Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Betrayed is a movie with debra winger released in 1988. The song devils right hand is in opening credits.

I would like to get an answer weather is the Saudi Al Arabiya, owned by the kings relatives, reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war (English-language Al Arabiya; Arbaic-language Al Arabiya).

Saudi Arabia is involved in the Syrian civil war (as you can see in the infobox) as it supports the Free Syrian Army and the jihadists; and since the Al Arabiya is a media controled by the king's relatives, it is logical that it can not be reliable source regarding the Syrian civil war.

--Wüstenfuchs 01:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Murdoch's best friend is David Cameron. I guess that means the British Prime Minister controls Fox News. We must cease the use of Fox News for editing British current events at once. Sopher99 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom? In Saudi Arabia you have a nepotist government where king's relatives do every government duty... --Wüstenfuchs 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that line of argument is unhelpful. Is there a particular piece of content which you think Al Arabiya should not be used to support? bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Fox News was brought into this, I can't see why we would ever use it for British current events. Britain actually has its own well-respected news sources with a better reputation than Fox News. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if one considers Fox News a reliable sources, then several of the reliable British sources are also owned by Mr. Murdoch. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and back to the original question ... Al Arabiya is considered to be an established outlet per Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations, so, in general, considered reliable for our standards. That does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. In something as emotional as the Syrian civil war, in which most of the countries of the world have expressed support for one side or the other, it is hard to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Al Arabiya stated that ...". Please be specific as to what item of content in the article you are asking about, it is possible specific items may have more specific answers. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above.

Moreover, regardless of the biases stated by their commentators, the news from Fox News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, and Breitbart.com are all reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how extensively relying on Sheldon Brown's original research and self published source for various bicycle related articles, such as Bicycle_wheel. Would his website's contents be reliable source or should we only use it very sparingly? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Brown's web site is well recognized as an excellent resource. Longer or more specific things should probably be attributed to him, but unless there's some sort of controversy on a specific point it's probably fine to use as is. a13ean (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use it to source facts on anything but the figure himslef. Not for making statements or claims on unrelated issues and subjects. While he may be an expert, this site is self published and has no editorial oversite...its a homepage.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what situation would it be appropriate to use him? Simple facts? What about his opinions which is just that? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On his own biography, but not when referencing facts on aluminum framing and parts etc. You would need something more reliably published. His own webpage may not be used to reference facts that are available from the other published sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relevant passage from wp:rs is "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic". Even Lennard Zinn, Technical Editor for VeloNews, cites Sheldon Brown repeatedly. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." and : "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field", Simply put, if the Homepage information can be shown or demonstrated to have already been published it may be acceptable if consensus agress, however if it is already published in a third party, reliable source than one should really use that and not the personal webpage of the expert. This is generaly meant for self published papers and journals not a "build your own" homepage. Care should always be used with references to make them as strong as possible and the Sheldon Brown homepage is not that. As I said, best used for citing content about himself.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Amad, you're not parsing that guideline correctly. It doesn't mean that only the self-published stuff that has been published elsewhere is reliable. It means that since Brown has been repeatedly published on the subject of bicycles, enough to be considered an acknowledged expert, then even his self-published stuff on that subject can be considered reliable. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 26 December 20:12 (UTC)

But where was any of his work published in reliable secondary sources on the subject? Commentary of a sentence or so in obituaries and columns do not count. I believe they mean authors who's work have been published in secondary sources, i.e. something he created that is relevant to the topic cited in a textbook or engineering journal. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says: "Brown was a contributing writer for Bike World magazine (USA) in the late 1970s and for Bicycling magazine (USA) in the early 1980s, then for the trade magazine American Bicyclist and Motorcyclist from approximately 1988 through 1992. For several years until shortly before his death, he wrote the "Mechanical Advantage" column for Adventure Cyclist, the magazine of the Adventure Cycling Association.". --GRuban (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Brown's website is very far from authoritative on the subject of web design, even though Sheldon did (at least at one time) offer his services in that field too. The difference is that reputable editors considered his bike-related writing reliable, but no-one ever (AFAIK) said that about his web design. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Sheldon's site is RS for maintenance topics. He's the very epitome of a respected expert source within that field. Is there any instance (with cites, please) where we would begin to suspect the contrary?

For wheels specifically, I'd see Jobst Brandt as more detailed than Sheldon, but I don't know of any conflict between either of them, or other credible sources (and there's a whole load of hokum still talked about wheels). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see, can someone point out if the lack of dispute constitutes a personal webpage credible reference for WP purposes? What should we do with Brown's opinion pieces? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sainted Sheldon is considered a peerless source by cyclists the world over. He was honoured by the Cyclists' Touring Club for his exceptional work (I have a scan of the certificate, which I was responsible for sending to him). Nobody knew more about the subtle art of wrenching. If you remove the cites I am afraid I will have to kill you. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're a few steps step closer to him than the public and your affiliation maybe WP:COI. "sainted"? come on. I also don't appreciate your threatening comment suggesting the action you will take if editors were to make edits you don't approve.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that that's sarcasm... a13ean (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that if that isn't struck out it is a death threat. period. Reporting.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying into the thought that because Sheldon is published elsewhere that his personal selfbuilt homepage is acceptable as RS for facts on bike parts. We still require references to be reliably published....and this aint it.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because you don't know the topic very well, I'm guessing. Google "AASHTA" (example: [1]). As Always, Sheldon has The Answer. I honestly cannot think of a more widely cited source online for bike maintenance, and I speak as a long-term denizen of the Usenet cycling groups. His chain cleaning technique is known as the Sheldon Shake. And no, I am not close to the subject any more than any other cyclist who has used his website is close to the subject. I trusted Sheldon's advice and appreciated the amount of work he'd put into building his site, that's all. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, Amad, but it's not a "thought", it's how Wikipedia:Reliable sources works. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've interacted him and you're not looking at him from an impartial POV. Recognition in message boards does not count. It is all anecdotal. I think insertion of your personal trust him is inappropriate. So, what reliably published secondary source refers to it as "Sheldon Shake" ? You're closer to the subject than someone who has never had any interaction with him Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, like many, many other cyclists rely on Sheldon's site for information. I emailed him easily three times over a five year period and I never met him. I am no more connected with him than I am connected with the Oxford English Dictionary by virtue of having used the book as a reference. A small number of people seem to be determined to find reasons not to use Sheldon's site as a source, which is just sad. How many bicycle mechanics have you heard of who got an obituary in The Times? Also Obit in Wired - "Sheldon Brown, Web’s Cycling Guru, Dies" - "Brown’s decidedly non-fancy website was a vital resource for cyclists, rich with hints on how to break in a Brooks leather saddle, technical explanations of the workings of 60 year-old internal hubs, and instructions on how to build a tandem from two old steel bike frames. Brown even lauded Shimano’s much maligned Biopace chain rings (a non-round chain ring once made by Shimano)" - there you have a reliable independent secondary source stating that Sheldon's site is considered authoritative. Chris Juden, the technical guru of the CTC, also references his site from time to time, and I have never seen any reliable source dispute the validity and value of Sheldon's information.

I have been asked if his site is endorsed by people like Halfords. That's like asking if Walgreens endorse the FDA as a source. Halfords are commonly known as "halfwits" or "halfrauds" among the cycling community, we are distinctly ambivalent about them. I don't know any cyclist who's ambivalent about Sheldon. Someone even made up frame stickers with "Sheldon Brown is my copilot". And no, the certificate awarded to Sheldon by the CTC does not count as a self-published source any more than any other award bestowed on anybody. Now, you're free to continue arguing the toss about this but the plain fact is that Sheldon is considered a reliable source. Picking a cycling forum at random, a search for Sheldon Brown turns up many hits. This is not even remotely contentious. It's not like Ayn Rand or Gore Vidal or someone, whose opinions are considered controversial, even Jobst Brandt has people who pick fights with him, Sheldon's site was and remains the fountain source of wisdom for many things. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care how many times you have contacted the gentleman. His self published homepage is not a RS for citing facts, but only for citing his opinion. Kill me. --Amadscientist (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise you're losing the will to live, but please can you explain more clearly why you do not think it appropriate to follow WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? Do you not believe that Sheldon Brown was an established expert on bicycles? Or do you think WP:SPS is wrong and that self-published expert sources cannot be used for matters falling within the expertise of the expert? NebY (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral observer here... we seem to have two related, but separate issues: First we must reach a consensus on whether Sheldon Brown is considered an expert on bicycles... I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion on this, but... if he is not, then his website would not be reliable; if he is, then his self published source can be considered reliable.

Second, (assuming he is considered an expert) we need to determine whether other experts disagree with what Sheldon Brown says about bicycles ... if so, then the information taken from Mr. Brown's website should be phrased as being his opinion (ie attributed to him), and contrasted with the opinions of the other experts. If not, then we can accept what he says at face value and paraphrase it as being unattributed fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blueboar, that's a clear summary and a roadmap for resolving this, in one brief post.

When it comes to assessing Brown's status as an expert, we are fortunate that he is dead. Eulogies abounded. This one for Adventure Cycling was written a few days later, so it talks of those obituaries and other reactions. It also tells us how he moved from having a high reputation in the comparatively small world of print journals about cycling published in the US to worldwide recognition, such that a web search for 'Sheldon Brown guru' brings up a heart-warming and inspiring chorus of praise. Sift it and you will find not just the blogosphere, but general newspapers and magazines in the US and the UK, cycling advocacy groups, companies that make money out of teaching cycle maintenance but recommend his free expertise anyway, and a busy world of online forums still referencing him. We're lucky none of those have latched onto this discussion yet.

Yes, we still have to be discriminating. Parts of his writing are minor facts and expert knowledge, parts are opinions and advocacy based on expertise. So long as we can agree that there is much of the former and have enough of an acquaintance with the subject to recognise the latter, we should be able to return to the articles and proceed in relative harmony. NebY (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Blueboar, that is precisely the point. Is Sheldon Brown considered an authority? Yes. We have reliable independent sources that identify him as such. Do other experts disagree with what he says? No, they don't. In fact other experts typically cite his website. Both these points are already addressed above, so it's not so much a roadmap for resolution as a clear message to Amadscientist to drop the stick and back away from the deceased equine. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since his work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", his self-published work is a reliable source for that field. But as ever, it's not the case that sources are either Reliable or Not; whether or not something is a reliable source depends on exactly what statement is to be sourced. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kuroneko currently cites Jim Breen's dictionary[2] as a source for the meaning of a phrase in the Japanese title. Reliable sources don't translate the title (the English title is a shortening of the Japanese title Yabu no naka no kuroneko), but WP:NCFILM says we should provide a translation anyway. The title has two meanings in Japanese, a literal one, and a figurative one that is overwhelmingly more common, but that is not the issue here.

