Given that it is [http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/about.html sponsored by George Washington University]. --[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
Would [http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/bayhmain.html this] be considered reliable? Given that it is [http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/about.html sponsored by George Washington University]. --[[User:William S. Saturn|William S. Saturn]] ([[User talk:William S. Saturn|talk]]) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Reliable for what? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
:Reliable for what? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Quest asks an important question... we can not know if it is reliable without knowing how it is being used (or how you wish to use it). Could you give us more details? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 04:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:03, 10 April 2010
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ChapatiMystery.com
ChapatiMystery is a group blog founded several years ago and maintained by Manan Ahmed, a recent Ph.D in History from Chicago, now teaching at the Freie Universität Berlin. The blog is mostly concerned with South Asian history, culture and politics, and has a fairly decent reputation (especially for its coverage of Pakistan). It has plenty of hits at Google, and is not unknown to either Google Books or Google Scholar. Given tbis background, what is the status of the following two "guest posts", by authors commenting on threads at the site discussing their work:
In particular,
- Is it credible that these posts are by Dalrymple and Doniger respectively?
- If so - i.e. if there is no reasonable doubt regarding authenticity - can these posts be cited under the rules of WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:SELFPUB for materials pertaining to their own work? In other words, can these posts be considered statements "on the record", so to speak?
- Are they good enough for the WP:SPS rules but not good enough for the WP:BLPSPS rules?
And, should this be followed up anyway on the WP:BLPN board for the BLP articles? The point being, since they are in a sense "defending" their own work, these posts can hardly be considered derogatory, so BLP issues aren't likely once credibility is established. rudra (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Rudrasharman "forgot" to mention how he is using Doniger's alleged post. He is using to say that Doniger is "on record" (Rudrasharman's words) as responding to Witzel's critique, which was contained an an email, thus strengthening the stauts of Witzel's email "critique". The whole idea is to circumvent WP:RS. Doniger's enemies haven't been able to dig up any reliable criticism of Doniger's forty years of Sanskrit translation which is harsh enough to help them draft a reputation-damaging biographical article on Doniger. Rudrasharman has deleted text from the article which was sourced to academic journals, including the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, when it didn't suit his vision of Doniger.[1] The text that his side "needs" for the article is contained in blogs and emails. His side thinks that those sources are more reliable than academic journals. There is a plethora of reliable material available. It just doesn't suit Rudrasharman's agenda. Thus there is no need for the article to resort to the use of a weblog as a source. — goethean ॐ 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please ignore the troll's diversion. Nothing has been "forgotten". The Witzel critique referred to is WP:RS by the WP:SPS rules - we could start a separate thread on such a no-brainer, but there's no real need. rudra (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- In which article is the source being used?
- What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
- Where is the relevant talk page discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- The article, in this case, is Wendy Doniger (a BLP). Here is the diff where the reference was introduced (there were some tweaks and then eventually the ref was removed.) It is supporting the assertion that the BLP subject has responded to a critique of some of her work by a world-class expert in the field. This section in the talk page has relevant materials. This section may also be relevant, as may some other threads, such as this one. Please ask if more clarification is needed. rudra (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- For completeness, I should mention that I was thinking of adding the Dalrymple reference to the page for one his books, The Last Mughal. Common to the two cases is the issue of authenticity, which depends, in exactly the same way for both, on the credibility of the ChapatiMystery site. rudra (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- The listserv is definitely not RS, and it's also not a self-published source. Likewise the post by Doniger on chapatimystery.com. Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Whether the listserv is RS is not an issue. The issue would be WP:SPS applied to posts on this list by notable scholars, such as Michael Witzel. This mailing list is very well-known: it is the premier Indological mailing list on the internet, nearly 20 years old. Its membership is a veritable who's who of indological scholars, and its archives are mirrored on other sites. A Google search for the word "indology" returns the site as the very first hit (and has done so for a long time now, for obvious reasons). It doesn't get any more mainstream and established than that. As such, therefore, posts to this mailing list by indological scholars on subjects in their own fields eminently qualify under WP:SPS.
- But all that was a digression. This thread is about the Dalrymple and Doniger posts to the ChapatiMystery site. Which of the WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB criteria are being questioned? The only one that I think could be open to question is #4: that there is reasonable doubt as to the authenticity. I'd appreciate further feedback on this from the regulars here. rudra (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- As such, therefore, posts to this mailing list by indological scholars on subjects in their own fields eminently qualify under WP:SPS.
- ...except that they aren't actually published — they are posted to a list-serv. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- To be a reliable source, it has to be published. A listserv, or the emails sent to it, does not meet this requirement. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- To repeat, the issue is not RS (a guideline), it is SPS (part of a policy). Please review the WP:SPS section for the relevant definition, viz. "...self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., ...". The intent of this ostensive definition is clear: so, e.g., if "forum postings" qualify as self-published, then mailing list posts do too, as there is no difference of consequence between them. The major issue with these forms of self-published media is authenticity: is the instance by the person claimed? (Other issues can be topicality - is it relevant - and finally notability, of either the person or the content; but these details are already covered in WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB and shouldn't need elaboration here.)
- Once again, on this thread, the issue is the credibility of the ChapatiMystery.com site and thus the authenticity of the Dalrymple and Doniger posts. I'm willing to accept reasonable doubts, but so far no one has articulated any such concerns. rudra (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources for casualties relating to I/P
Is http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/aksagraph.html a usable source for casualties and foiled plots? Unomi (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, although there are good sources cited on the page, those are probably for individual figures, and the website doesn't give any indication as to who compiled this graph. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely unreliable. Mostly just public allegations by interested parties, but the interested parties are not even properly identified. Zerotalk 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process and is most certainly a reliable source. Itsmejudith, you're wrong about the "who compiled this graph" comment for two reasons. (1) Britannica doesn't list who compiles their graphs either. (2) The following sources are listed at the bottom: "Sources: Israeli Foreign Ministry, Washington Post, (April 2, 2004); Prime Minister’s Office; McClatchey Washington Bureau, (January 11, 2006)"
- Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is unclear just which scholars wrote what. Another problem is that it often merely lists the names of sources, but offers no additional information which would allow one to double check. This is problematic as there are demonstrated cases of their numbers being off by a wide margin see here for a recent example. Linking to the landing page of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the landing page of Washington Post, the landing page of of the Prime Minister's Office as well as a dead link doesn't really inspire the greatest confidence in their supposed scholarship, they don't even bother to write the name of the articles or briefs. I don't see any information on their editorial procedures, I found no mention of any scholars. If I made an oversight, please do let me know. Unomi (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The page seems clear enough with a caption reading "September 2000-2007". I suppose it is also linked to from other articles. As to the writer, I refer you to (1) above. Information about the library's officials can be found through the 'about us' pages. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, that is a non argument, by (1) then we could say that any unattributed article on the internets is as reliable as Britannica. About Us doesn't state anything about editorial process or the authors that contribute. Is there a source for what you said? Unomi (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not using it as an argument for inclusion. I'm saying that the 'signature' is the non argument for non-inclusion. I'm not following you here. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- You specifically said (1) Britannica doesn't list who compiles their graphs either. but that doesn't address the fact that EB lists its contributors and lists its editorial board, and for each article you can see exactly who contributed in addition. If you see their article on global warming you will also note that each graph is individually attributed complete with year of publication and the title of the publication. There is no comparison between JVL and EB. Unomi (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not using it as an argument for inclusion. I'm saying that the 'signature' is the non argument for non-inclusion. I'm not following you here. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, that is a non argument, by (1) then we could say that any unattributed article on the internets is as reliable as Britannica. About Us doesn't state anything about editorial process or the authors that contribute. Is there a source for what you said? Unomi (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The page seems clear enough with a caption reading "September 2000-2007". I suppose it is also linked to from other articles. As to the writer, I refer you to (1) above. Information about the library's officials can be found through the 'about us' pages. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is unclear just which scholars wrote what. Another problem is that it often merely lists the names of sources, but offers no additional information which would allow one to double check. This is problematic as there are demonstrated cases of their numbers being off by a wide margin see here for a recent example. Linking to the landing page of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the landing page of Washington Post, the landing page of of the Prime Minister's Office as well as a dead link doesn't really inspire the greatest confidence in their supposed scholarship, they don't even bother to write the name of the articles or briefs. I don't see any information on their editorial procedures, I found no mention of any scholars. If I made an oversight, please do let me know. Unomi (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the JVL used as a source by other, obviously reliable sources? If so, where? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Answering my own question - yes, it is used by other, obviously reliable sources, including by CNN for the birthyear of an IDF Chief of Staff, by the Jerusalem Post for a count of jews in NZ, by the LA Times for holocaust statistics, and many others. I believe this evidences a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this poses an interesting problem. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot , north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich and has detailed information on just about every intelligence event. It published a report detailing terroristic activities, and their numbers are lower than the JVL ones by a wide margin. In just one case for 'thwarted suicide attacks' the JVL numbers were apparently ~1,100 while the ITIC numbers are 521. One of these sources is in error. If we are going to use JVL we should do so with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly, we should state "According to X," but I'm not sure your new source is reliable. Why do you believe it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this poses an interesting problem. ITIC is part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) , an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot , north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich and has detailed information on just about every intelligence event. It published a report detailing terroristic activities, and their numbers are lower than the JVL ones by a wide margin. In just one case for 'thwarted suicide attacks' the JVL numbers were apparently ~1,100 while the ITIC numbers are 521. One of these sources is in error. If we are going to use JVL we should do so with particular attribution. Unomi (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It is deeply problematic that JVL is seen as an RS when its figures are so unambiguously exaggerated compared to those published by organizations affiliated with Israeli intelligence. It clearly cannot be. Unomi (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reliable sources can disagree. When they do, we merely mention the varying statements. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Jewish Virtual Library is not a reliable source, this has been discussed before. There are many lies and misinformation in JVL articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- That prior RSN discussion did not appear to have any uninvolved participants. Which of the editors there are not active I-P edit-war participants, exactly? I discount entirely the contributions of patently obvious sockpupets and interested editors. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- What is the dispute over exactly? A certain figure where there's conflicting numbers? Which sources are we comparing. JVL is not the ultimate in sources but it is a good one for most purposes.
- p.s. Supreme Deliciousness, your tone here is unfitting.