It was mentioned that WWWJDIC might be WP:USERG, but this seems like a faulty argument to me. Jim Breen is a recognized expert in Japanese language studies, and his dictionary is one of the most widely-used J-E dictionaries. His website is also his official homepage as a Research Fellow of Monash University. The dictionary also claims to be copyright the "Electronic Dictionary Research and Development Group".

What does everyone else think about this?

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on this project: The WWWJDIC dictionary is based on the underlying jmdict dictionary. This consists of entries submitted by users as well as entries made by the above-mentioned JW Breen. Entries are currently reviewed by a "team" of editors including JW Breen. None of the current reviewers are native speakers of Japanese. The dictionary has been in creation since 1990. Current entries supposedly are reviewed and require references, but many of the older entries were added unreviewed/unreferenced. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: I went to WWWJDIC as my source for this because WP:NONENG says that English-language sources are preferred to non-English language ones, and because JoshuSasori has indicated elsewhere that he doesn't speak Japanese. The same information can be found easily in Kōjien or Daijisen, but a good J-E dictionary seemed better. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elvenscout742 you are hilarious. I've never indicated that I do or do not speak Japanese, but inspection of the edit histories of Kaneto Shindo and Yasujiro Ozu should clue you up. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Japanese ability is entirely beside the point, but you indicated that you don't understand Hepburn romanization or Japanese long-vowels when you stated that you had "NO IDEA"[3] where the idea of spelling Japanese people's names with macrons came from. Anyway, whether it is you or some other reader, some Wikipedians don't understand Japanese, and so English-language sources are generally preferable to Japanese ones. Although maybe not when providing etymologies of words. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The operating project, EDRDG, is run by Monash University, a reputable Australian university, and primary author/maintainer Jim Breen is not only notable enough to have his own WP page, he's a Senior Research Fellow at Monash's Japanese Studies Centre and his scholarly work (incl. much about WWWJDIC) has been published extensively in reliable sources. The dictionary and its predecessors JDIC and EDICT have been actively worked on since 1991. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database, and WWWJDIC is described as "reliable and close to comprehensive" by sources like the Japan Times.

All that said, sources like Kōjien are still a step above WWWJDIC in authoritativeness, but for anything even vaguely modern or slangy WWWJDIC's quite often as good as it gets. Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling WWWJDIC WP:USERG is, quite frankly, ridiculous. - not ridiculous, no. The Jmdict dictionary (used to be EDICT) is generated from content submitted by users, so in the normal English sense it is "user generated content". Whether to apply WP:USERG is the discussion we should have here. EDICT was a primary source for the Unicode Consortium's Unihan Database - probably Kanjidic, not EDICT. reliable and close to comprehensible - LOL, I think you meant "comprehensive". Anyway I am sure you mean well, but Wikipedia may be reliable and it is certainly close to comprehensive, but Wikipedia isn't a "reliable source" by Wikipedia's own standards. Do you want WWWJDIC to be able to be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles? That is the problem. If I submit an entry to WWWJDIC tomorrow then it will change what it says for a particular entry next week. Thus I believe the cautions of WP:USERG apply. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not comparable to Wikipedia. Yes, WWWJDIC takes contributions from the public, but they don't just show up automatically, there's a professional editorial process for approving any changes. See [4]: "Incoming entries are all checked", and that's not WP-style random peer review, but actual editorial review.

Also, your point about changeability is a red herring: any page on the Web can be changed at any time without notice, and that's what tools like WebCite are for. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WWWJDIC can be considered a user-generated site. It states plainly: Users of WWWJDIC are welcome to submit amendments to the dictionary files, and also to submit new entries. I have submitted new words & definitions, and I have submitted additional definitions or pronunciations to existing words or kanji. That said, the provider is supposed to add a reference that can verify the new word/definition, and new definitions are annotated if they have not been confirmed by Jim Breen (or his staff, I suppose). So, user generated, but also based on established dictionaries, and also I believe quite respected among Japanophiles. Concur with User:Jpatokal. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the review/reference/multiple editor system is a recent improvement. The bulk of entries were submitted before any review/reference/etc. system was put into place. There are errors being discovered in old entries all the time. I think caution should be exercised. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is reliable or not is not the same as whether it's correct or not. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that EDRDG consider a Wikipedia page to be a valid reference for dictionary entries. JoshuSasori (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to [5]? The only recommended references are various dictionaries, all they do is state that you can also "include" a WP article. Jpatokal (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be pointed out that the WWWJDIC-definition that JoshuSasori was continues to challenge was is yabu no naka (don't know how to link WWWJDIC entry but [6] is a carbon-copy), which virtually matches that of Kōjien and Daijisen. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about dictionaries for translations to English from Japanese (and vice–versa), or is this about Japanese dictionaries of Japanese definitions of Japanese words? Confusion? Kōjien would be the best for the later. Kenkyūsha's would be the best for the former—that is again, for translations to English from Japanese. IMHO

WWWJDIC has to be used in context, evaluated for the specific WP statement it is put forward as a reliable source for and that specific part of WWWJDIC evaluated for reliability. WWWJDIC has itself many sources, and cannot be evaluated as one lump, as reliable or unreliable. Confusion? For one example for Buddhist words, WWWJDIC, set to its Buddhist dictionary setting, sources its entries directly from another source, the reliable, scholarly Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (DDB), which needs to be widely, often and well used as a source, in addition, when words have both superficial plain language meanings, and notable Buddhist more subtle, philosophical, meanings. ——--macropneuma 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's about WWWJDIC. The precise issue in the article is not under question here (it was resolved when I found a report on a lecture by a notable researcher at Hosei University that made the exact point I was making). Of course Kōjien is more reliable than WWWJIC in general, but when they include the same information, WP:NONENG says we should use an English source. Most J-E dictionaries do not give straight definitions of Japanese words/phrases, but rather list some possible translations. Being able to cite an English-language online source that gives a straight definition would be nice. Therefore, we are trying to establish (and hopefully set a precedent as to) whether WWWJDIC can be used as a source for Wikipedia in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only sometimes, due to its mix of its own sources, reliable and unreliable—depending on the context of the statement it is put forward as a source for and on the context of the source WWWJDIC has itself used. Not in general as a blanket reliable source. ——--macropneuma 04:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if entries, no matter where they are sourced, are reviewed by a panel of experts before being put online, mightn't that put WWWJDIC over the line into "reliable"? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the entries are reviewed by the panel. In the past i've put in a few test additional translation entries which changed the emphasis of a translation (then i removed them) and seen translations by other people under entries for words which i've done scholarly study of in my specialised, study field: 自然農法, which are not the best translations by any means—also obvious by reference to Kenkyūsha's and so on without even my special scholarly studies—and must not be used as reliable sources. It's a pity, and i think great Jim Breen will better the system to become much more robust in reliability, soon, or perhaps already has—since it's been a year or two ago for me.

I've used it as an ancillary source (as a second ref) after the first most reliable source (ref), eg. Kenkyūsha's. It is better to go to beyond WWWJDIC to its sources and reference those instead, eg. Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and numerous others.

For EDICT (Jpn–Eng General) and the default setting of: "Special Text–glossing", which automatically and conveniently incorporates a decision tree choice of various DICTs, depending on your input text—including the often helpful ENAMDICT (person's names)—they are not blanket reliable in my 10+ years of experience using it and IMHO. For these, it is better to dig deeper by repeating the search.

First the most general search you want.

Then, if that was a composite "Special Text–glossing" or "Expanded Text–glossing" setting, then break up your text into sections according to the different dictionaries it has used to output the result.

Sequentially set it to each one of those dictionaries' individual settings and input each of those sections of your text;

for each of those dictionaries' results dig deeper into the history of the translation source within WWWJDIC, often per single words/compound words, as there are not so many long phrases whole translations.

Hence, is that specific translation a reliable source or not? If it was altered by a member of the public without in turn providing sources as basis, and without in turn then getting reviewed by the panel of experts, then no. If it is in turn based on a reliable source then ok. If it is a name ENAMDICT output when it should have decided to use EDICT to translate its meaning to English, then no, and then you have to take that text back as input to specifically set EDICT translation and then repeat the history check again.

When needed i've regularly done this specific checking of this source (each word/compound word) for reliability.

It sounds too complicated when written in description here, but it is not too complicated when we get used to it.

For quick edification, such as in WP talk posts, and quick checking one's memory recall, it's fine amongst others, such as my Mac's (free) built–in, great big Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus linked directly to the great big Shōgakukan (Daijisen±) E<–>J, Japanese and Japanese synonyms dictionaries. For editing here in WP the Mac Shōgakukan<–>Oxford is much more convenient than WWWJDIC. If someone (hasn't a Mac and) is lazy for all this WWWJDIC reliability checking, the most convenient and best sources would be to have: Kenkyūsha's and Kōjien, big hardcopies (or computer software) on one's own desk (or desktop). I wish I had, for even more reliable sources and more convenience. I have access to them in the Uni. library. I hope that helps people in general here. ——--macropneuma 05:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might add for my summation, capsule, that in my humble 10+ years of on & off experiences with WWWJDIC, the emphasis of it is on the digital dictionary technologies, not so much emphasis on the highest standards of lexicographical scholarship, as certain dictionaries we've already mentioned above, and including we all know the Oxford English. This is emphasis, and no criticism of Jim Breen or WWWJDIC at all. i perceive, of course, that emphasis to be his purpose and emphasis too; so WWWJDIC is very well fit for its purpose (to me), and i think very fit for Jim Breen's purposes; which are not the same emphases as WP's most reliable sources, purposes. Why, we needn't be (emphasising) using a less reliable source, WWWJDIC, when we can use the widely acknowledged, most reliable, best, sources, we've cited above; and put the WP sourcing emphasis on those. There's no reason not to use WWWJDIC here when fit for the purpose, just not everywhere, generally, reliable. Thanks elvenscout742 & co., for me, at least, a stimulating discussion. ——--macropneuma 11:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Second last sentence added for to be sure. :) ——--macropneuma 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to imply finishing this discussion section, in my summation, capsule, above, just my version of my summation, so far, not closing off the section, and my little, genuine, thanks, i also learned certain key things. Anyone having more to say, please, i mean to be encouraging you, in good faith (&c.) ... . ——--macropneuma 15:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, this discussion is supposed to conclude whether WWWJDIC is a Reliable Source(tm) or not. Allow me to posit the following two conclusions:

1) WWWJDIC is, generally speaking, a sufficiently reliable source and can be used as a reference for Wikipedia.