- With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 19:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I contest that it is a good source for most purposes. Jaakobou, above you state The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, would you be kind enough to point us to where that can be verified? Unomi (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- That Jaakobou claims JVL is "written by scholars" is laughable, here for example is a JVL article sourced from wikipedia:[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- With respect to SD's comment above, if you read the discussion at that link, no decision was made regarding whether or not JVL was un-reliable. In actuality, the discussion seems to conclude it is a mixed bag, but generally accepted as qualifying as a WP:RS. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 19:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not true at all, the majority of people in that discussion did not see it as a "generally accepted as qualifying as a WP:RS" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness,
- Your style here is unappreciated and I suggest you review WP:CIVIL. JVL is over-sighted by Mitchel Bard, who is indeed a scholar. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not true at all, the majority of people in that discussion did not see it as a "generally accepted as qualifying as a WP:RS" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I contest that it is a good source for most purposes. Jaakobou, above you state The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, would you be kind enough to point us to where that can be verified? Unomi (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is unclear what the exact dispute is. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is unclear to me why people think it should be considered an RS. Unomi (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed that I answered that when I wrote "it is used by other, obviously reliable sources, including by CNN for the birthyear of an IDF Chief of Staff, by the Jerusalem Post for a count of jews in NZ, by the LA Times for holocaust statistics, and many others. I believe this evidences a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not really.. I mean just because a news outlet states According to.. that doesn't immediately confer upon them 'a reputation for accuracy', otherwise we might as well mark all political pundits RS. What we are looking for here is an editorial process and scholarship. Unomi (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- You'd be so much more believable if you didn't accept a source that disagreed with them at face value just for disagreeing with them. Just saying! Hipocrite (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't read any of their reports? I don't think that they are perfect, but they do happen to have niceties such as footnotes and detailed descriptions, and they are also referenced in media at least as many times as JVL is. I find it likely that they play nice with the IDF and Mossad, which makes it even less likely that their statistics are in any way anything but pro-Israel. I am not disagreeing with JVL just for the hell of it, I am disagreeing with them because they instill no confidence in their scholarship whatsoever. I think that they should likely both be used only with particular attribution, but lets take one source at a time. But uhh, go ahead and defend a site which copies text from wikipedia, thats real credible. Unomi (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- You'd be so much more believable if you didn't accept a source that disagreed with them at face value just for disagreeing with them. Just saying! Hipocrite (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not really.. I mean just because a news outlet states According to.. that doesn't immediately confer upon them 'a reputation for accuracy', otherwise we might as well mark all political pundits RS. What we are looking for here is an editorial process and scholarship. Unomi (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It seemed that I answered that when I wrote "it is used by other, obviously reliable sources, including by CNN for the birthyear of an IDF Chief of Staff, by the Jerusalem Post for a count of jews in NZ, by the LA Times for holocaust statistics, and many others. I believe this evidences a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is unclear to me why people think it should be considered an RS. Unomi (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is unclear what the exact dispute is. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources to confirm your claim? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. If I provide them, will you agree the source is reliable, or are you asking me to jump through hoops to waste my time? You can either take me at my word that it was used by those sources as a source, or you think that it's irrelevent, or you can say that it's key to your belief or lack there of of the reliability of the source, but you can't verify it on your own. I'll only provide the sources in the third instance, but you'll be prevented from further argumentation. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources to confirm your claim? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
For certain things the source is fine, but there is almost invariably a better source that can be used in its place. There are things on that site that are reliable, others that are plain bogus. But if there is anything contentious being used a better source should be found. nableezy - 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then it isn't reliable, it may state things that are true, but that is the case for just about any site. I think it would be better to simply state 'find better sources', it shouldn't be hard to find such sources as those must be what JVL themselves rely on for things that are true. Unomi (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Arguments
For RS
- It is used as a source by other, obviously reliable sources including the LA Times, Jerusalem Post and CNN[citation needed]
- It has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.[citation needed]
- Uninvolved editors have stated that parts of it appear to be a reliable source.[who?]
Against RS
- No indication of editorial process[3][failed verification]Can't prove a negative, after all.
- No indication of authorship[4][failed verification]Can't prove a negative, after all.
- Has articles sourced to wikipedia[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17](and many many more)[relevant?]
- Inconsistent or inadequate references.[18]
- Directly contradicted by other sources[19].
- Involved editors who don't agree with it's PoV would like to exclude it's content[dubious ][original research?]
Discussion
Comment: JVL is used on a vast number of articles: see here. It is an encyclopaedic source which is appropriate for WP. I disapprove of the above structuring -- I assume created by Unomi -- as it indicates a misunderstanding of how sources are used here. e.g. I haven't seen a citation that calls the BBC to have a reputation for fact checking, to the contrary even, they are winners (if I'm not mistaken) of about 4 out of 8 "Dishonest reporter of the year" awards. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just because it has been used in wikipedia articles doesn't make it reliable. It has been showed above that its an unreliable website that makes up stuff and sources articles from wikipeda, you keep on claiming that its an "encyclopaedic source" and that its "written by scholars" but you have not brought any evidence to confirm this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Supreme Deliciousness,
- Hyperbole makes discussion quite difficult and I request that you stop using it. I've no idea on where you've decided the JVL "makes up stuff" or that "lies and misinformation" are the norm there.
- With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- You keep saying that it is an encyclopedic source which is appropriate, yet you are unable or unwilling to present any evidence to that effect. What you are linking to is how many articles link to the Jewish_Virtual_Library, which could equally prove that most articles use it with particular attribution. No one is arguing that one cannot do that, simply that this is the only way that it can be used. Please have a calm read through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and present actual, factual arguments for why JVL should be considered. Also please note WP:CCC. Unomi (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
To repeat what I wrote once before: "JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources." I have not seen anything written here to make me change that viewpoint. JVL is both valuable and dangerous; because of its ubiquitous usage in Wikipedia I think we should make a protocol for using it along the lines of what I suggested. Zerotalk 13:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- How would that work in practice?I am concerned that an agreement to use JVL as a proper RS only when the author is known and respected will be open to gaming and slippery slopeness, I would feel much more comfortable with, in those cases, simply saying 'So and So writes ..' or 'According to JVL..'. Particular attribution is not a kiss of death. Unomi (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- JVL stands on a higher quality level than, for example, the Guardian or the BBC -- both also have some appalling propagandistic junk -- on anything Arab-Israeli related. There's no need to take JVL to a higher task than those two. All three are considered wiki-reliable and where there is an argument in reference to the material, then we allow all the mainstream POVs to be presented. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ha. The Guardian and the BBC both have editorial staff responsible for the accuracy of their reports and they both make corrections when needed. Your opinions of the BBC and the Guardian are entertaining, but not relevant. nableezy - 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- JVL stands on a higher quality level than, for example, the Guardian or the BBC -- both also have some appalling propagandistic junk -- on anything Arab-Israeli related. There's no need to take JVL to a higher task than those two. All three are considered wiki-reliable and where there is an argument in reference to the material, then we allow all the mainstream POVs to be presented. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- These are not my own opinions but rather fairly well documented concerns by mainstream media critics. That the Beeb is an almost regular at the DROTY awards and/or that they burn immense amounts of public funds in order to bury a bias analysis report on them is fairly indicative regardless if you've been caught in the misconception that they correct errors "when needed". Just off the top of my head, I recall a headline that suggested one of the Jerusalem bulldozer attackers, who flipped a bus and ran over several cars (killing a woman) before stopped, was portrayed as a victim. While the BBC is more "entertaining" and "relevant" than JVL; JVL is just as responsible for their material as the BBC is, if not more. Both are considered wiki-reliable -- though, I would give a scholar based source a higher level of importance than a generic news source.
- Best wishes, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the things on JVL indeed qualify as quality sources, much of it does not. For example, this page is sourced only to Wikipedia, and there are many more like it. It is, as Zero0000 wrote above, a mixed bag. nableezy - 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please, that page does not account for "much of it" and there's a disclaimer at the bottom. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- From a practical standpoint, if we do not make it clear that this is not an RS, then what do we do when we are met with problematic pages? It will almost certainly result in a new round of 'these numbers do not come close to other sources', 'authorship and sources are unclear' with clamors of 'It is an RS' in return. This is the drama-fest and timesink I want to avoid. In contrast, an item from jvl which is appropriately referenced and/or authored cannot be excluded since it can be taken to RS/N on its merits. This brings us back to a situation which is in-line with WP:BURDEN, at the moment the perceived burden of evidence is reversed. Unomi (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unomi,
- I've responded to everything and instead of reviewing my notes properly, you've practically ignored them while repeating the same mantra. JVL is indeed a reliable source but, sadly, we're faced with this "drama-fest and timesink" where usual suspects appear to make a push to exclude the source because they don't appreciate its base of perspective. Basically, it appears that we're at a point where you're going to repeat that it needs proof that its a good source irregardless of the fact that it has an editorial process and a record for being reliable.
- With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please see my post above: "I contest that it is a good source for most purposes. Jaakobou, above you state The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, would you be kind enough to point us to where that can be verified? Unomi (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)" I cannot see any place where you address that, you can either add it as a cite to the For RS section or copy it here. Thank you, Unomi (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A perfect example of unreliable propaganda at JVL is the "Myths & Facts" pages [20]. This is a load of old nonsense dating from the 1960s (but updated with more of the same). There is simply no way any of it should be used as a source in WP. Zerotalk 14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The JVL is an archive website of documents, essays, papers etc. As such it is a reliable venue ... however, the individual documents and papers hosted on it must be assessed individually... each according to its own merits. Most of the material at JVL is very reliable... but there may be exceptions. How such material is used is also a factor. Some of the material that may be questionable for a statement of fact will be perfectly reliable for a statement as to the author's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Reading through the discussion, I find I agree with Zero's statement: "JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources." Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- What you describe as "propaganda" is a mainstream Israeli perspective. JVL is not the final authority on the Arab-Israeli conflict but it certainly passes the wiki-RS test. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- You just contradicted yourself. If JVL represents the perspective of one side of the conflict, then it is not reliable as a source of objective facts. It is only reliable as a source of the position of one party. I agree it is reliable for that, but in practice JVL articles often don't clearly indicate whose position they represent so it hard to cite them as opinions. Zerotalk 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- JVL is a mainstream wiki-reliable source. K? JaakobouChalk Talk 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Repeating the same line continually doesn't make it so. You still haven't backed up your earlier claim of The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, I am sure that they have copied and in some cases have received articles from scholars, in those cases we can cite those scholars, but it is not enough for the claim that the site as a whole is RS. Unomi (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've already responded to this question (early on). Please, take the time to review the relevant info on the site's about page. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you talking about http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/intro.html ? There is nothing of the sort there. The only thing there is the name of the executive director. Unomi (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unomi,
- There's quite a lot more info in there than just the name of the person in charge. This argument is really pointless as even people not suspected of favouring Israel are accepting the validity of this source as a general wiki-RS.
- With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 07:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you talking about http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/intro.html ? There is nothing of the sort there. The only thing there is the name of the executive director. Unomi (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've already responded to this question (early on). Please, take the time to review the relevant info on the site's about page. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Repeating the same line continually doesn't make it so. You still haven't backed up your earlier claim of The Jewish Virtual Library is written by scholars, has an editorial process, I am sure that they have copied and in some cases have received articles from scholars, in those cases we can cite those scholars, but it is not enough for the claim that the site as a whole is RS. Unomi (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- JVL is a mainstream wiki-reliable source. K? JaakobouChalk Talk 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- You just contradicted yourself. If JVL represents the perspective of one side of the conflict, then it is not reliable as a source of objective facts. It is only reliable as a source of the position of one party. I agree it is reliable for that, but in practice JVL articles often don't clearly indicate whose position they represent so it hard to cite them as opinions. Zerotalk 13:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Note: I've removed/corrected some wrong/misleading information from the article Jewish Virtual Library. Cs32en Talk to me 13:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's one example (out of very many) why JVL can't automatically be treated as reliable: [21] (map of "Israel's boundaries" with no mention of the Gaza Strip, West Bank, or Golan Heights. Yet elsewhere [22] we find a whole page attacking Palestinian maps that don't show, or don't name, Israel. An unbiased source would treat this phenomenon of cartographic propaganda in a balanced fashion, but JVL is there to present the Israeli point of view only. Zerotalk 07:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Zero,
- Have you noticed the date? Are you aware that the PA was given authority over Gaza and parts of the West Bank after 1993? Nice try, but your example doesn't show any substantial bias. In fact, its quite relevant that after the Oslo accords, Israel has changed its maps while the PA still uses their maps that omit Israel's existence.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 07:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I saw the date and noticed that JVL says nothing about the situation having changed since 1993. And since when is it ok to not show the West Bank or Gaza before 1993? That's reliability? As for Israeli practice, aren't you living in Israel? If so, you are perfectly aware that maps without the green line marked are very common; I have several recent ones. Our readers might like to visit the official tourism site of the government of Israel here and click on the map "Israel". The Gaza strip is marked but there is no mention of the West Bank or its boundary. Apparently your information is wrong. The corresponding map at the Palestinian Authority tourism site here shows only the West Bank and Gaza. It doesn't use the name "Israel" but it doesn't use the names "Egypt", "Lebanon", "Syria" or "Jordan" either. Appears your information is wrong about that too. Zerotalk 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Zero, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. If it were, there'd be room to explain where they do erase Israel from maps and where they don't. Let's not be naive about it. Please. JaakobouChalk Talk 12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I saw the date and noticed that JVL says nothing about the situation having changed since 1993. And since when is it ok to not show the West Bank or Gaza before 1993? That's reliability? As for Israeli practice, aren't you living in Israel? If so, you are perfectly aware that maps without the green line marked are very common; I have several recent ones. Our readers might like to visit the official tourism site of the government of Israel here and click on the map "Israel". The Gaza strip is marked but there is no mention of the West Bank or its boundary. Apparently your information is wrong. The corresponding map at the Palestinian Authority tourism site here shows only the West Bank and Gaza. It doesn't use the name "Israel" but it doesn't use the names "Egypt", "Lebanon", "Syria" or "Jordan" either. Appears your information is wrong about that too. Zerotalk 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Question: After reading the about us page, why are we using a source that is not authored by intelligence/security experts to cite the number of foiled terror plots? Even if the Library is RS for other things, terror/security study does not seem to be its focus/expertise. Is police or official intelligence reports not available or something? Jim101 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Probably because someone got lazy and simply did a google search for the first source they could find that supported the information, rather than fully researching the topic and using the best source that exists. Feel free to improve the sourcing and update the information in that article to reflect that improved source. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- There are, I linked to an ITIC report above, it lists ~521 foiled plots vs ~1,100 for JVL. Unomi (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would not use it as a reliable source for statements of fact. It can be used, but with in-text attribution ("According to Jewish Virtual Library....") A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
My gut feeling: Comparing sourcing between ITIC and the Library...ITIC's study is based on:
This study is mainly based on data and information appearing in the Bulletins issued by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) during 2006. They were complemented by data received from the Israel Security Agency, the Operational Division of the IDF’s General Staff and from Military Intelligence. When there was a discrepancy between the sources, the data of the ITIC and the IDF’s Operational Division were usually preferred. The analyses and assessments in this study were prepared by the ITIC research staff.
While the Library's data is based on:
Israeli Foreign Ministry, Washington Post, (April 2, 2004); Prime Minister’s Office; McClatchey Washington Bureau, (January 11, 2006)
I'm no expert, but I can tell right away that ITIC actually worked with first hand information and professional analyst while the Library just compiled a bunch of hearsay data. Now, this doesn't mean the the Library's data is invalid, but IMO it should only used as a light weight counter-claim while the data from ITIC should be used as the factual data (Unless official Israeli government source is available, which then use that instead). Jim101 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Summary
RS
Not-RS / Particular Attribution
Mixed Bag
Other
- Unomi
- Supreme Deliciousness
- Itsmejudith
- Cs32en May be reliable as far as the authenticity of documents or texts that present the viewpoint of their respective authors is concerned, but, in general, should be treated similarly to an opinion column in a newspaper. Cs32en Talk to me 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shii (tock) 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) JVL has an extremely strong anti-Palestinian bias. See for example [23]
- I have changed my view about JVL over the years; now: avoid it. Huldra (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Shii's comment is, possibly, due to lack of knowledge. There is no exceptional anti-Palestinian bias in the linked page. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
My two cents into this discussion: JVL appears to have two functions: A library function (deposit of research/articles from others), and a publisher of original articles.
JVL has the appearance to be driven mainly by one person. From the four new additions listed on the front page, 3 articles are written by one person (who is also the executive director of JVL), and one article is sourced to an external site (the library function of JVL). On the "About Us - Acknowledgement" section, there is a heading "our staff" which lists 'student interns' for both research and webmaster activities. On the same page, under 'Additional credits' a long list of external sources is shown (again, my interpretation, referring to the library function of JVL). On the "About Us - Board of Directors", one other member of the 3-person board, and one member of the 14-person Advisory board shares the same family name as the executive director. A 28-member Honorary board lists several US-senators and Congressmen. There is no mention of an Editorial board. On the page "About Us - Biographies", only one biography is listed; The executive director and author of 3 of the 4 recent 'original articles'.
Note that my paragraph here says nothing about the content of the site. The extensive referencing of sources used give the appearance of a scholarly approach to research. However, the impression of a single person driver, and the lack of a clear 'board of editors' would make me careful using the 'original articles' as a single reliable source. For the library function, as in every library, the original authors/sources should be checked for their reliability. Rwos (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Reliability of Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem
There is no doubt that B'Tselem is an interested party in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but WP:RS specifically allows the use of biased sources. It is a truism (noted by WP:RS) that all sources are biased regardless of their ostensible independence.
As far as I'm aware B'Tselem's facts have never been challenged as inaccurate by the opposition who certainly would attempt to delegitimize B'Tselem if they could.
And it is important to note tha B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights organization, not a Palestinian advocacy group. It is also extremely critical of human rights violations by Palestinian Authority and Hamas as well as Israel.
I understand why people would be skeptical of B'Tselem's neutrality and reliability but there is a formidable and massive opposition to its work from Israeli "public diplomacy" organizations. If there were any serious neutrality problems with its data it would have been ripped apart instantly by one of the many pro-Israel "watchdog" organizations and we would have heard about it already. If you read the criticism it is immediately striking how insubstantial the criticism is and that the criticism is from unreliable, partisan sources such as Caroline Glick and NGO Monitor; there are no real criticism of the facts that B'Tselem talks about. As B'Tselem says, the organization is transparent in its operations and relies on independent field work. The opportunity (and motivation) for falsififying data is low. Factomancer (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just a minor correction: B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights organization, not a peace organization (although I'm sure they're pro-peace as well). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Malik, that's quite true. I've update my original post. Factomancer (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Another point is that in the context that the information from B'Tselem is being used, Palestinian freedom of movement, reports from independent sources (the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Bank) support and reinforce the facts presented by B'Tselem. If anything, these reports from independent sources are more forceful and open in their message about Palestinian restrictions. Read them for yourself - UN OCHA Update, World Bank Technical Team Report on Restrictions. As you can see, these reports coincide with and support B'Tselem facts completely. The reason B'Tselem is being used is that no other organization provides the same level of detail as to what is going on in the West Bank. I could simply use the reports from the UN and the World Bank but it would be a shame to give up the details provided by B'Tselem for vague, unexplained reasons of "bias" when the organization has a reputation for accuracy and honesty. Factomancer (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I note that Google Scholar shows a healthy 1800+ hits with numerous cites of B'Tselem data. Similarly for Google Books. Mordechai_Bar-On writes in In pursuit of peace: a history of the Israeli peace movement
B'tselem was perhaps the most impressive project of the Israeli peace movement. It undertook its mission under heavy attach from the right, and with significant reservations from many within the Labor Party as well. ... Some on the right branded B'tselem efforts as distortions, exaggerations, and a treasonous "laundering of dirty linen in public." The professional team of investigators and analysts that B'tselem recruited and trained defended the finds of their reports, which in most cases were subsequently proven to be accurate. ... and the organization was viewed by the press as a reliable source of information.
Further in footnote 119
In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct.