2) In case of controversy or doubt, the definitions in other Japanese dictionaries (eg. Kojien, DDB) are considered more accurate and are preferred over WWWJDIC.

In other words, we "assume good faith" for WWWJDIC, and fall back to non-English sources when in doubt. I'd like to work in some mention of preferring WWWJDIC's sources (eg. DDB) over WWWJDIC itself, but not quite sure how... Opinions? Jpatokal (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does speech by UN ambassodor of Malaysia [7] that is used as a source in article of Settler colonialism [8].Does it primary or secondary source in this contexts?Moreover it seems that http://www.un.int/malaysia/ is a personal page of the ambassador so it maybe WP:SPS also.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That webpage is the webpage hosted on the UN website for the Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the UN, and the article can be found under the link for NAM Statements By Malaysia.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't find the arguments for excluding this NAM/UN source based on its nature and notability at Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source very compelling. The same arguments could probably be applied to many of the ~2236 links to Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs currently in article space. Having said that, scholarly secondary sources are preferred and there's the settler colonial studies journal which has a number of articles that may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question of WP:UNDUE is beyond scope of this board.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the Non-Aligned Movement's analytic and evaluative claims about "the situation in the middle east, including the question of Palestine" based on whatever sources they used to come up with their assessment. So it seems like a secondary source to me, but even if you treat it as a primary because it's an official document, a statement by the NAM hosted on the UN site, I don't think there is a problem including material from it as long as it's "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". The source makes several statements about what NAM apparently regard as settler colonialism in the oPt but I'm not sure that the content in the diff that was added is what I would have sampled for the article, not that that is relevant to the RS question. It seems to be being used in a similar way to many of the thousands of instances of Israel's MFA. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can demonstrate that this source is not authentic or is an inaccurate reproduction of this speech, I think that it's reliable as a primary source. Primary sources are allowed, although secondary sources are often preferred, especially when establishing weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location claims that Press TV cannot be used to establish notability for Jim Fetzers outrageously anti-semitic viewpoint that the Sandy Hook massacre can be blamed on Israel. Press TV is the main and official news agency of Iran, and Veterans Today is an american-based website that also carries Press TV stories and its contributors, but thus also carries stories approved by the government of Iran. Both have been noted by ADL and Washington Post as carrying wildly anti-semitic anti-israel propoganda. It is hard to document Fetzer if WP disallows two of his most important outlets and source of supporters with similar viewpoints. Kourosh Ziabari was deleted because it was claimed that his many contributions to both outlets were not "notable", and a similar case is being made for Mark Dankof who similarly appear on Press TV and American anti-war websites. If these writers are acting as stealth propgandists for a hostile nation-state, it impossible to document them if they are to be deleted simply because they have been ignored by mainstream pro-Israel western media, yet heavily promoted by pro-Iranian pro-Palestine outlets. Redhanker (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I posted your concern in the thread immediately preceding this one. The issue is one of using reliable secondary sources for Fetzer's opinions versus primary source material. Location (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Cross posted from Talk:James H. Fetzer for clarification.] The Veterans Today source explicitly states: "Posted by Jim Fetzer" at the top. Regarding the Press TV source, it is primary source material. On this, WP:BLPPRIMARY states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Per the discussion at WP:RSN, let's see if http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2012/12/20/iran-propaganda-101-mass-killing-of-children-in-connecticut.html fits the requirement of a reliable secondary source. Location (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have pointed out to User:Redhanker who is trying to use Gilad Atzmon's opionion on a WP:BLP that he cannot promote a non-WP:RS source as WP:RS just because it supports his view on an issue. I've certainly seen all these sources deleted instantly when others tried to use them as critics of Israel. I have been waiting for him to respond on the Richard A. Falk article on his removal of an Atzmon quote about Falkf and wondering if I was going to have to bring this here, but I can see he already is here on the same issue. CarolMooreDC 22:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Iran Press TV conspiracy theories. Location (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll probably have to wait til after the holidays to get NPOV 3rd party opinions on this. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 17:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be a problem of sourcing, but of original research. I've commented on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following from Conversion therapy for sourcing concerns:

NARTH repudiates aversive techniques and stresses therapeutic efforts toward growing more fully into what it considers one's biologically appropriate gender identity.^[1][2]

I think these primary sources don't quite support what we're reporting in Wikipedia's voice. Can some folks please offer input? Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first part (NARTH repudiates aversive techniques) appears to be supported by the cites. The second part does not seem to be supported, since neither of the sources appear to mention anything about "appropriate gender identity", instead talking about "unwanted homosexual attractions" or "unwanted same-sex attractions". Formerip (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the correct venue to settle content disputes, FormerIP. The gist of the inquiry is whether the subject's own website is a reliable source for the subject's views and policies, and the answer is self-evident: of course it is. ► Belchfire-TALK 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong statements need strong sourcing. I think this is a great venue to see if what we are stating accurately reflects the sourcing available. Let's see what others have to offer. Insomesia (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to think whatever you would like. The verbiage at the top of this page states:

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.

and

This is not the place for content disputes, which should be directed to the article talk page, the associated WikiProject, or Dispute resolution noticeboard.

This noticeboard is to discuss the reliability of sources, not whether a given statement is supported by a source. ► Belchfire-TALK 23:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Let's see what other editors have to say, it may prove helpful. Insomesia (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that comes here is a content dispute, obviously, and the question of whether a source is reliable for a given statement can't really be divorced from whether it contains words which support the statement. These sources don't contain wording which support part of the statement they are be used for so, to that extent, they are not reliable. Formerip (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There should be no problem divorcing the reliability of a source within a given context from the accuracy of specific content. The question is: can we look to NARTH's website (source) for information about NARTH's policies (context). The obvious answer is "yes, we can". ► Belchfire-TALK 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well perhaps we can just agree to differ. Formerip (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letting NARTH speak for itself is a mistake. A better strategy is to find third party sources commenting on their position. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While having third party sources is always better, using this source is hardly a "mistake". @FormerIP, the issue you have with this source/statement is the "gender identity" phrase? I don't think the language is incorrect as to what NARTH purports to believe.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct in some sense, rosetta, although the wording presented above seems to confuse gender identity and sexual orientation, which are not the same thing. In any event, the wording isn't supported by the cites provided, where NARTH seem to indicate that they do not believe any sexual orientation to be inappropriate per se, unless an individual is unhappy. Formerip (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a direct quote is best if there is any disagreement  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, obviously. Insomesia (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do any non-NARTH or industry-controlled reliable sources support these assertions? Otherwise I think we should just leave it out. Insomesia (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterial and irrelevant. For at least the third time, this discussion can only address the reliability of the NARTH sources within the given context. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually improving articles may need to take into account what reliable and impartial sources state. We aren't here to promote NARTH's views, controversial or otherwise. Insomesia (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it to the talk page. [WP:IDHT]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're already here so I don't see any problem asking uninvolved editors to opine. Insomesia (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason. See WP:FORUMSHOP. Your seeing it is not really germain to the issue. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is entirely appropriate here. "Reliability" includes a discussion about accuracy, authoritativeness, relevancy and currency. This noticeboard is the correct forum. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, the source can only be used to verify the view of the source, and should be clearly attributed, and any content verified by that should be neutrally worded. I do not see it as a reliable source outside of what I have just stated. Secondary or tertiary reliable source(s) should be used for other content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lane is probably the first Warren Commission critic and one of many controversial figures in the world of JFK assassination enthusiasts. Lane's views are supported by many other critics and rejected by various debunkers who have called him "unscrupulous"[9]. A sentence in Mark Lane (author) states:

"After the Warren Commission Report was published in September 1964, Mark Lane interviewed numerous witnesses who were ignored by the Commission, and then used these interviews and evidence from the Commission's report to published an indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment."

This is a close paraphrase of page 162 in "J. Edgar Hoover: The Father of the Cold War" by R. Andrew Kiel who, from the little information I can find, "teaches United States History at a senior high school in Ohio"[10] and has supported other conspiracy-oriented individuals[11].:

"After the Warren Commission's final report was completed in September 1964, Lane interviewed numerous witnesses ignored by the Commission. He published a convincing indictment of the Commission, entitled Rush to Judgment, using these interviews as well as evidence from the twenty-six volumes of the Commission's Report. Despite the fact that the majority of Mark Lane's material for his book came from the Warren Report itself, as well as from interviews from those who were at the scene, sixteen publishers canceled contracts before Rush to Judgment was published."[12]

I have voiced a challenge to the word "ignore" in the above context in that it implies "intentional disregard", and have suggested that it be changed to either "not interviewed" or be attributed to the original author. Although there appears to be consensus for this change in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mark Lane and Talk:Mark Lane (author), one editor has insisted that it is a proper reflection of a statement of fact (per WP:YESPOV) and suggested that the issue be raised here. So...

Is Kiel's assertion sufficient to make a statement of fact that the Warren Commission "ignored" witnesses?:

Is Kiel's assertion sufficient to make a statement of opinion attributed to Kiel that the Warren Commission "ignored" witnesses?

Given the contentious nature of the claims made by Lane (and reiterated by Kiel), which choice of wording is appropriate?