Unomi (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- They are reliable. But they are also controversial enough I would mention the source of any info you get from them, inline. Especially in a sensitive area like I-P.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reputable and established advocacy organizations are generally ok to cite with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I made extensive use of B'Tselem to source the population figures for the Israeli settlements in the articles Israeli settlement timeline and the graph of the population data that I produced (IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png). To corroborate the fgures, I also used numbers from Peace Now which were highly consistent with the B'Tselem figures. There were no objections to the sourcing of this data. If B'Tselem is deemed unreliable then that article and the graph need to be changed too. Factomancer (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I concur with others above that this source is reliable, but due to the controversial nature of the topic, in-text attribution would be prudent. Crum375 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, what exactly does in-text attribution mean? Does that mean that the facts sourced to B'Tselem cannot be written in Wikipedia's voice and must be presented with "According to B'Tselem... etc."? Factomancer (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just want to comment that it may be true that the source meets reliability criteria in general. However that does not mean it is an independent source in relation to a particular topic. That is the main problem at Palestinian freedom of movement - it is simply not neutral. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think this one is pretty much settled, but I think it is worth pointing out that B'tselem only deals with this particular topic, so if it meets reliability criteria in any aspect, above and beyond its own opinion, then it necessarily meets them for this topic. Unomi (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just want to comment that it may be true that the source meets reliability criteria in general. However that does not mean it is an independent source in relation to a particular topic. That is the main problem at Palestinian freedom of movement - it is simply not neutral. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- ... Hmm, well that will be cumbersome. Oh well it's better than having the information removed. Factomancer (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if we couldn't handle most of that with a !disclaimer that states that the information is sourced to human rights organizations? Unomi (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- That would not so since Btselem is not interested in human rights at all, and only centred on Palestinian-rights. We cannot blindly accept their partisan investigations since there has been evidence found in the past of sloppy misleading and some has made it into the articles itself: B'Tselem#Critical commentary and response. --Shuki (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are an organization focused on human rights in the occupied territories. They report statistics that have widely been cited, they provide reports on human rights violations by both the Israelis and the Palestinians, and they are widely regarded as a respected institution. nableezy - 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing in that critical commentary that indicates sloppy misleading. As I understand it they are also concerned with the human rights of Israelis who demonstrate against the right wing governments actions. Unomi (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. Of course anything potentially controversial sourced to them should clearly indicate them as the source (which goes for all NGOs). Zerotalk 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think that formulation may be too critical of B'tselem. The question here is really whether and when in-text attribution is necessary. IMHO, much or most of the time it is not. We should focus on what is actually controversial, everything can be potentially controversial, especially here. Much of the actual criticism of B'tselem could be characterized as nitpicking or cavilling, criticising how numbers are presented, saying that claims are outdated (as all empirical claims must be), in reality praising by faint damns. Criticism could be taken into account in how we write the article, but we should not be more critical of B'tselem than reliable sources or even its critics are. There haven't really been any genuine allegation or doubt that they make stuff up or are intolerably inept researchers. As noted above, other RS's use them and their facts are consistent with other RS's. So unless consensus at an article agrees that a particular claim is extraordinary, or it is being challenged by another RS, it will usually be OK to just footnote the claim, not say that "B'tselem says..". Right now, the article in question has too many "According to B'Tselem"'s, detracting from readability and doing little positive. John Z (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the material sourced to them is not controversial, but the claims they make definitely need attribution. If this information is really true, then there should be multiple sources including RS media to back this up. Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. OR and not really. There is much criticism. [24] --Shuki (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is hardly any criticism there. The closest you get is regarding combatant vs noncombatant classification, a criticism which B'tselem has answered as is shown in our B'tselem article. The only thing which the criticism uses to back it up is (an unspecified) m / f ratio, as if you can't be a male noncombatant. Unomi (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- NGO Monitor being against an organization makes me think it is more reliable, not less. nableezy - 03:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that the multitude (over 40) of "According to B'Tselem"'s, some ridiculous, in that article express much more skepticism of B'tselem than even its critics. This is a real departure from the principles of no original research and neutrality. There should be much more genuine doubt in reliable sources and among editors here of the individual statements to justify such labelling. Since B'tselem treats its subject matter in more detail than other reliable sources, there is no surprise that it makes claims which cannot be completely corroborated by other reliable sources - but this is true of any good source, and all other relevant sources use B'tselem unreservedly.John Z (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- False. Except for three measly other sources, no effort has been made to include more. So essentially this page is a synth of two Btselem reports converted to wikipedia 1rst person. Not a reliable way to write an encyclopedia article. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be replying to something other than what is here. Unomi (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- If there are forty "according to B'tselem"s in the article, you may be overusing them as a source, regardless of whether they need in line attribution. If there seem to be too many (I have not looked at the article), I would suggest looking for other sources on the things that seem least open to dispute. Then negotiating on what things really need an "according to B'tselem" and then jazzing it up with such things as "B'tselem notes", etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was actually coming to this page for another discussion and got sidetracked investigating this one instead, so I hope you don't mind me commenting. As mentioned, B'Tselem's reports generally agree closely with those of the UN. Additionally, B'Tselem are regarded as a reliable source by, amongst others, the BBC news service (itself considered reliable) - see, for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7451691.stm . It is often claimed that there is a pro-Israel bias in BBC reports (such as http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/100323_when_facts_and.php), though such claims generally about to claims of omission and undue weight rather than misleading or fabricated stories, and as such, are more opinion than potentially verifiable fact.
- I think it is unnecessary to qualify those claims to the extent that is done at present in the article, and no in-text attribution is needed. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- If there are forty "according to B'tselem"s in the article, you may be overusing them as a source, regardless of whether they need in line attribution. If there seem to be too many (I have not looked at the article), I would suggest looking for other sources on the things that seem least open to dispute. Then negotiating on what things really need an "according to B'tselem" and then jazzing it up with such things as "B'tselem notes", etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be replying to something other than what is here. Unomi (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- False. Except for three measly other sources, no effort has been made to include more. So essentially this page is a synth of two Btselem reports converted to wikipedia 1rst person. Not a reliable way to write an encyclopedia article. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- The point is that the multitude (over 40) of "According to B'Tselem"'s, some ridiculous, in that article express much more skepticism of B'tselem than even its critics. This is a real departure from the principles of no original research and neutrality. There should be much more genuine doubt in reliable sources and among editors here of the individual statements to justify such labelling. Since B'tselem treats its subject matter in more detail than other reliable sources, there is no surprise that it makes claims which cannot be completely corroborated by other reliable sources - but this is true of any good source, and all other relevant sources use B'tselem unreservedly.John Z (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the material sourced to them is not controversial, but the claims they make definitely need attribution. If this information is really true, then there should be multiple sources including RS media to back this up. Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. OR and not really. There is much criticism. [24] --Shuki (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It is often claimed that there is a pro-Israel bias in BBC reports You gave me a good chuckle. Please read: Documenting BBC Documentaries, Criticism of the BBC#Middle East and Israel, Balen Report. I think that there is a difference between being anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian or anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel. I think that organizations that take sides can still be RS for many things like geography, sports, entertainment, nature, etc... but when entire political / 'controversy' articles are based solely on 'one side', then we have a problem in misleading the reader. CNN is RS, right? I will never forget how after Saddam fell, multiple testimonies came forth about how they were reporting the truth, but not all of it. --Shuki (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This article from NGO Monitor (Israel's side) points out B'tselem's agenda: “acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law,” and does not report on HR violations within Israel. NGO monitor states that their analysts have demonstrated that B'selem's data is "problematic, often inconsistent, and reflects the organization’s political agenda," citing this 2007 analysis [25] NGO-monitor also accuses B'tselem of a double standard with respect to " intra-Palestinian human rights abuses" and that it "Regularly minimizes Israeli security concerns." It offers a number of articles to back its points,including an [26] [27][28]. In a 2007 CAMERA report [29], Tamar Sternthal for CAMERA questions the accuracy of their casualty figures. Then there is the Im Tirtzu report in Israel, a very controversial report which denigrates B'tselem along other ngos as "seeking to destroy Israel's image." [30] Point being, according to some, B'Tselem has an agenda. It is a self-described agenda, limited, and "problematic" according to the other side. I would say that they can certainly be used, but with the caveat that if there is disagreement on the other side, that both sides would have their story told, since there are two sides to this story. If there are any questions with respect to the data, those questions should be aired. There should be no attempt to only present the statistics of B'Tselem in relation to Israel, especially if another source is available and particularly if that other source disagrees with B'Tselem. Stellarkid (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- NGO Monitor and CAMERA also both have agendas, which can be summed up as "Israel can do no wrong". And of Im Tirzu, the less said the better. Their primary purpose seems to be smearing Jews to their left, such as the New Israel Fund and its leadership, whom they portrayed with horns on their heads(!). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Russo-Polish war vets
This passage "In 1918 the Russians attacked Poland and I volonteered to go into the army. I was only fifteen years old and my entire class had volunteered. Of course my family was not happy about that. My two older brothers were already in the army. One was an instructor in the automobile division and he taught me to drive a big truck, but in the next several months the Bolsheviks were repelled and we all went back to school." from the book 'Mystic Souls' (2002) by Lyn Harper, published by iUniverse is being used to prove that the person quoted joined the Polish army before June 1919. There are a few probloms 1.The Russians did not attack Poland untill 1919. 2.They were driven back in 1920. 3 The source is self published. I as such do not bleive the source can be used to back up the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would not think this is a reliable source. Books written by veterans are almost never peer reviewed and can have sighnificant errors in the remembrance and recollection of details. Self published works likewise do not have the editorial oversight and fact checking which, in my judgment are needed. Could you provide a diff to the article in question? JodyB talk 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I dug through your edit history, and think I found the context. It looks like it is Talk:List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I#Dr_Alexander_Imich_again, correct? That seems to be a very important piece of context. Reading it, it seems that the question is whether to include Imich on a list of surviving veterans of WWI. Given that, it's not clear why it matters, since either way wouldn't make Imich a WWI veteran; since Poland was part of Russia during WWI, any Russo-Polish war is after WWI pretty much by definition. If, for whatever reason, just being in the Polish army is decided to be good enough, though, it should suffice. Yes, it's a self-published source, but it's talking about the author, and it's not making a particularly unlikely claim, surely most Polish fifteen year olds volunteered at that time, it's the sort of thing fifteen year olds do when allowed to. I would add a comment in the footnote, that the Polish-Soviet war started in 1919, and there was a Polish-Ukrainian war in 1918, but either way should be good enough for a claim of joining the Polish army. If you wanted to use it for a claim that there was a Russo-Polish war in 1918, no. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The book is not by him, he is just one of many people featured in the book. As to a diff, there is'nt one as the dispute is about his inclusion, not his removal. Here however is the talk page discusion [31]. As to the book, its about psycics and spriatual healers, not millitary history, but the author is a Phd (and proffesor of religious studies at a suburban community college)[32]. But her bio does not inspire confidence [33].
- The discusion was about whether or not he is a WW1 era vetran, and this definition rests on when he joined to Polish army. If it was before June 1919 then he would count, if not then he would not be admisable. The crux is that the source seems confused as to which war (and thus date) he fought. Given the nature of the source I do not think its reliable enough to back the claim he joined before June 1919. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- The letter of the rules support your case, but I think the spirit is against them. Yes, it's a self published source describing a living person which should not be usable per WP:BLP, etcetera ... but it's a non controversial statement by the man himself about himself, even if it was transcribed by someone else. The reason we have that restriction in WP:BLP is to avoid harm to living persons; this isn't harm. It's pretty clearly true (we have a Wikipedia editor who checked with Imich himself!), and it's easily verifiable (online at Google Books). I'd include it per WP:IAR. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The dispute is not that this does not prove he was in the Polish army, the dispute is it is not clear when he joined it. It is the date of joining that matters.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. OK, I think I get it. Correct me if I'm wrong: the argument is that he says he joined in 1918 to fight the Russians, which is unlikely to be true, since the war with Russians didn't happen until 1919, while the real truth could be either that he joined in 1918 to fight the Ukrainians, which would qualify him, or that he joined in 1919 to fight the Russians, which might not qualify him if he joined after June? Then, wow, this condition to be part of the List is way too complex. It's pretty clear that Imich didn't fight in WWI, so he's not a surviving veteran of WWI; this debate about the time he actually joined the army for some different war, is just too silly. Looking at the article, it seems there's an entire section "World War I-era veterans: those who joined the armed services after the Armistice date, but before the Treaty of Versailles; or where there is debate on their join-date; or whose military service is sometimes viewed as outside the scope of World War I", that seems could have been written for him. As long as that section is there, all three of those conditions seem to fit Imich fine. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The dispute is not that this does not prove he was in the Polish army, the dispute is it is not clear when he joined it. It is the date of joining that matters.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The letter of the rules support your case, but I think the spirit is against them. Yes, it's a self published source describing a living person which should not be usable per WP:BLP, etcetera ... but it's a non controversial statement by the man himself about himself, even if it was transcribed by someone else. The reason we have that restriction in WP:BLP is to avoid harm to living persons; this isn't harm. It's pretty clearly true (we have a Wikipedia editor who checked with Imich himself!), and it's easily verifiable (online at Google Books). I'd include it per WP:IAR. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- 2 cents. The source may not be as wrong as it seems. Radical Poles who subscribed to the goal of "Great Poland from Sea to Sea" could, indeed, consider the 1918 events as an aggression against them (or their vision). Remember, it was 1918 and the whole Europe was melting down. NVO (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Opinions on Gossip Cop
I am curious as to what my fellow editors think of Gossip Cop's reliability. Before the name "Gossip Cop" scares everyone off, it's actually a web site that's supposed to be devoted toward debunking (or confirming) reporting on celebrities. My own preliminary analysis of this source is that it might be a reliable source. According to our article, it was founded by Michael Lewittes who "served as producer of NBC's Access Hollywood, gossip columnist and news director at Us Weekly magazine, a features editor for the New York Post, and a gossip columnist at the New York Daily News." According to their about page, [34] they were "created to police the gossip industry. Launched in July 2009, it is the go-to destination for credible celebrity news. Every day the site separates fact from fiction". Would this source be acceptable for non-controversial information? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Reboot
Is Gossip Cop reliable for the claim that Kesha is scheduled to perform on Saturday Night Live April 17th? The specific source is this. The article is Kesha. Note: the issue has been resolved by using other sources, however, I am curious to find out other editors' opinions of whether the source was reliable for this particular content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say that as an encyclopedia, future events of this type are pretty much out of our purview. Sure, editors will put this stuff in, even fight about it, but it really doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Dlabtot (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Some elements are maintaining denial of the qualification of the biographical subject for membership in Category:Confidence tricksters on the basis that he makes objects appear out of nothing. Yes you heard that right. The direct and indirect patronage he attracts for these "displays of divinity" fund aspects of his ashram and wider activities and contribute to his general notoriety. The experts Sorcar and Narasimhaiah, referenced in the article, the latter of which "held the fact that Sathya Sai Baba ignored his letters to be one of several indications that his miracles are fraudulent" found a prevailing view (from non-devotees) that the 'miracles' have a fraudulent basis. Seeking to have the two experts mentioned previously declared as reliable sources on the matter of fraudulence and confidence trickery. The following two comments are transcluded from the WP:FRINGE noticeboard.ResignBen16 (talk) 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I ha e to admit I am having a hard time parsing the original post, but in general I would agree with the above advice and try to source the content there impeccably, especially if it is a living person. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Political Candidate's Campaign Website
I am wondering to what extent the info contained within a political candidate's current campaign website can be considered to be from a RS and therein placed on the BLP of that person here on Wikipedia? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- In general, I would consider everything on a political candidate's current campaign website to be 'self-serving', so it would probably fail WP:SPS. But it would depend on the specifics (see the guideline for asking questions at the top of this page:"It helps others to respond to questions if you include..."). Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Basic biographical information and opinions of the candidate can generally be sourced from their campaign website. Any statements of disputable fact, however, should not be single-sourced from a campaign website, and in the event of a disagreement between the campaign website and other sources should result in a very careful look all around. Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a case where the campaign website would be the only or the best source for 'basic biographical information'. Such information surely can be sourced independently. Which is why I hate wasting my time talking about hypotheticals. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- A campaign website would certainly be considered reliable for quotes from the candidate... and probably reliable for statements as to the candidate's claims during his campaign (but such statements would have to be properly attributed and phrased as being a campaign claim, ie an opinion). However, such material would be better sourced to a news outlet or some other more reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's pointless to talk about it without knowing what campaign website, what article, for what statement in the article is the source is being cited, and so on. But I don't agree with you about the general reliability of campaign websites. They are no different from any other WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- A campaign website would certainly be considered reliable for quotes from the candidate... and probably reliable for statements as to the candidate's claims during his campaign (but such statements would have to be properly attributed and phrased as being a campaign claim, ie an opinion). However, such material would be better sourced to a news outlet or some other more reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a case where the campaign website would be the only or the best source for 'basic biographical information'. Such information surely can be sourced independently. Which is why I hate wasting my time talking about hypotheticals. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Basic biographical information and opinions of the candidate can generally be sourced from their campaign website. Any statements of disputable fact, however, should not be single-sourced from a campaign website, and in the event of a disagreement between the campaign website and other sources should result in a very careful look all around. Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Treat it as a highly opinionated primary source, but one which is indubitably in possession of the facts regarding the subject. Where there is no reason to doubt, go ahead and use. RayTalk 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Just to point out that political candidates, unless they pass WP:BIO / WP:GNG in other ways, are unlikely to pass WP:POLITICIAN anyway. Black Kite 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, sorry I did not before include article name; it is Rocco Rossi and Hipocrite was kind enough to go there (i suppose from my history) and help edit the campaign website sourced info. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think a political candidate's web site qualifies as WP:SPS. However, I certainly wouldn't cite it for any controversial material and you definitely need to use in-text attribution. OTOH, WP:SPS does have a qualification regarding "unduely self-serving". I've never quite understood what that meant and I don't think we've discussed this clause before (at least not recently). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would say that the "unduely self-serving" clause is to cover statements such as: "State officials agree that John Smith's plan for balancing the budget will work" <cite to Smith's campaign website that includes quotes from officials saying this> (the website is unduly self-serving in this instance because the website is unlikely to include any negative views of Smith's plan). On the other hand, for a statement such as: "Smith has said that balancing the budget is his highest priority" the website is self-serving... but not unduly so. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think a political candidate's web site qualifies as WP:SPS. However, I certainly wouldn't cite it for any controversial material and you definitely need to use in-text attribution. OTOH, WP:SPS does have a qualification regarding "unduely self-serving". I've never quite understood what that meant and I don't think we've discussed this clause before (at least not recently). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Sources on inaccuracies in Angels & Demons
I need opinions on two sources being used regarding mistakes in the book Angels & Demons: Is the content of Book Mistakes user-generated? Second, what is the reliability of CR Publications for that webpage's material on the same topic? Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Referring to copyright in the article text
I assume that we do not explicitly state the copyright holder of a certain text (e.g. a source), if the copyright of a text has not been the subject of reports in independent reliable sources. There may be cases where this is appropriate, however, I do not think that a text that is being used as a source at Jewish Virtual Library falls into that category. Maybe there should be an addition to the relevant guideline/MOS, so that actual disputes on such questions can be resolved and potential disputes avoided. See the talk page section, [36] and [37]. Cs32en Talk to me 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, we do not need to explicitly state the copyright holder of our sources in the text of our articles... such information is covered by giving a proper and complete in line citation (which would include the author) for more on our rules relating to copyrights: WP:Copy (and especially the WP:COPYLINK section)
- That said, it is often necessary to attribute a statement of opinion to its author in the text of our articles, so the reader knows who is saying what. This is especially important in articles dealing with controversial issues. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I should have got to this sooner but... I agree we generally do not include the copyright owner in the article. However, these two reviews are a little different. The first [38] was written in 2007 and archived by the Internet Reviews Archive at Bowdoin College, a branch of the Association of College and Research Libraries and that a branch of the American Library Association. The ALA had copyright of her words because she wrote for them, not for Life Magazine. I make this point because Cs32en would strip her of all her credentials except for her university affiliation when in fact it is clear that she wrote for the ALA. If the ALA wanted to disavow her comments, they would say so. "The ALA takes no responsibility ..." etc etc. Same situation for the second author who writes an article here [39] clearly also for the Association of College and Research Libraries. The editor above would allow only the author of the piece, John Jaeger, to be noted, and not his affiliation with the ALA or ACRL. These journals are written by their members. The ALA or the ACRL does not write stuff itself, it is a collection of its members. I believe it appropriate in both cases that their affiliation with the ALA and the ACRL should be part of the citation. The copyright notice said it could not be quoted without appropriate note of the copyright. I would drop it if we could acknowledge that the material was written by these people as representatives of the ALA and ACRL. I hope I am being clear. It is rather late here. :) Stellarkid (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Madame Pickwick Art Blog
An editor offered a source at the Eyes Wide Shut discussion page as emphasis for noting the use of Venetian masks in the film. I've looked over the source (Madame Pickwick Art Blog), and I would like some input from editors here regarding it.
There doesn't appear to be any provenance for the opinions being cited, and the person doing the talking (some fellow named 'Dave'), while interesting, doesn't seem to offer any personal qualifications or notability. I am thinking we cannot use it as a source or either argument or as a reference for the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- IMO, the source as stands clearly cannot be used in the main article. However, given it being well-written it is an indicator that there is likely a symbolic significance to the fact that the masks in Eyes Wide Shut are Venetian. I cite it in the talk page mainly to establish notability rather than as fact. For fact, I used (in the main article) two of the Venetian suppliers of the masks which did not satisfy Arcayne.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- On further investigation, I see several published books on Kubrick mention and discuss the Venetian masks in EWS. I will therefore resort to these. I thought that simply to establish fact, the mask suppliers would be sufficient, and to establish notability, a talk page mention of the blog (not strictly a reliable source) would be sufficient, but I shall reinstate using published professional books on Kubrick.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome. I think its easier to avoid those types of references; since we cannot use them in the article, we sholdn't use them in discussion pages to make a point. And yes, the sources you found were pretty good, WickerGuy; good job, that. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Turkish Websites or Any Source That Supports a Turkish Viewpoint
I'm wondering if any Turkish website such as the Assembly of Turkish American Association [40] or articles from Middle East Forum such as one by Edward J. Erickson [41] or one by Gunter Lewy [42] can be disregarded as a reliable source just because of the viewpoint they support.
For example, in the second article Edward J. Erickson, Researcher, Birmingham University, retired Lieutenant-Colonel, PhD in Ottoman Military History, The Leeds University, argues the involvement of Teşkilat-i Mahsusa which is claimed to take part in the "Armenian Genocide." The same argument is also seen from another article from the source by Gunter Lewy, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
There is a long list of historians who have been studying Ottoman history that supports the Turkish argument concerning the Armenian issue. Are they reliable sources or are we supposed to ignore and dismiss them as they support the Turkish argument? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't a dispute (at the moment) about what is a reliable source. Even that article by Erickson refers to the events as massacres. They only deal with who was to blame, i.e. the question of Turkish commanders on the ground or the Turkish government and high command. I quote from the article you list: 'Last year, however, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, challenged Dadrian's findings on the grounds that Stange was neither a Special Organization guerilla leader nor did his unit operate in the area of the massacres.'