Thanks! Location (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the details of your edits are separate from the issue of reliablility. This board should be concerned with the status of the book. As you say, the author is not an established expert and the publisher is at best not demonstrably in the "vanity" class [13]. It has already been pointed out by another editor that it is, as it were, on the borders [14]. Paul B (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In these two recent edits [15] [16] editors are deleting text sourced to the "Consumer Reports" and claiming that the source does not met WP:MEDRS.
Section of Chiropractic Article: “Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage” [17]
Text':”A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments.”
Source: Consumer Reports [18]

I have come here to see if other editors agree that the source is not acceptable for the body of the article. I am personally suggesting that MEDRS does not apply here and that the Consumer Reports is indeed an acceptable source for a statement about patient satisfaction, especially when it is attributed as such. A discussion has been started at the talk page [19]. Puhlaa (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say "the public," but you could give the percentage of "45,000 readers" who made the assertion. I will follow the rest of the discussion on the Talk Page of the article, which is at Talk:Chiropractic#Removal_of_sourced_info. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, you're not allowed to editorialize. Reading the source and creating your own interpretation to reach a conclusion is original research. The source says ~45,651 or so readers responded, and of those 38% or so used chiropractic and 65% or so self reported as helpful. The public or even the sample population did NOT consider Chiropractic the most helpful. It's a aggregation of self-reported anecdotal evidnece. Even the article clearly reads " Respondents based their opinions on personal experience, so the results can't be compared with scientific clinical trials. And our results do not take into account the power of the placebo effect, the tendency of people to find even simulated or sham interventions helpful.". Read the Popular Press section in WP:MEDRS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no editorializing; the source found that ~65% of respondents that tried chiropractic said it helped; only ~50% of those who tried medication, yoga and pilates said it helped. Hence, the source concludes that "Chiropractic outperformed all other treatments and medication was equal to yoga and pilates." Moreover, the findings of the Consumer Reports survey are consistent with mainstream peer-reviewed research [20],[21] and [22], which also suggests chiropractors achieve high patient satisfaction. Further still, no sources have been presented that contradict these findings.Puhlaa (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puhlaa "forgot" to mention that he is a chiropractor engaged in a revert war to keep the article on chiropractic sympathetic to his business interests. This is not the only source he has misrepresented, and reverted edits which remove the misrepresentation. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see this as a reliability issue at all. Consumer Reports is a reliable source by any reading of the policy. The only thing here will be presentation in the article. I don't see how this is much different other things we use all the time. How many articles reference presidential approval ratings? How do those differ from this? So, in my mind, this doesn't really belong at RSN, but more at WP:NPOVN.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. CR is a reliable source for consumer opinion, consumer opinion is not a valid measure of validity, so to assert consumer reports as a source for validity, fails. That is what Puhlaa is trying to do, just one of many instances where he seeks ot present an idealised form of chiropractic that does not reflect the real world. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in this specific case, it's about consumer opinion. CR, as a whole, often conducts their own testing and are considered a RS source and neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, though I would tend to draw an even more restrictive line. CR's annual survey is an online, voluntary survey open to all of their subscribers. It looks like they got roughly forty thousand responses, from a total circulation of about seven million people. There's going to be a significant amount of self-selection going on there, which may skew the outcome significantly. CR does not indicate any attempt to account or correct for this effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question... From the comments above it seems that there have been some editors who call the Consumer Reports a reliable source for a discussion of consumer opinion; No editor has yet called Consumer Reports an unreliable source. If Consumer Reports is thus considered reliable according to WP:RS, it seems from the comments that the next step is then to assess the quality of this specific survey published by Consumer Reports to decide if it is good enough for inclusion in the article? There have been some editors who have criticized the methodology of this particular survey, or the way the results are presented by the source. My question is, does Wikipedia provide guidelines or policy on how we are to critically evaluate the quality of this specific survey, or the way these authors have presented their data, so that we can assess for bias that could disqualify this specific report from inclusion in the article? If not, how do we determine if the criticisms of this specific CR report presented above are enough to warrant exclusion of the specific Consumer Reports survey? Puhlaa (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Reports is clearly a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. If there are flaws in CR's methodology, have these alleged flaws been covered by other reliable sources? If not, I would think that in-text attribution ("According to Consumer Reports....") should be sufficient. Readers can accept/reject CR's findings based on the reputation of the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone disputes that CR is a widely-known, widely-read, generally-reliable source for their in-house evaluations of products and services; their own opinions on products and services are often worth including in our articles. I would be much less confident in asserting that they are a known, respected, or necessarily competent surveyor of consumer opinion. A voluntary survey involving a very small, self-selected fraction of CR's subscriber base just doesn't scream 'reliable' to me. (Organizations which do professional opinion polling don't report raw data for self-selected populations—they strive to avoid, to detect, and/or to compensate for over- or under-sampling of particular demographics.) The same survey that Puhlaa is pushing here also found that chiropractic treatment "helped a lot" for 41% of people who tried it to treat their allergy symptoms, and for 47% of people who tried it to treat their cold and flu—which strikes me as something of a red flag. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, they are a reliable surce. The whole hair splitting about consumer test vs polling organization is a dodge. What Puhlaa is doing is an issue of weight and neutrality, not about the reliability of the source. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, The text in question, sourced to Consumer Reports, has been in the article for years. The original edit that removed this longstanding text from the article [23] said "This is just opinion" in the edit summary. I restored the text [24]; my edit summary indicated that the information was sourced and should not be deleted. I brought the discussion here because I was quickly reverted [25] and the edit summary told me to "please read MEDRS". Here I have multiple editors confirming it is a reliable source, but some criticizing the methodology of the survey and some 'dodging' the subject (as you indicated). When you say "What Puhlaa is doing is an issue of weight...", are you suggesting that I should take this to the NPOV noticeboard instead? I don't want to appear to be forum shopping, I feel that I have endured enough 'subtle' personal attacks just for challenging this deletion of sourced material. The editor that reverted my restoration of the longstanding text said "please read MEDRS", so forgive me if I seem confused as to what to do next. I am open to clear advice please. Puhlaa (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A self-selected survey doesn't really show you anything. If you took the question "Is Barack Obama a good president?", and posted up a web survey, you'd get very different results depending on if you posted your link to the survey on The Drudge Report vs. The Huffington Post. We'd generally exclude such results altogether. To actually be putting in numbers, you need scientific, double-blind studies, with patients who got "real" chiropractic treatment, vs. a placebo (something that would seem like chiropractic treatment but actually is not), and evaluate how many of the "actual" group vs. control group evaluate their treatment as effective. I don't know if such a study has been done, but that's the type of thing you're looking for with MEDRS. An anonymous, self-selected web survey isn't even close. Consumer Reports is great, and reliable on a lot of things, but not on this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2% of respondents used Chiropractic treatment to treat an allergy, 41% of whom found it effective which is only about 1% off all respondents. This source obviously fulfills our verifiability policy. I get the feeling that this is more of a WP:NPOV/WP:IDONTLIKEIT dispute than an actual verifiability issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, the findings of this Consumer Reports survey are consistent with multiple peer-reviewed sources in mainstream medical journals that have also found Chiropractic care to rate higher than other back pain treatments for patient satisfaction [26], [27], and [28]. The results are also consistent with another Consumer Reports survey done a couple years earlier [29]. Moreover, no source has been found that contradicts any of these findings. IMO, this is not a discussion of treatment efficacy that needs double-blind RCTs to answer, but one of satisfaction with care, which seems to be well suited to survey analysis.Puhlaa (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{od}A list of outdated primary sources doesn't carry much weight. Per wp:MEDRS, we look for peer-reviewed, current, secondary sources (ideally systematic reviews) as the best choice for medical assertions. The Consumer Reports piece is neither peer-reviewed nor secondary. If no comparable MEDRS existed, it might be of interest, but that is not the case. We have Cochrane systematic reviews such as PMID 21248591, PMID 20393942, PMID20640863. How could we justify the use of lower-quality primary sources to challenge them? Just being a reliable source isn't the point. We want the best available reliable sources. This doesn't come close. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSong Dog, you may be mistaken about the topic of the text and thus the relevance of the sources. The very well-known secondary sources from Cochrane that you list are all discussing the efficacy of spinal manipulation compared to other treatments. No sources discussed here ever contradict the current scientific consensus that spinal manipulation only achieves equal outcomes to other back pain treatments; no longstanding text that was deleted challenges this scientific consensus either. As I tried to clearly state above, this discussion is about the deletion of text discussing patient satisfaction from a section of the article entitled "Utilization, satisfaction rates, and third-party coverage". In the absence of any secondary sources on the topic of patient satisfaction and the absence of any sources at all that contradict the above stated list of primary sources from mainstream medical journals, I think that WP:RS and WP:MEDRS make plenty of room for inclusion of this material. If you are aware of any secondary sources that deal with patient satisfaction, then they would indeed be the preferred sources to use, as you suggest. I am fairly familiar with this literature and am not aware of any secondary sources that discuss patient satisfaction, or any source at all that suggests chiropractic patients are not actually more satisfied with their back treatment than other patients. In the discussions of treatment efficacy in the article, under the section "Effectiveness" the Cochrane reviews you list definitely get the most weight!Puhlaa (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what evidence do we have that the methodology used by CR is valid, if there is no secondary review? In any case, the CR article does not support the statement as put. It makes no assertion about "the public", it speaks about "respondents" or "of those who used [treatment x]". The explanatory "Guide to the charts" section says: "The red bars represent the proportion of readers using a treatment for a condition who said it “helped a lot.”" It does not address "satisfaction" and certainly does not address whether anyone "considered" chiropractic to outperform. We use secondary sources to do that sort of interpretation for us. If no secondary source thought the survey worth commenting upon, who are we to infer it to be significant? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LeadSOngDog, based on the comments above, I don't know that editors here agree with your sentiment that we need a secondary source, which discusses the consumer reports survey methodology, in order to call Consumer Reports reliable. I am also not aware that it is a general standard that things must be covered by secondary sources to be included? The WP:MEDRS standard, as far as I am aware, says that no lower-quality sources can be used to contradict higher-quality sources and higher-quality sources are preferred when available. Also, I have asked for clarification above, but it seems that there are no policies in place to guide the assessment of individual reports from sources that are generally considered reliable. As CR seems to be generally considered reliable here, it is odd that editors keep bringing-up specific challenges of the methodology of this specific report? In response to your criticism of the wording used, at the respective chiropractic talk page, the original longstanding text that was deleted has been modified to now read: "A 2011 consumer report survey of 45,000 readers found that chiropractic outperformed all other available back and neck pain treatments." The text: "chiropractic outperformed all other treatments" is a direct quote from the source, the rest of the text has been added in attempts to adequately attribute and qualify the source to appease editors who don't like the methodology of this specific survey. Finally, there is another consumer reports source that asked subscribers directly about patient satisfaction [[30]]. It, like every other source that exists on the topic, found high satisfaction for chiropractic patients relative to all other forms of therapy. Would you be more content if we only included this older (2009) survey, and not the newer (2011) survey that uses the words "outperformed"? [[[User:Puhlaa|Puhlaa]] (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not terribly useful, for much the same reason: the sampling methodology is not even stated, let alone peer-reviewed. Wikipedia does not need to include everything that anyone ever publishes on a topic, we can wait for someone to produce a useful source on this aspect. To be explicit though, much of what Consumer Reports publishes is reliable for some purposes, but not everything for all purposes. These popularity surveys don't cut it for several reasons, from the methodology on. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the reports and other publications of established NGOs such as this Foundation for Middle East Peace RS? For example, he is a very short report consisting solely of statistical data settler demographics --Ubikwit (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

The FMEP was already discussed in the board.Please search it in arthives.Editors didn't reached any consensus regarding the reliability of this advocacy organisation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt exactly accurate. The settlement stats are reliable and FMEP is often cited by other reliable sources. A collection of involved partisans sought to disqualify it, the same partisans that routinely cite such sources as terrorism-info.org.il or WINEP. It is a fine source to use, attribute it if some of those partisans give you any trouble. nableezy - 16:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that nableezy, I hadn't read the entire log of that discussion.

I will use that source and cite it, as you suggest. If someone has a specific objection based on facts, let them raise it.

Why is Shrike pointing to that discussion and saying it wasn't resolved?

I'll leave this quoted comment for others that haven't read it, at least it makes it clear that there was a consensus that it could be used, subject to challenge on a case-by-case basis, at the very least.

Should every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

--Ubikwit (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

Sources aren't either reliable or not. It depends on what is being sourced. In this case, it looks like a reliable source for something like "in 1998, between 75 and 80 percent of settlers..." unless this is at variance with other sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'an News Agency is a wire service founded in 2005 and is located in the West Bank and Gaza. I would like advice on the reliability of its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as I noticed it was being used in Operation Pillar of Defense.

Ma'an's chief editor was described as "batshit insane" and liable to "spout[ing] out the craziest theories every once in a while" in emails published by Wikileaks, which it says are from the Stratfor Global Intelligence Company. The emails also described Ma'an's chief editor as a staunch supporter of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and reported that he promised a group of Palestinians that they would liberate Jerusalem with military honour. Ma'an's English editor has clarified the objective of the organisation, writing on its website: "The most important thing for us is to deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of life for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, without causing incitement...In regards to our choice of terminology, we aim to stick as close as possible to UN-accepted terms, while maintaining our Palestinian perspective."

Ma'an has published repugnant antisemitic opinion pieces. This one, recently published, states that it is a historical fact that Jews are cowards, universally hated, a nation of conspirators, are worse than feeding vampires, and that the curse of God compels them to continue with their deceit and violence. An excerpt has been translated here.

Nor does it seem overly concerned over the accuracy of its news articles.

Ma'an provided a sanitised translation of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination, and published unchallenged outlandish claims, such as "Israel allocates 70 times more water to each settler than to the average Palestinian in the West Bank". Contrast this with the Civil Administration report that Palestinian Arabs receive 124 m3/year per capita, settlers get 134m3/year per capita.

It has also concocted news stories out of thin air.

Ma'an queried whether the Itamar massacre was in fact perpetrated by Israelis and later reported that the IDF had arrested all the Thai workers inside the Itamar settlement in relation to the murders. No other regular news network ran with this story and the Jerusalem Post noted that Maan did not provide a source for this information. Ma'an then published an opinion piece reflecting on Maan's reliable reporting that it was in fact a foreign worker that had perpetrated the Itamar massacre and that this had stymied Israel's "planned international campaign". (Excerpt translated here.)

This was all bogus. The IDF had raided the West Bank town of Awata hours after the attack suspecting that the assailants had come from there. Itamar's mayor responded that the settlement did not even have any foreign workers. Two Palestinians were arrested for the Itamar murders and confessed to the murders. Their feats were praised on Palestinian TV.

Ma'an published a crazy conspiracy theory that Palestinians were being attacked by non indigenous pigs deliberately released by settlers into the Salfit area. The Ma'an article cited the report of the "Applied Research Institute" to substantiate these claims - yet, the organisation's report were quoting Ma'an's stories, so in effect, Ma'am were quoting themselves to support their own bizarre claims.

Finally, the way Ma'an and other established news organisations report events is often at odds.

• AFP - "The Israeli air force pounded targets in the northern Gaza Strip early on Wednesday, without causing casualties, following rocket fire on southern Israel, sources on both sides said. Palestinian security sources confirmed the strike had hit a training camp in Beit Lahiya which was used by militants from the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the ruling Hamas movement."

Maan - "Israel launched an airstrike overnight Tuesday on the northern Gaza Strip, Ma'an's correspondent said. The strike targeted Beit Lahiya and caused material damage to several homes, with no injuries reported. Israel's army said it targeted a "terror tunnel in the northern Gaza Strip."

• Maan reports that "a man died... from injuries sustained in an Israeli attack". AP describe him as a "Gaza militant" killed in airstrikes "launched in retaliation for rocket fire from Gaza."

An editor has pointed out that Ma'an's stories have been cited by the BBC, the Guardian and Al Jazeera. Does this however confer reliability on Ma'an when it has not been cited by regular news networks?

Arutz Sheva, a pro-settler media organisation, has also been cited by the Guardian and the NYT. The Palestinian Media Watch has been cited by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Associated Press, The Telegraph, Russia Today, Jyllands-Posten and the Sydney Morning Herald among a host of international media outlets. It has been cited by Hillary Clinton and PMW's director has addressed parliaments about its findings.

Yet, editors have generally refrained from using PMW in wikpedia's Israel-Palestine topics when it has not been cited by other media because of its slanted objective. Is this not similarly the case with Ma'an? Ankh.Morpork 17:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am similarly concerned about ma'an being used as a source at Operation Pillar of Defense. Note that there is no evidence that ma'an ever withdrew its claims that were contradicted by RS's. The lack of such acknowledgment is evidence that ma'an is unreliable. Another point worth mentining is that ma'an publishes diatribes not merely against Israel, but specifically against Jews. Many of the leading RS's cited in Operation Pillar of Defense carefully distinguish between actions by governments and actions by specific populations. Thus, rocket attacks emanating from Gaza are described as emanating from Hamas or other militants, rather than attributing them to populations. ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source of information at Operation Pillar of Defense. Tkuvho (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entire post is predicated on a user wishing to remove one of the very few Palestinian sources used in an article replete with Israeli sources, including voice of the settlers Arutz Sheva. An attempt to distort these articles even further by denying any voice to Palestinians. How that is allowed is rather beyond me. Additionally, there is a BLP violation in the above by calling, on the basis of a leaked email by an employee at Stratfor, a living person "batshit insane".

But to the point. News agencies are generally treated as reliable, and Maan is regularly cited by other reliable sources. Those include the BBC,^[31][32] the Guardian,^[33][34][35] al-Jazeera,^[36][37] and the New York Times.^[38][39][40] Additionally, the very same objections about a slant in reporting can be made about any number of Israeli outlets, all of which are heavily utilized. Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". WP:NPOV requires us to include all significant views, and this is a straightforward attempt at removing one of those significant views to even further allow a favored narrative to be presented as though it were fact in these articles.

Finally, I must object to the continued misuse of this board by AnkhMorpork. As can be seen in his past attempts to disqualify entire sources that just so happen to not be Zionist in tone (eg here), he is refusing to actually link to what is being used as a source and is instead seeking to remove from Wikipedia an entire news organization that just happens to be written by Palestinians. Just happens of course. If an op-ed being racist or otherwise objectionable is cause for not allowing news stories from the same outlet, then should Yedioth Ahronoth be removed because they hosted an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey.? Should the Jerusalem Post be disqualified because they printed an op-ed that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? Of course not. But that is the argument made here, that because an organization published a single persons opinion as a single persons opinion that is somehow objectionable that their news reports are unreliable. That is an asinine argument, but if it is accepted here then we'll have to go about deleting any ynet or jpost link on these pages as well.nableezy - 17:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here user:Nableezy is following the familiar pattern of changing the subject when things are not going his way. This is a discussion of ma'an, not Yedioth Ahronoth. Feel free to file a complaint against the latter but stick to the point: how can ma'an be called reliable when it systematically distorts the truth and apparently never corrects its misinformation? Tkuvho (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have no opposition then to use Arutz Sheva INN?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare how the NYTimes treats the two. Arutz Sheva: Arutz Sheva, a news organization that represents the view of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Maan: Maan, an independent Palestinian news agency. You think they treat them the same? I suppose Arutz Sheva can be used if you qualify it as representing the view of the settlers, but beyond that the comparison fails. nableezy - 17:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by User:Nableezy above argues that Sources need not be "neutral", in fact sources are not "neutral". This is a questionable position (though perhaps one that accurately reflects the procedures at ma'an), and it misses the point. The point is that news sources need to be reliable in order to be cited in wiki. I object to User:Nableezy's attempt to change the subject to a discussion of "neutrality". I don't know how many "palestinian sources" there are, but I do note that User:Nableezy wishes to blur the line between the palestinian population in gaza on the one hand, and the terror group, Hamas, that seized power there. Media sources representing Hamas that are provably unreliable should be barred at wiki regardless of whether there are few of them or many of them. User:Nableezy further seeks to discredit a fellow editor by accusing him of attempting to suppress "non-Zionist" sources. I object to this violation of WP:NPA by User:Nableezy. Tkuvho (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? wishes to blur the line between the palestinian population in gaza on the one hand, and the terror group, Hamas, that seized power there? Where the hell are you getting that from? Media sources representing Hamas that are provably unreliable????? Maan represents Hamas now? Says who? Provably unreliable? Says who? Please dont make things up and expect people to believe you. And dont lie about what I wish to do. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a source that supports Nazi-like anti-Jewish comments can be considered reliable for the time of day, never mind actual news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the problem with ma'an. Its antisemitic diatribes are amply illustrated in the translation sourced in the original post. As I mentioned above, the specific criterion of apparently never withdrawing false claims (namely, claims contradicted by RS's) also points toward ma'an's unreliability. Tkuvho (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue misrepresenting the situation. This isnt ANI, there is, or should be, an expectation that evidence be provided for your position. I know that is an uncomfortable thing for you, but please try. Oh, and BB, you never answered my question. Is a source that supports commentary that says Palestinians are wild beasts who have an innate yearning to kill reliable for the time of day, never mind actual news? nableezy - 17:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotes from WP:RS:

• How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. - Maan is regularly cited in other reliable source
• "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact Maan was established in 2005 and is a news wire service that is regularly cited by other