- This isn't a question about the reliability of sources, it's about you thinking they support a fringe viewpoint which they clearly don't. This isn't appropriate for this noticeboard, but I don't think I ought to remove it from here as I'm now involved in the dispute. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're simply wrong. The reason for that is probably as you have little information regarding the dispute. Turks do not deny that Armenians were killed. It's the nature of those killings that are disputed. Of course massacres happened. Saying massacres happened is in no way undermines the Turkish argument as no one denies that they happened. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- So what is it you object to? Simply the use of the word 'genocide'? I don't think this is the place to have this discussion - do you mind if we move this to the article's talk page? CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do mind. The problem is if any source is used from the long list of Ottoman historians who support the Turkish viewpoint then they'll be deleted and disregarded as Turkish propaganda. This has to stop. The objection is not against the word "genocide" but that what happened in WWI does not constitute as one. If I were to use any article from the list of historians that I listed in the talk page that you mentioned then I'd be labeled as a nationalistic Turk on a crusade for propaganda. Clearly it's not the case. So the reliability of such historians and their studies have to be confirmed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- But the article you cited above (to take one example) refers to massacres of a group of people based on their ethnic origin. That's genocide. Some sources may not use that word, for whatever reason, but it is the appropriate word to describe the events. We don't have to say 'a massacre of people of Armenian ethnic origin, which some sources claim was an instance of genocide' every time; we can just call a spade a spade. If you wish to discuss whether or not those sources are reliable for other reasons, that's fine, but even if they were to be deemed reliable, based on what I've looked at so far, it would still be classed as genocide. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Armenian genocide CheesyBiscuit (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- CheesyBiscuit, You're obviously not reading them carefully. Massacres can be results of ethnic clashes. So in no way mention of massacres makes the sources agree with the genocide claims. The genocide accusation is a very strict one. Ethnic clashes are simply not genocides.
- Blueboar, We're discussing the use of articles that do not agree with the genocide claims as a source. CheesyBiscuit is simply trying to alter the discussion by non-facts. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Be as clear as possible - what information is being cited to what source in what article. Use diffs and quotes liberally. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hipocrite has it right ... we need specifics to properly answer the question. That said... if the issue is one of merely noting what the Turkish view on the use of the term "genocide" is... the Armenian genocide article already notes this, citing the BBC (a highly reliable source)... so I am not sure why there is a need for explicitly Turkish sources (in fact, I would say that the BBC, being neutral on the issue, is a better source than potentially biased Turkish ones for noting this viewpoint) If we need to note the Turkish viewpoint on the term genocide in other articles, we could probably use that same BBC report.
- Or is there some other reason to use an explicitly Turkish source? Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- From WP:RS "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. " The MEF is not a peer reviewed academic journal but a partisan neoconservative think tank . Erickson is not an academic. There are hundreads of academic peer reviewed journal sources and academic press books, no need to go to a partisan journalistic source like the MEF. Case closed.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thankyou, Blueboar, Hipocrite and Anothroskon, for taking the time to comment. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I need to ask you guys if you actually read the comments before posting.
- I've been clear as much as one can be. I gave the links and told you about the differences. The source being a Turkish doesn't make the resources in it Turkish. You said BBC is a reliable source, yet it is. But, the thing you're not getting is none of the links that are from BBC that are utilized in the article actually quote other organizations or individuals. For example in this article BBC describes the events and the article never says that the events were a "genocide." [43] None of the BBC articles take a side as they shouldn't. BBC only reports news from organizations or individuals. You can never use BBC itself as a primary source. It's only a tool. You can't say the claim is real because BBC says so, No. BBC cannot report on the nature of the events but it reports on the developments concerning the issue. Same goes for the ATAA and MEF websites. The articles in question is important here not the location of that articles. Are we to dismiss any article that is published in ATAA and MEF websites?
- Anothroskon, Edward J. Erickson has a Ph.D in history and is the leading authority in Ottoman Army during WWI. Read the Wiki article if you want. He is an academic. The journalistic site is only used as a tool. The same is done for many other sources such as New York Times. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- 1) Phd<>academic, 2) where if anywhere does he teach? 3) who has peer reviewed this article?--Anothroskon (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anothroskon, Edward J. Erickson has a Ph.D in history and is the leading authority in Ottoman Army during WWI. Read the Wiki article if you want. He is an academic. The journalistic site is only used as a tool. The same is done for many other sources such as New York Times. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can see the description of an academic here: [44]. Of course you ignored my comment to read his wiki page. He is an associate of International Research Associates, Seattle, Washington. He teaches in the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia. I don't even know if the works of Dadrian are peer reviewed. All the reviews of Armenian scholars so far are negative reviews and if you're gonna say that Dadrian's work was reviewed by Marashlian I can't really take that seriously as that's hardly a peer review. You can hardly argue against Erickson's credibility on the subject. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me try this one more time. Firstly, you are directed not to respond further to Anothroskon untill you have clearly responded to me. You will provide the following, or you will recieve no further assistance at this noticeboard.
- References to specific sources in question.
- What proposed edits to a wikipedia article lead from those sources.
- Quotes from those sources lead to those edits.
If you respond again to this thread without providing those three things, I will archive this thread as not-actionable. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I was directed here by an admin or mod to discuss the sources. If I was to use a reference from ATAA it would be disregarded as Turkish propaganda. So the main question was that if it's ok to ignore such an organization just because it's Turkish.
- But for a specific example, the article by Gunter Lewy:
- The Link:
- [45]
- The passage on "Armenian Genocide" article:
- "Vehib Pasha, commander of the Ottoman Third Army, called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human species.”[91]
- In the article by Gunter Lewy, "Vehib Pasha" is mentioned twice. One time with reference to Taner Akcam and the second one to Vahak N. Dadrian. The article talks against the genocide claims and it talks how no original document exists. Yet only a very small part which is not even supported by the article is taken while the rest of the article is ignored completely.
- Another example is the article by Edward J. Erickson:
- The Link:
- [46]
- The article in its entirety talks about the Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa which is a section in the "Armenian Genocide" article. The conclusion it reaches boils down to:
- "Vahakn Dadrian has made high-profile claims that Major Stange and the Special Organization were the instruments of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Documents not utilized by Dadrian, though, discount such an allegation."
- Now, Edward J. Erickson as mentioned before is the leading expert on the Ottoman Army of WWI. Right now the section for this organization simply relied on Dadrians work. I need to know if the article on MEF is a reliable source. If it is then there is a conflict between Dadrian and Erickson. If it's not, why it is not? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are we supposed to discuss about edit changes or reliability of the sources as the page suggests? The discussion for edits is for Edit Requests. Here I'm asking for the reliability of the source. Looking at the other sections above you're asking for me more than you need and pushing the discussion to somewhere relevant to this board. So I don't really understand your requests. You have all that you need to comment on the sources to see if they're reliable on the subject at hand or not. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Fraternities and sororities
There have been several articles about fraternities and sororities nominated at Good Article Nominations recently. An example is Delta Upsilon, currently under review. Many of these articles cite almost exclusively sources that are published by the fraternities themselves. I have two questions:
- Should material published by a fraternity or sorority be regarded as a reliable source in general (are they reputable publishers?); but most important:
- Should material published by a fraternity or sorority be regarded as a reliable source about the fraternity or sorority itself?
My view is that they are not independent third-party sources, and it is not even clear that they are reliable generally. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- All your questions are answered at WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I knew that stuff was somewhere. I'll be interested to see if any other views pop up, but that will do me. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have had a similar problem in the past, with cites being made to documents that are only available to members. Eventually the reviewer withdrew the article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I knew that stuff was somewhere. I'll be interested to see if any other views pop up, but that will do me. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Apprentice (UK TV series)
Source: http://twitpic.com/j20r3
I've tried to reason with one editor about sources for an edit they are constantly making regarding The Apprentice (UK TV series). The editor is using two blogged pictures, neither of which contain any explanatory text, as citation for 3 "facts". Also, constantly adding pure uncited speculation/rumour/nonsense about some chap called "Phil". I have reverted and explained this too many times and don't want to end in a 3RR edit war. Inputs from others would be most welcome. MrMarmite (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are correct that something like this, is not usable as a RS cite for the statement it is attempting to support. Dlabtot (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
www.jerusalempedia.com
As I understand it, this is a wiki about Jerusalem, see: http://www.jerusalempedia.com/about.html. I first noticed it added to Dominus Flevit Church, see [48]. I believe this site rather uncontroversially fails WP:RS? If so, and if people don´t mind; can we add it to the spam-lists? How? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Several issues within the New Religous Movement section of Wikipedia
www.apologeticsindex.org/ www.rickross.com/ www.xfamily.org/ www.cultnews.com/
In The New Religous Movements/Cults section of Wikipedia These Three Sites are Pretty Heavily linked in some Articles. Here the Issues i see,
www.apologeticsindex.org/ frankly I have looked for anything on This Guy Anton Hien, I fail to see how he is an authority on anything here. Secondly his site has a bunch of proable Copy right violations. Thirdly had any one the pages on any in this was transfered to wikipedia it would be speedy deleted as an attack page.
RickRoss.com & cultnews.com, Frankly 99% of the stuff here looks like clear copy right Violations across the board. I highly doubt such diverse news orgizations all gavve him clearance to host them. Also I have not been able to find some articles on his site that allegdly came from Big orgs like NYT and Boston Globe anywhere else in News data bases at my university.
Xfamily.org, Two Problems Again Hosting likley Copyright violations and a Number of Primary Sources used in artcles. The Family International and Related artcles are almost made entirely of off this website.
Wikipedia Policy restrict us from linking to Site with Copy Violations and also requiring that Source meet verifable, Resrticting the use of primary sources, and For Sources do be a written by a reconized authority on a subject. All these sites seem to fail at least to catagories here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Completely agree. Furthermore, Rick Ross himself even admits "editing" some of these copyright violations (ie news articles) for "clarification"![49] --Insider201283 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You might want to look deeper into the archive before rearguing this site. The same arguments pro/con would still seem to apply, unless something has changed since. The conclusion I get from that discussion: we reference the original source whenever possible, but that the rickross site is fine for convenience links to text, and for material by Rick Ross himself. • Astynax talk 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given he admits to changing sources, even using his site for convenience links clearly shouldn't be allowed, and as a non-expert (no published articles/books in any field) he shouldn't be used as a source for anything but himself. Alas he has a fan club here. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ross is acknowledged as an expert by journalists. But as for his archive, I agree that most of the contents are probably copyright violations and while they may be useful for research we should think twice about linking to them directly. Will Beback talk 17:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- As was pointed out in the archive discussion, the site aggregates articles in the same manner, and with the same caveats as other sites (e.g., archive.org). I would repeat the suggestion from the previous discussion that determining whether copyright violation has or is taking place is something for courts, not us, to decide. Unless there is new information to consider, I don't think rehashing the attack on this source is going to move the ball forward. Except for a convenience link to a the text of a news article, which on occasion can be useful, cite the original article rather than a copy of it on a website. For material written by Rick Ross, it should be fine. • Astynax talk 18:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given he admits to changing sources, even using his site for convenience links clearly shouldn't be allowed, and as a non-expert (no published articles/books in any field) he shouldn't be used as a source for anything but himself. Alas he has a fan club here. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- You might want to look deeper into the archive before rearguing this site. The same arguments pro/con would still seem to apply, unless something has changed since. The conclusion I get from that discussion: we reference the original source whenever possible, but that the rickross site is fine for convenience links to text, and for material by Rick Ross himself. • Astynax talk 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Astynax if i can't duplicate a Source why should we use Rick Ross for a Convience link? I tried Duplicating a source he abscribed to the boston globe! If i can't duplicate it Why use it for convience? Secondly Will, Evertime something nutty happens in the world Media turns to Doctor Phil type character, but that does mena we would cite an episode of Larry king with Doc Phil as source on Manic Dreppesion, Bipolarism, or autism? thats the Way i see him. And Doc Phil is actual Doctor this guy as far as i can tell does not have bachelors! But Rick Ross Aside The Other two are ones i can't find anything on and what i am more concerned with... And right now link to those site could get wikipeidia introble with courts that why we have the rule better to air on the side of caution than Rather do it until we told we cant and get fined. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- archive.org does "aggregate articles in the same manner". arcihive.org does not edit content it has mirrored, Rick Ross admits he does. There is no guarantee the source is an accurate copy of the original, and indeed a outlined in the earlier discussion his edits have at times been significant. I've never seen a similar admission, or accusation, regarding archive.org. Furthermore, as already noted above, it's against WP policy to link to copyright violations. The idea that someone is an "expert" because newspapers quote him is too long a discussion for here, though I don't think being quoted by a journalist qualifies as "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --Insider201283 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Editors should cite the original source, rather than rickross (or any other reprinting) whenever possible. Neither does archive.org completely reproduce all the pages which it archives (try looking around, lots of stuff is missed due to their bot, particularly for older pages). Moreover, there can be perfectly valid reasons for this and similar sites to edit content they reproduce (a lengthy article of which only a portion is relevant, removal of personal names according to site policy, etc.). To reiterate past arguments, it is the court's job to determine "copyright violations" and it is not for Wikipedia editors to make such allegations without support from court cases. These points have been raised and argued before. • Astynax talk 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Astynx, there's a big difference between material missing and actively changing it. For example, Ross changed a news article from " cult-deprogramming organization named Wellspring" to "cult-[recovery rehabilitation retreat] named Wellspring". He states "Typically this is done for clarification (e.g. Wellspring doesn't do "deprogramming" but is instead a licensed mental health facility providing counseling for former cult members)".[50] Whether accurate or not, this is active POV editing of sources. Regarding copyright, WP:COPYLINK nowhere says "leave it to the courts". --Insider201283 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The example you gave, of inserting a parenthetical editors comment, doesn't seem to be anything like "active POV editing" at all. And regardless, that is not an indication of any copyright violation. WP:C does say that you should discount a link if you know that it is a copyright violation. Respectfully, you do not "know" any such thing unless you have a court case that confirms it. In the case of the text of articles on rickross, archive.org, or any other third-party website, the simple solution is to cite the original source if there is a question as to the source being quoted accurately. • Astynax talk 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:If you compare the two versions, you'll find that the version on rickross.com contains a fair number of POV-motivated edits to the text. The first ones of these I noticed were:
- an Ohio woman who sued a cult-deprogramming organization named Wellspring, whose executive director also sat on the CAN board. (newtimesla.com)
- an Ohio woman who sued a cult-[recovery rehabilitation retreat] named Wellspring, whose executive director also sat on the CAN board. (rickross.com)
- (Note that Ross is – or was – associated with Wellspring, which often took in deprogrammees after deprogramming for further treatment; Jason Scott e.g. was supposed to go there after his deprogramming.)
- "Jason Scott -- who had been kidnapped and deprogrammed from an evangelical Christian sect" (newtimesla.com)
- "Jason Scott -- who had been kidnapped and deprogrammed from [a church affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International]" (rickross.com)
From Jayne466 [51]. By the way the reason i Didn't Notify NRM workGroup is because as far as i can tell since John Carter dropped off the map, its only Me an J466 active right now. J466 got caught in Sweeping Scientology ARBCom Case is now Forbidden to Comment on Rick Ross. Thus i didnt bother notifying them Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify We agree these sources are not up to wikipolicy? Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which sources? The ones that Ross copies on his website? We should judge them independently regardless of who copies them. Will Beback talk 23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoops should Have been more Clear, It sounds like We Argree
Anton's Hein's Apologetics index does not meet Notability and Authority to be a RS
Citing XFamily's Primary Sources is not Appropriate and probable Copy Right Violation not Appropriate to use for a Convenience Link
CultNews and Rick Ross's sites should not be used for Connivence Links due to Probable Copy Violations
Is this correct?
- "Connivance" links probably should be avoided. Convenience links too. That's not specific to Ross, it's just good practice. If folks ask about the source then they could be pointed to websites that host them. I haven't looked at the XFamily site, but I doubt it's reliable per out standards. Will Beback talk 02:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Reliability of the F.A.I.R. website and reporters
I had a question on how would I determine the RS of a website? There may be some question and I wanted to get ahead of the process. The site I question is www.fair.org. Please let me know where to look up their standing as a reliable source. Padillah (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Here are earlier discussions about Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting: recent very long inconclusive discussion on media watchdogs and a use in article on a then recently deceased politician. I would say they would be usually or often usable if they are attributed in the text, or to source liberal opinion, and sometimes usable without such attribution. The controversial nature of a particular statement and whether WP:BLP is involved should be taken into account. Information about particular articles and statements it is being used to support would greatly help the assessment.John Z (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly would group them with Media Matters for America and Huffington Post in that they are good for a liberal viewpoint, but do not necessarily mean a story or information is worthy for inclusion. They are best used for additional information for a story covered by a mainstream media source. Soxwon (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- No they aren't at all worthless, it is just best to make sure you are expressing them in a valid context though, and in the right areas(public reception, media controversies, public opinion, etc) for a living biography. So yeah, they're reliable. Ink Falls 20:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is the specific url of the source in question?
- In which article is the source being used?
- What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
- Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's all [right here] if you feel the need to get involved. Looks like we've got consensus though. Padillah (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Archived pages from the Oregon database on diploma mills
There has been a dispute at the Washington International University article on the use of old, archived pages from the Oregon state database on diploma mills. User:Orlady and User:TallMagic have inserted material sourced to an archived page from the Oregon database referring to information which has since been removed. The two editors have stated that they have made it clear that the information is no longer included in the database. I've never come across this situation before. Is it ok to use old, archived database pages to insert controversial information into an article, information that has since been removed from the database in question? Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Archive.org is used by Wikipedia to provide internet links to content (such as newspaper articles) that was formerly available online but is no longer maintained online by its original publisher. This is the reason for linking to archived versions of the list (not a database, but a list) maintained by the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization. The Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) maintains its list of unaccredited educational institutions as a public/consumer/government information resource on the current status of many institutions. Since the list is a resource, ODA updates the information frequently. Details such as locations may change over time, and when a piece of information is removed from the list, it does not necessarily mean that it was wrong, just that it is no longer true (or no longer relevant).
- Unlike ODA, Wikipedia is not engaged in providing consumer information, but is interested in documenting an institution's history, not merely its present status. Thus, it is often relevant to cite old sources (including old books and old websites) as sources of historical information.
- In the case of WIU, for several years the Oregon ODA website gave the location as "Pennsylvania, British Virgin Islands" and the Remarks field said "Operating illegally in Pennsylvania according to PA Department of Education. WIU is forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia." The current version gives the location as "British Virgin Islands" and the Remarks field says "Degrees not recognized." There is no documentation as to why the list was changed -- perhaps it ceased operations in Pennsylvania, and perhaps the law changed in Australia. It's also possible that the ODA discovered that the information had been wrong (this apparently is Cla68's default assumption) or that ODA removed it to avert a legal challenge (there is sourced documentation that ODA made some other website changes circa 2005/2006 as a result of a lawsuit). I can't tell. Accordingly, the current version of the WIU article describes the former contents of the ODA website as history, using past-tense verbs: "During the years 2005 through 2008, the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) reported that the Pennsylvania Department of Education had provided the information that WIU was then "operating illegally" in Pennsylvania. The ODA listing during that period also indicated that WIU was "forbidden to advertise or offer its programs in Australia".[several archive.org versions of the ODA website are cited]
- Note that if WIU was a reputable university, its name would not appear on the ODA list, and it would not be necessary to use the ODA list of unaccredited schools as a source for basic details because there would be many other reliable sources for that information. --Orlady (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think a similar analogy might be a scientific database of global temperatures. Let's say, for example, that a scientific organization such as the Met Office stated that "2005 was the hottest year on record" but then later removed that sentence (I'm not saying they did this, just using it as a hypothetical) without comment. Would it be ok to use an archived version of the Met's website to say in an article, "The Met used to say that 2005 was the hottest year on record,[ref archived version] but their website no longer contains this statement."[ref current version] Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, archived versions of sources are acceptable. However, if the web page was taken down because the information was unreliable, that's a different story. Do you know why the page was removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- If the original source (the Oregon state list) is regarded as a reliable source, then in general the archived version remains a reliable source. If the information has changed, then the approach taken in the WP article ("During the years 2005 through 2008,...") is entirely appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge's question is a reasonable one, but only an answer documented in another reliable source would be relevant to the issue. I would suggest Quest's question "Do you know why the page was removed?" would be better phrased as "Is there a statement in a reliable source as to why the page was removed?" Unless there is, the current text of the WIU article appears to me to be sound and sourced correctly. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, archived versions of sources are acceptable. However, if the web page was taken down because the information was unreliable, that's a different story. Do you know why the page was removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Know Your Meme a reliable source on viral videos?
- Link to the source in question: KnowYourMeme.com
- The article in which it is being used: McDonald's rap
- The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
The video quickly went viral and has been viewed 6 million times.
- Links to relevant talk page discussion: None.