If somebody has some evidence that our verifiability policy or reliable sources guideline call for the above to be washed away due to users not liking a frickin op-ed they published, by all means provide it. nableezy - 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your biased advocacy is getting a bit annoying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report filed for that lie. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here User:Nableezy fails to take into account the fact that the problem with ma'an is not merely the antisemitic piece they saw fit to publish (that is indeed "not liked" by a majority of editors that have expressed themselves here, though User:Nableezy's position on this is so far unclear), but rather the systematic distortion of fact by ma'an, and the apparent absence of a correction when they are caught red-handed with their fantasies. Tkuvho (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who would refer to such a vile, racist piece of garbage simply as "an op-ed" obviously has their own agenda to push - and if the news agency has made no statement disavowing it, then it's clear they must agree with it. That forfeits any alleged "reliability" of that source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An op-ed is an opinion piece by an outside contributor published as such by a news organization. Amazon has a nice collection of dictionaries. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And the only one I shall make here, this news source is racist, prejudiced and quite simply shite. I would feel uncomfortable using it to wipe my arse. Any newswire which will send the hideous shite they send is not a news service, it is a propaganda outlet, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsupported assertion. nableezy - 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a comment above, User:Nableezy wrote the following concerning the rabidly antisemitic piece published by ma'an: An op-ed is an opinion piece by an outside contributor published as such by a news organization. Amazon has a nice collection of dictionaries. I imagine Amazon dictionaries adhere to a certain standard of civility. The fact that User:Nableezy apparently seeks to justify the ma'an piece on the grounds of it being "op-ed" is surprising, to say the least. Tkuvho (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELLOOOOOOOOOO, I did not say the op-ed should be used. Stop distorting what I wrote. I specifically said that it should not be used. What I have said is that the existence of an op-ed, regardless of whether it is racist or not, does not impact the reliability of NEWS REPORTS. Jesus Christ. nableezy - 18:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is exactly what I meant on the talk page about people trying to use this project to carry on their own quarrels. What article are we talking about? Please give full bibliographic details of the proposed source. What statement is it meant to support? ON NO ACCOUNT (I never shout) mention other completely different sources that are perceived to have the opposite bias. Reformulate the question correctly and you may get one or two uninvolved comments. If you are unwilling to do that then I will report one or more of the participants in this thread for trolling. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you did state the name of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the dispute began over this source being used to say that a Palestinian fisherman was killed by Israeli forces. That material is supported by several other sources, including AFP and Haaretz. But as far as the on no account ..., sorry, couldnt help it. Users are seeking to disqualify a source on the basis of an unrelated op-ed. If that is allowed then it should be applied consistently. nableezy - 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use AFP and Ha'aretz for that statement alongside or instead of Ma'an. My impression was that Ma'an is somewhat over-used in the article. WP:RECENT applies; the most significant developments will be picked up by the international press, and these are the ones that are most likely to be incorporated into the historical account when that comes to be written. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are used alongside (well AFP is for the moment). nableezy - 19:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that other reliable sources such as The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor and others use Ma'an News Agency as a source indicates that they have such a reputation. When in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution (i.e. "According to the Ma'an News Agency...."). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the same type of case as the preceding entry on this page (see comment by Dan Murphy I quoted). If editors have a problem with an op-ed piece they should address that piece specifically and any other such pieces on a case-by-case basis, and not try to designate the publication as a whole as not an RS.Ubikwit (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

I have seen disgusting op-eds posted by numerous newspapers around the world, I have seen factual errors numerous times in many of the world's leading newspapers, this does not mean we should not use these news sources ever again. If you think the source is wrong in a particular case use other sources to show that it is likely wrong and remove or attribute the statments to the disagreeing sources so the reader can make up their own minds. And I must add that the OP is ridiculous for claiming that we should not use Ma'an because it was NOT bias unlike the AP article and his use of misleading quotes in that case is appalling. Sepsis II (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You write, I have seen disgusting op-eds posted by numerous newspapers around the world. Examples please--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find the source op-ed online, but it is covered here and here. nableezy - 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe the amount of misleading claims being used to "prove" unreliability. Obviously certain editors hope no one will do the research to find if their claims are true or not. I’m not all that familiar with Maan news so have no opinion on it’s reliability but I do dispute the rubbish claims being made in an attempt to discredit it.

1. That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts.
2. Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?
3. Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used.
4. Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan.
5. Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report.
6. AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission.
7. Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades."

@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You write, That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX ..... Examples please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A publication that publishes antisemitic articles is not a reliable source. Full stop.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What antisemitic article did Maan publish? The op-ed? And is a publication that publishes anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab articles also not a reliable source? nableezy - 20:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an op-ed not an article. No more anti-Semetic than just about anything written about Arabs by Daniel Pipes, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Khalid Durán, Judith Miller, Martin Peretz or Lewis Bernard. Wayne (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The opening sentence of the agency's Wikipedia article tells me everything I need to know: "Ma'an News Agency (MNA) (Arabic: وكالة معا الإخبارية‎) is a large wire service created in 2005[1] in the Palestinian Territories." Clearly... obviously... Ma'an utterly fails WP:RS and should NOT be used as a source of factual information about anything, let alone for coverage of the Middle East conflict. ► Belchfire-TALK 20:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was it that makes this so obvious? The wire service or the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's see some example of this from other "reliable sources". I can't imagine a reputable news source publishing a piece like that, even as an opinion piece. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. This and this discuss an op-ed published by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey. That work for you? nableezy - 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia policy WP:Newsorg would seem to cover this: reliable for news reporting, but not reliable for opinion pieces. (But you really need to have a sentence to be sourced (and a source) to discuss anything in more detail on this notice board.)--Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnkhMorpork (and friends) engaged in this kind of assassination of sources in the past, so much in a short period a couple of us threatened to take him/her to WP:ARBPIA for sanction. Using a bunch of questionable translations or direct links to Arabic speaking sites is particularly obnoxious. (I only read the first few sources and got disgusted.) I think I'll have to look more carefully at what s/he has been up to the last couple months. These kind of generalized attacks for partisan purposes are divisive and destructive. CarolMooreDC 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deeming Ma'an News unreliable is utterly hypocritical. As Nableezy has demonstrated above, if we're going classify news sources as unreliable because of some op-ed they published, then let's go ahead and throw YNET, JPOST and Times of Israel into the chipper as well. I've used Ma'an numerous times. It's particularly useful for intra-Palestinian politics, some of the less talked about violent incidents in the Pal. territories and information or obituaries on notable Palestinian figures. Ma'an has also been shown to offer extra facts and details for major news events involving Palestine that are covered by the more international sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt its reliability regarding intra-Palestinian politics and Palestinian personalities. It is its claims about Israel and the Jews that I am concerned about. Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks seem persistent and the behavior unchanged even warnings. Somebody should file some sort of action aimed at putting an end to this continual waste of time and effort.Ubikwit (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit[reply]

This whole discussion is probably going to an arbcom. --Hinata talk 22:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to, the conclusion is not foreknown, and that end ratifies this discussions failure. Even if this source is declared reliable, which definition it fits, that does not mean that every utterance they publish has carte blanche placement rights. Don't treat every editing dispute as an extension of the Israeli / Palestine debate, nor get caught in the exact folly that makes that debate so intractable. Best yet accept Jesus in your lives which will really get you moving along towards the truth. --My76Strat (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For PFLP says fighters will continue to strike Israel, it's probably a reliable source. For A Palestinian man was killed and three others wounded by stray gunfire as gunmen in Gaza fired in the air to celebrate the ceasefire deal, maybe not. To support About 40 Palestinians were injured, I wouldn't trust it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our NPOV policy allows you to hold your own prejudice to reach your conclusion. We do not teach POV, or bias our work. And we don't, or at least should not, cater to a POV. I may respect your reasons for doubting credibility of a source, but not allow that respect to censor the source. Being clear, we could not present this kine of contentious information in Wikipedia's voice. With in line attribution we can state that "such and such source stated ... " if it is itself relevant. But heck, everyone here already knows all this, probably much more, so I am probably wasting my time. --My76Strat (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harrison, that is the problem in a nutshell! However, not being one to write nutshells, rather tomes, here is my take on it. I doubt if there were a settler newspaper that claimed to "deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of living" as a settler on land Palestinians claimed as their own, it would be considered reliable for information regarding Palestinians. Or would a newspaper that carried op-eds claiming that Palestinian Muslims (rather than 'Jews') are universally hated conspirators, worse than feeding vampires and cursed by God to be deceitful and violent would be considered reliable about Palestinian Muslims? Could a paper that would publish such tripe be accepted as reliable about the people they clearly despise and by whom they feel victimized? No trustworthy news organisation would ever publish something as racist as that revolting opinion piece in Ma'an. It is something that you would expect to find on Stormfront - never on a respectable media outlet. This, in combination with its documented inaccuracies demonstrate its total unreliability with regard to Israel/Palestine situation. Opportunidaddy (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hostile reaction. I honestly don't get why people get ticked on things relating to is Israel. This dispute goes far back before this agency was ever conceived, and it is closely linked to that 1964 war. Palestinian Israel related articles are under sanctions too if I remember. --Hinata talk 02:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit User:AnkhMorpork gave a different reason for calling Maan News unreliable:

And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false

He seems to think that israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability, and anything that differs from them are false. When your perspective on reliability is so one-sided, you are bound to create a lot of conflict on a project that has a diverse user group. PerDaniel (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He never said "Israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability." Cease henceforth from creating strawman racist arguments.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally rediscovered this November entry still on this noticeboard's talk page: Recourse when partisans "converge" against source?. If these individuals would ask about specific information ref'd from the source in specific articles that would be fine. Obviously, that is not what they do. Haven't had a chance to see how many times it's been done since that November entry. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewcrewer: Your accusation that I am creating "strawman racist arguments" is without any base in reality, and a personal attck. I never accused User:AnkhMorpork of "saying" that "Israeli sources are the gold standard for reliability.", I just observed that he treated them as that when he wrote

And I deliberately selected Haaretz which is a left wing publication and even so, Maan's account is substantially different - and by that I mean false

No matter how much you try to change the discussion, the fact is that he measured how true or false a report was by comparing it to israeli reports. This does not bode well for his ability to understand WP:NPOV. PerDaniel (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question reformulated to re-start constructive discussion

The question I think we are being asked to rule on is this:

In Operation Pillar of Defense, is this report reliable for the statement On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone.?

The above is the way that a question on RSN ought to be formulated.

My opinion, based on WP policies and guidelines is, yes, it is RS for that statement. The report is based on an interview that the family of a dead man gave to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. We have no reason to doubt that the family gave their side of the story in that way. The Ma'an report in this case is consistent with an AFP report, also cited. The Israeli Navy view is also included: that the fisherman approached the exclusion zone from land and not from the sea. There does not seem to be any disagreement that the fisherman was killed and another man wounded.