The article I wish to use it for is McDonald's rap, an article that I created but was deleted on the grounds that the topic wasn't notable. I'd like to use this source to help establish the topic's notability in hopes that I can at some point rescue the article. Knowyourmeme.com was named by Time Magazine as one of the "50 Best Websites 2009"[52] and Maximum PC magazine named it as one of "50 Kick-Ass Websites You Need to Know About"[53]. It has also received favorable press coverage by The Guardian[54] and Winnipeg Free Press[55]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- As a contributor there as well, no, they are not reliable - it is effectively a wiki with expert editors - but that is not to say you can't pull information from there that points to more reliable sites for it. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it's a closed Wiki with expert editors, then it might be considered reliable. I just created an account there[56] and it doesn't appear as if I can edit any content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the process that works at KYM:
- Anyone once registered can create a new entry on a meme. This is in the "submission" queue.
- Only the entry's editor, other editors that the entry creator has added, or in some cases when site admins/"experts" add themselves to the article, can actually edit the entry.
- Discussion occurs to determine if the meme is truly a meme, or simply redundant or unimportant. Memes that fall into the latter are typically "deadpool"ed - the entry still there and open for discussion as in some cases new information will come to light (eg see "The cake is a lie"). If the site admins determine an entry to be viable enough, it is promoted to "Confirmed".
- Now, the key is here that if anything, only "Confirmed" entries could even be considered as a start (since the rest is open wiki). But that said, while it is usual practice for one of the site experts to review and edit a meme prior to "Confirmed", this does not always happen - thus anything confirmed can still be user-generated content.
- The only place on KYM where I would consider reliable is the various webisodes they do on select memes, since this is the "expert" staff reporting on said phenoms, thus it is their writing/scripting for it. But even then, that's a stretch - if a meme is featured by these videos, it is likely well-established by other notable sources to be a meme already. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the process that works at KYM:
- If it's a closed Wiki with expert editors, then it might be considered reliable. I just created an account there[56] and it doesn't appear as if I can edit any content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for your feedback. It doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Issue with Kirtanananda Swami article
Hello, I have a problem with the way that certain material has been removed from an article about the controversial Kirtanananda Swami. This matter is discussed at Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. Basically, someone (User:Wikidas) has removed material that is referenced in a documentary film by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority). The documentary contains various cited references, and it directly quotes court testimony, numerous interviews, TV appearances as well as newspaper clippings relating to the alleged illegal activity that took place over the years at the former ISKCON guru's New Vrindaban Hare Krishna community in West Virginia. This is not the only source of this information either, but nearly every other source is denounced by this individual as "not being up to Wikipedia's standards." I disagree, and I think the evidence that I brought up on this talk page sufficiently demonstrates why the sources are good and why the material should be included in the article. There is court testimony which corroborates these things too (U.S. Court of Appeals, and here). Also, I think the removal of this material may constitute a form of censorship, perhaps perpetuated by (a) former and/or current Hare Krishna devotee(s). So, if others would please review the material discussed on the talk page of the article, as well as older versions of the article itself, and weigh in with opinions on this matter (especially regarding the use of the material from the documentary and whether or not it should be included as a reliable source), that would be much appreciated. Geneisner (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- You must comply with not just policies of WP:BLP but also with basic policy WP:V. The documentary film by Jacob Young (1996), is not a verifiable source, not is it suitable as the main source for a BLP. Just because a number of people cite claims on camera, it does not make it reliable source. I have already brough up the discussion on this board for this source and nobody ever suggested that Holy Cow Swami movies you want to include is a reliable source. Don't waste time, use other good sources to support your claims. I have no objections to even primary sources you cite, provided there is support and they are being cited by good secondary sources. The claims are contentious and it's a BLP, while the guy is clearly a criminal. Wikidas© 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is the documentary not verifiable? --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Electronic media is not accessable. No evidence of checking or analyzing facts, legal issues etc provided. No transcript, and nothing in reviews that can be used was produced. The only "sources" are some self published books and court records (which can be used anyway and are cited). I have put a notice at the time of tagging it (almost a year ago) on BLP notice board as well. Wikidas© 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since when is electronic media not accessible? Simply because it is not instantly available on the Internet does not mean it is not accessible. The documentary is available for purchase from Amazon [57] and other sources as well and may be available in libraries. Self-published books have some limitations, but they are not categorically prohibited. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Electronic media is not accessable. No evidence of checking or analyzing facts, legal issues etc provided. No transcript, and nothing in reviews that can be used was produced. The only "sources" are some self published books and court records (which can be used anyway and are cited). I have put a notice at the time of tagging it (almost a year ago) on BLP notice board as well. Wikidas© 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Now hopefully others can see how this information was wrongly removed from the article. I have compiled a large selection of direct quotes from the documentary film on Talk:Kirtanananda_Swami. I mean, since when are direct quotes from a person as seen in interviews on a documentary film not permitted in Wikipedia articles about people living or dead? Are words, exact quotes, that are filmed coming out of someone's mouth not permitted on Wikipedia? In my opinion, that would seem pretty silly, if not downright ridiculous. Geneisner (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is the documentary not verifiable? --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am afraid it is obligation of the editor who adds information to the article to provide complete verifiable record and defend the sources. I have tagged the sources including the documentary in August 2009. The tag is still there.
- I probably will be the least sympatic person towards him, thus censorship claims are quite rediculous. However lets us first read what Wikipedia requires us to do about it in all three cases:
- Court Records inclusion:
- You insist that we should use the court records, however when challenged you can not show a source that accurately citing them. Again the policy: Do not use public records that include personal details—.. trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. (Suggestion -- find reliables sources that can be confirmed to have mentioned the documents.)
- Self published books or a personal dairy:
- You have suggested use of such in your accusations please read wikipedia policy: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.
- Inclusion of the tv documentary:
- I have tagged and after almost a year removed it as per wikipedia policy (I did leave a tag on it for rather longer than the requirement, to give you and other editors chance to fix it, I could not find any reviews or any transcripts or mentions in good sources of the film) Again please read the policy: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. See other arguments on the RS board.
- I suggest you actually read the policy and it is on you to provide sufficient evidence that it complies with BLP, this evidence should be available to all editors who dispute the source and should be able to verify it. I have tagged it in August 09, and removed it April 10, you confimred youself that this documentary "relies on self-published sources", if you seen the documentary you will know that sources in it do not comply with the standard of the Wikipedia for BLPs. I have seen it a number of years back, and only small portions of it are any good for current BLP standard. Please note that standard for BLP has changed since the sources were added to the article.
- It is with regret I must note that you refuse to consider good sources I have already added to the article and in the talk page itself as a suggestion and refuse to look for other sources. Wikidas© 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that you are the one that is misinterpreting the policy. The TV documentary is a published source, distributed by a reliable organization. It is available for verification and there is nothing in WP policy that precludes use as a source. Similarly, the Brijibais Spirit was an official publication of the New Vrndaban community and is acceptable as source for the positions of the community and its leadership. It may be more difficult to locate an archive of the publication, but that again does not preclude its use as a source. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need to 'interpret' the policy - the policy is rather clear. About Brijbasis Spirit: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The question about documentary was already raised on this board at the time of tagging it in August 2009. Onus on the person who adds material to ensure it is verifiable, plan and simple. If he demonstrates how it is and how it satisfies the above critera, "that relies on self-published sources". Maybe areas of the documentary that do not rely on self-published sources can be used, however we need to know which areas they are. I continue giving good faith to all editors involved and will not proceed with RFC or anything like that if that add something unsourced, but I will have to bring up such sources on WP:BLPN. Thanks. Wikidas© 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do not agree that Brijabasi Spirit is a SPS in the sense that you are intending. It was a real publication. [58] It's content is verifiable (though not perhaps as easily as you might like). Just because you might have to expend some effort does not make the content unverifiable. And by what basis can you possibly discriminate between portions of a documentary? You can't cherry pick some portions and dismiss others. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need to 'interpret' the policy - the policy is rather clear. About Brijbasis Spirit: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The question about documentary was already raised on this board at the time of tagging it in August 2009. Onus on the person who adds material to ensure it is verifiable, plan and simple. If he demonstrates how it is and how it satisfies the above critera, "that relies on self-published sources". Maybe areas of the documentary that do not rely on self-published sources can be used, however we need to know which areas they are. I continue giving good faith to all editors involved and will not proceed with RFC or anything like that if that add something unsourced, but I will have to bring up such sources on WP:BLPN. Thanks. Wikidas© 02:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that you are the one that is misinterpreting the policy. The TV documentary is a published source, distributed by a reliable organization. It is available for verification and there is nothing in WP policy that precludes use as a source. Similarly, the Brijibais Spirit was an official publication of the New Vrndaban community and is acceptable as source for the positions of the community and its leadership. It may be more difficult to locate an archive of the publication, but that again does not preclude its use as a source. older ≠ wiser 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Spinwatch
Is Spinwatch a reliable source? There is a question at the English Defense League (EDL) whether this article can be used as a source for Robert Spencer's relationship with the EDL. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm...they are "a campaign group"[59] and "a pressure group that campaigns for openness among lobbyists"[60] according to The Guardian and "a Glasgow-based body which monitors public relations" according to the Times.[61] I don't see much to demonstrate that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Their views might be notable if covered by a third-party reliable source. In such a case, I would think that in-text attribution would be necessary. Of course, I've never heard about this group before and might be completely wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Reliability of Toomas Alatalu. Tuva. A State Reawakens. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 5 (1992).
- Link to the source in question is available here: [[62]] (need an account, may be available elsewhere, try searching.)
- The article in which it is being used: Eastern Front (World War II)
- The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting: No exact statement, source is being used to support the Tuvan People's Republic (Tannu Tuva) being listed as a belligerent, (that it was an independent state, and that its soldiers fought independently in hostilities.)
- Links to relevant talk page discussion: Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Tannu_Tuva, and in some parts Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Volunteers in Wehrmacht were not a separate belligerents, also see revision history of the Eastern Front (World War II) article.
The source claims that Tannu Tuva was an "independent state", and that its soldiers engaged in hostilities, from source: "soldiers from that independent country fought on the Soviet-German front in 1943-44". If you look at the entries and sources in the talk pages, and the Tannu Tuva article (Tuvan People's Republic), its almost impossible to conclude that Tannu Tuva was an "independent state". The source also states that Tannu Tuva is also "still at war with Germany" into and past the year 1944. Tannu Tuva was annexed on 11 October 1944 by the Soviet Union, and the area became the Tuvan Autonomous Oblast. I believe the source is not reliable due to all the evident misinformation contained within it, and things that are blatantly not true. Lt.Specht (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Would this be considered reliable?
Would this be considered reliable? Given that it is sponsored by George Washington University. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reliable for what? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)