The general character of Ma'an is only relevant to the extent that it affects the reliability of this particular text to support this particular statement in this particular article. It seems pretty clear that Ma'an carries a bias, which is typical of newspapers and news magazines but not typical of news agencies. Ma'an does not have the level of reliability of AP, AFP or Reuters. I do not (yet) think that, taken as a whole, it is an extremist source. The excerpt in Arabic that has been posted here is viciously antisemitic. It does not seem to be typical of material on the website, at least not on the English version. (The most recent article in the Analysis section is This Christmas, remember Palestine's Christians by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Corrigan-Maguire, as far from extremism as you can get.) The article in Arabic does not appear on the English site. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable As I said above, a reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. The fact that other reliable sources such as The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor and others use Ma'an News Agency as a source indicates that they have such a reputation. When in doubt, feel free to use in-text attribution (i.e. "According to the Ma'an News Agency...."). In this particular case, other reliable sources have reported this incident, such as The Jerusalem Post, so I'm not even seeing anything contentious with this content or the source. That people get killed in a war is hardly an extraordinary claim. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and take issue with your argument. In all the sources you proffer, Ma'an is not used for anything `in which its reliability or neutrality is a concern. They are not used for a factual happenstance, i.e. the Israelis killed so and so or the Arabs killed so and so. They are merely used for quotes they claimed were given to them and the quotes are mostly uncontroversial. Their neutrality or reliability is not a great concern in these instances because the person being quoted can simply deny they made the statement and make Ma'am look ridiculous. On the other hand, in the instance of a factual happenstance, especially as it relates to the Arab-Israel conflict, their reliability and neutrality is a matter of concern because they can modify the "facts" to suit their POV. If no sources can be found that quote Ma'an for a controversial factual happenstance this would reinforce the majority position that they are generally unreliable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and also recall the fact that ma'an apparently does not withdraw its false claims (contrary to a specific WP:RS criterion), nor distance itself from ludicrous "op-eds". As far as other media quoting ma'an, I would suggest the following compromise: agreed that established RS can be cited as quoting ma'an (presumably relying on independent checking by the RS themselves), but avoid sourcing information based on ma'an reports itself, similarly to the current status-quo with regard to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Tkuvho (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewcrewer:

• Sources don't have to be neutral in order to be reliable. Lots of sources have a bias. The Washington Post tends to have a liberal bias and the Washtington Times tends to have a conservative bias. That doesn't make them unreliable. See Wikipedia:V#Neutrality.
• How would determine whether a source has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking if not by examining how it's perceived by other reliable sources?
• I disagree that saying someone was killed in a war is contentious and how do you explain the fact that is that it's been coroborated by another source?[41]
• I'm sorry, but I don't see a strong argument why this particular source is unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable I don't see any reason Ma'an News Agency would lie and if they erred I'm sure 14 Israeli newspapers would point out the error. And I don't see any proof reported by WP:RS that they have not corrected any important - as opposed to trivial - errors. CarolMooreDC 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliable As per

The Ma'an news agency, which is a fairly reliable source of news about both the Gaza Strip and the PA, has lost its server for the time being. The site offers an apology to its many readers and promises to come back soon.' The Jewish Press November 14th, 2012.

This is a patent bid to deny wikipedia sourcing to an organ which comprehensively covers one side of the conflict, whose version of events is notoriously underreported. Many other mainstream newspapers, and academic works one can check at Google Books, use it and attest that it provides fairly reliable information on the area. (2) Mainstream sources largely do not cover, out of disattention, neglect or indifference, much of what happens in that area, if it only concerns some Palestinian tragedy or injury. To endeavour to invalidate Ma'an is to try and deny wikipedia to reference anything that doesn't come from the major western and Israeli news sources. I.e. this is one more attempt to ensure that the systemic bias of Western reportage is maintained on wikipedia. The actual case, of the gaza fisherman, is ridiculous. They are shot at and have their boats impounded, while in their own legal waters, every other day, as dozens of googlable articles and books would underline. It ain't big news in the West or Israel. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable enough. It doesn't need to be impeccable or unbiased (as if there is such a thing). What I'm not seeing is any reason to doubt that the information that the source is being suggested to support is inaccurate - quite the contrary. Formerip (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-formulation rejected

The above post disregards the fact that the page Operation Pillar of Defense contains numerous quotes from ma'an, not merely the one mentioned by User:Itsmejudith. Therefore the reformulation they proposed is inappropriate. Meanwhile, User:WLRoss (Wayne) addressed some of the substantive issues involved, and deserves a response, even though ultimately his comments fail to refute the facts about the unreliability of ma'an, as I will show. User:WLRoss claimed that:

1. "That opinion piece is no more offensive than many opinion pieces you will find in western media sources such as FOX who publicly supported one of the most vile anti-Islam videos ever made. It's what is reported as news that counts."

Unfortunately, this comment fails to address the substance of the contention of the unreliability of ma'an. A virulently antisemitic piece published by ma'an undermines its reliability. If Fox is similarly unreliable, User:WLRoss is free to submit such a contention at this page.

2. "Re: the sanitised translation. The original Arabic has been removed from PMW's website so it can’t be independently checked. The Brigades have denied they said what PMW posted. User:AnkhMorpork has admitted that PMW is not a reliable source so why is he using it to prove another source is not reliable?"

Here User:WLRoss seems to suggest that one pro-hamas palestinian news outlet (PMW) slandered another pro-hamas palestinian news outlet (ma'an) by falsely attributing an antisemitic tract to the latter. Frankly, this interpretation fails to convince. If indeed the original text disappeared from circulation, it is more likely due to the fact that it reached unintended readership and created an embarrassment for ma'an. If this is true, then the fact that ma'an suppressed the piece rather than disavowing it is yet another indication of incompatibility with WP:RS.

I see that this comment by User:WLRoss concerns "Aksa Martyrs Brigades' reaction to Bin Laden's assassination" rather than the antisemitic article, so my comment above does not apply.

3. "Re: the 70 times more water claim. The Civil Administration report is propaganda. It quotes what Palestinians are supposed to get, not what they actually get. All neutral sources support a significant difference in allocation. According to Haaretz, "450,000 Israeli settlers on the West Bank use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinians that live there." A World Bank Report: "Israelis use 240 cubic metres of water a person each year, against 75 cubic metres for West Bank Palestinians. Only 5%-10% of the available water [for Palestinians] is clean enough to drink." a United Nations Report says: "Palestinians in the Jordan Valley [are] living on 10-20 litres a day. In contrast, the 9,500 Israeli settlers living in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea area use roughly 300 litres per person per day, according to OCHA." Btselem says: "9,400 settlers are allocated 45 million m3 water a year from drillings...almost one-third the quantity of water accessible to the 2.5 million Palestinians living throughout the West Bank." That one alone is 132 times more water than Palestinians. How much more depends on the source Maan used."

Note that the most reliable source cited by User:WLRoss as giving specific per capita figures is the World Bank Report, which cites a ratio of about 3 to 1 (more precisely, 3.2 to 1). This is still very far from the ma'an estimate of 70:1. User:WLRoss tries to defend ma'an on the grounds that ma'an did not specify their source. However, not specifying sources is indication of unreliability, and is not an effective defense.

4. "Re: Itamar massacre. Who cares if their speculation was wrong? Newspapers do this all the time when there is a lack of information. The article was written a month before any arrests were made and other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan."

Here User:WLRoss's description of the ma'an piece as "speculation" is inaccurate. ma'an did not describe its text as speculative, but rather as definitive fact. Anyone who re-reads the entry on the Itamar massacre with an unprejudiced eye will probably describe the ma'an piece on it as a total fabrication, not a speculation. This is another indication of unreliability. I would also be interested in some specifics on User:WLRoss's claim that "other news networks reported the same speculation as Maan". If these "other networks" reported the misinformation based on the ma'an fabrication, then this would undermine the contention that being cited by "other networks" is indication of ma'an's "reliability" (a contention contrary to fact).

5. "Maan's crazy conspiracy theory. Is not Maans theory at all. They state they have been told this by farmers so the claim is properly attributed. The "organisation's report" that User:AnkhMorpork cites is obviously not the one quoted by Maan as there is no mention of injured children in this report."

To recall the facts, the said report alleges that dangerous pigs were released into palestinian territory so as to hurt the palestinians. A reliable news outlet would probably have sensored such a "report". If ma'an publishes a properly attributed claim that martians landed in gaza, would User:WLRoss similarly argue that this is called reliable reporting? Hard to believe.

6. "AFP Vs Maan. AFP doesn't mention damage to several homes and Maan does not mention training camp, so what? Both say Israel was responding to rocket attacks by militants. Both articles are accurate and both have a minor omission."

Here I think User:WLRoss missed the point. These are not separate targets, but rather the same target. The "homes" that ma'an mentioned were the training camps. AFP did not omit anything. ma'an distorted the truth, providing further evidence of its unreliability in covering Operation Pillar of Defense-related news, similar to PMW that is generally acknowledged as unreliable.

7. "Maan reports that 'a man died while AP describes him as a Gaza militant. How about reading the Maan article beyond the first sentence. Two paragraphs later Maan states "Hamas later claimed he was a fighter with the al-Qassam brigades." "

If these facts are accurate then this is indeed a weak point that does not contribute to the case for unreliability of ma'an. However, the combination of the other points is more than sufficient to put ma'an in the same category as PMW.

8. "@ User:Tkuvho. You said: ma'an's avowed (and even virulent) anti-Semitism is another indication of its unreliability as a source. Please cite where Maan has avowed this. Wayne"

Thanks for pointing this out. I used the term "avowed" incorrectly. What I meant to write was "open", as in "ma'an's open antisemitism". Namely, ma'an published an openly (and ludicrously) antisemitic piece. This is surely indication of unreliability of a news service in what concerns its coverage of Operation Pillar of Defense. Tkuvho (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not reliable by itself for this: On 29 September, a Palestinian fisherman was killed and another paralyzed by Israeli troops who said they had entered a restricted zone. I don't doubt the report is true, but the reason I accept it is that it's cited to AFP, not that Ma'an reported it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you make that judgment. What in WP:RS supports your position? nableezy - 16:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The publication expresses views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which extremist views? From an op-ed or a news report? How does publishing an op-ed, extremist or otherwise, impact the reliability of an outlet's news reports? What in WP:RS supports that view? As far as widely acknowledged as extremist, by who is that widely acknowledged? nableezy - 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a reasoned opinion on when this source is likely to be reliable and when it isn't. If you're going to get belligerent about it, I'm not going to discuss it further - a big part of the reason I don't work in this area much. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerent about it? Excuse me, but I am not being belligerent about it. You've given an opinion, I am asking for the reasons. And I am doing so politely. You wrote that publication expresses views that are widely acknowledged as extremist is why you feel that the source is not reliable. I am asking you to back that position up by both addressing the question on what position that they have published that is widely acknowledged as extremist, and further how WP:RS supports the idea that even if that were true that they would not be a reliable source. nableezy - 22:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are rejecting my re-formulation as a question about whether a source supports one statement? That is at odds with the established methods of this board. I strongly suggest that we do look at the Ma'an references one by one. If you do not like that approach then please post on this board's talk page explaining why you wish us to overturn our usual method of one query at a time. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted at ANI for attention, since my efforts to try and prevent the content dispute spilling over here are not working. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual method is applicable to usual sources. But this a highly unusual source which publishes vituperative racist slurs. Since you regard this as inconsequential, can you state what statements you would consider significant when assessing a source's general reliability. Ankh.Morpork 19:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original question concerned the doubts about the WP:RS status of ma'an, and the contention that it is no more reliable than the related service (PMW) which is generally regarded as unreliable. The original question is a legitimate subject in its own right, as illustrated by the numerous concerns cited above. Moreover, a number of editors expressed an opinion in favor of declaring ma'an to be unreliable. I suggest we focus on this general issue. Certainly individual items need to be discussed as well, and I appreciate the proposal by User:Itsmejudith. However, the proposal has the (perhaps unintended) effect of eliminating from consideration certain items that are relevant. If you focus the discussion on the fisherman, there is no room left for discussing ma'an rabid antisemitism. Concerning this topic, it was pointed out above that the antisemitic piece did not appear on the English site of ma'an. However, this is precisely the problem. A news service that tailors its material according to the intended audience is itself of questionable WP:RS status. Tkuvho (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to pose a question about PMW, whatever that is, please pose it. We consider sources independently of each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the following:

• The original article published by http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com: CIA Cover-up Alleged in JFK's 'Secret UFO Inquiry'
• Re-published by http://www.csmonitor.com: Ph.D says JFK asked CIA about UFOs
• Re-published by http://www.foxnews.com: CIA Cover-Up Alleged in JFK's 'Secret UFO Inquiry'
• Re-published by http://www.msnbc.msn.com Is that JFK memo to the CIA about UFOs real?

I would assume that material re-published by mainstream sources would typically be judged reliable regardless of the original source. There are also other reliable sources that touch on the same material: [42][43]. Is it better to cite the original source or one of the mainstream sources? (John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories cites the FoxNews source.) Thanks! Location (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeslittlemysteries.com is the sister site of space.com which syndicates its stories to news outlets like CSM, Fox, and MSNBC. The real question that you have not answered in this notice is how the source will be used. In terms of best practice, I always use the original story, but many editors do not. Also, syndicated stories may not always be published in their original form. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The source discusses a theory put forward by a self-published author in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#NASA conspiracy, but it does appear to be properly attributed to distinguish opinion from fact. WP:WEIGHT may be an issue, but I have no specific challenge. I was wondering if it was better to use the original source, and it sounds like from your comment that the original source is reliable and OK to use. Location (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the original article to the syndicated version on the major media sites. If you find a direct match (and you'll need to look carefully because often times the editor will remove or change entire paragraphs) then in this case, use the major media site. I'm recommending this because most people may not have heard of "lifeslittlemysteries.com" and if the entire, full version of the original piece can be found on a major media news site, then name recognition will avoid any arguments for removal in the future. Of course, you don't have to do this, I'm just trying to cover all of the bases. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the minimum, cite the reliable sources (such as Christian Science Monitor). If you still want to cite Lifeslittlemysteries.com, add a article page comment explaining why you used this cite. Include a link to this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have Examiner.com added to the large-scale cleanup list? See [44]. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it already blacklisted? For a couple years now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous that it remains on the blacklist for critiscm of Wikipedia,  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth did you get the idea that's why they're blacklisted?Niteshift36 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is the blog-like nature that is the issue, not whether it criticizes WP? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner is an WP:SPS and was being used to make claims about third-parties which is against WP:V. Specifically, its use violated conditions #2 and #3 of WP:SELFPUB. If there's a particular article that is usable as a source, that particular article can be white-listed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was black-listed, just that it is in use in a lot of our articles still. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to black list the Examiner is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Request to reopen discussion on examiner.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion on the spam-blacklist talk page that resulted in blacklisting is here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009#Examiner.com. I'll also add that examiner.com still appears in a lot of articles probably because pages on that site have been whitelisted many times, you'll see if you search MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for the string "examiner\.com", so any clean-up would have to account for the whitelisted entries. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone who reads Portuguese to assess the reliability of a Portuguese language source. The query relates to notability claims made at our article on Areopagus Lodge (which is being discussed at AfD). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've asked editors of our Language Reference Desk to comment on this discussion.[45] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The questions are the usual ones that come up in AFD discussions when non-English sources are used... does the source actually support what is said in the article? Are there nuances of language that we should be aware of? Is is reliable? Self-published? Can we find out anything about the author? etc. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an internal source. The gentlemen that run the site represent themselves as Masons writing on behalf of promulgating Free Masonry. (Both messrs. Leite and Nascimento are referred to on various other websites as associated with masonry.) The author, Jeronimo Borges, who is not listed as a principle of the website, may be either a retired professor or a religious professional according to Linkedin (most likely the first, given Iberian naming conventions), but I am not going to sign up there to read the profiles.
• The source's claims are consistent with and support the other sources. I can't speak for the host's or author's standing within Free Masonry but the site is awfully detailed and far too oconsistent to be considered a hoax, and given the consistency with the apparently more independent other sources I see no reason to doubt what is said. It would be the same as a website run by people calling themselves Jesuits giving details on a local Jesuit institution recognized in other sources as such. On its own it wouldn't be enough to establish an article, but it seems a reasonable ancillary resource. (The two other sources are a book, and what appears to be a public radio station.) It's neither ifndependent nor peer-reviewed, but, given that, there's no reason to view it as suspect for what it is. If there's any real problem here it's going to be one of notability of the topic, rather than reliability or the sources. And since there's no reason to doubt the claim this is the first Masonic mission in Brazil I would be well-inclined to retain the article. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the input... your replies are thoughtful and appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: "A View of the External Affairs Power" by Sir Garfield Barwick[46]: There has been talk lately about reserve powers of the Crown. It seems to have been thought that Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the ministry in 1975 may have been an exercise of these reserve powers, but in fact he exercised an express power given him by the Constitution to appoint and to dismiss the ministry. The notion of reserve powers being available to the Crown was developed in Imperial days when it was thought that in the long process of converting an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy there remained some powers of the Crown which were exercisable without the concurrence of the ministry. Whether or not this was a correct view, the Commonwealth Constitution leaves no room for any such notion.

Article: Australian head of state dispute

Content:

Under the conventions of the Westminster system, the Governor-General's powers are almost always exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or other ministers of the Crown. The Governor-General may use the reserve powers of the Crown, though these are rarely exercised. One notable example of their use was by Governor-General Sir John Kerr during the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

Discussion: It is the contention of one editor that the article's wording, specifically the phrase "reserve powers of the Crown" is supported by the statement from Barwick. In fact, as Barwick notes, the Australian Governor-General (Sir John Kerr, in this famous instance) is given his express powers by the Constitution, which "leaves no room for any such notion (of reserve powers of the Crown)".

Several additional cites are provided, purporting to source the wording, but only one of these contains the phrase, and that is a low-level source aimed at schoolchildren, which sums up the entire subject of "Parliamentary Democracy" in a few paragraphs.

When pressed, Miesianical is unable to explain the direct contradiction of his opinion, nor provide any exact sources. The key point is that the reserve powers of the Australian Governor-General are directly assigned in the Constitution. They are not the reserve powers of the Queen. Defining them as "the reserve powers of the Crown" merely obfuscates the reality.--Pete (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete/Skyring was not polite enough to alert me to his post above. He has misrepresented the situation. In fact, he contested the use of the two words "the Crown" in the phrase "the reserve powers of the Crown", deeming them to be inadmissable, as their use was "unsourced". Six sources using the prhase "reserve powers of the Crown" were then found; the location of the phrase within each either noted by page number in the footnote or easily disocverable by reading the linked article or web page. The sources meet WP:RS; they were each selected because they pertain directly to the governor-general of Australia.

The sentence Australian head of state dispute that contains the words "reserve powers of the Crown" always stated the governor-general may use the reserve powers; Pete/Skyring twice edited the sentence himself so it read "The governor-general may use the reserve powers". If he now contests whether or not the governor-general may use those powers, that is another matter altogether. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided above does not support the wording in the article. In fact it rules it out entirely. I'd like your comments on this discrepancy. Please. --Pete (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering is YouTube a reliable source? Like YouTube videos of interviews with recording artists? A lot of YouTube sources are being used in the Brandy Norwood article. I've tried to remove them because I think it's not reliable but Brandy's fans who keep reverting my edits say it is. — Oz 05:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:External links:

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content.

This needs to be evaluated on an individual basis - and for an interview, the first question is whether it has been uploaded by the owners of the material. If it hasn't, it is almost certainly a copyright violation, and shouldn't be linked too at all. If it has been uploaded by the copyright owner, the normal requirements for reliable sourcing then apply to the video - YouTube isn't the 'source', those responsible for making it are, and this needs to be assessed accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most YouTube videos are not reliable. It depends on who makes and uploads the video. For example:

• If a reliable source, such as BBC News, conducts an interview with a person and BBC News uploads the video via their official YouTube channel, it would be considered reliable generally speaking.
• If a reliable source, such as BBC News, conducts an interview with a person and someone else uploads the video, it would not be considered reliable since the user could have altered the video. It is also, most likely, a copyright violation.
• If an unreliable source conducts an interview with a person, it's unreliable regardless of who uploads the video.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the replies. One more thing, this YouTube video (which is being used as a source in the Brandy Norwood article) was uploaded by the copyright owner who is not from any source but is a Brandy fan. Can it still be used as a source? — Oz 06:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not reliable. I'm not sure I've heard of Brandy Norwood, but if she's a star, you may be able to find other sources to use instead. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that last one is not reliable for the exact reason you mentioned: "was uploaded by the copyright owner who is not from any source but is a Brandy fan." I wrote a cute essay: WP:VIDEOREF Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The site seems to be run by Steve Hoffman, a music engineer of some repute. An article from his website is currently being used at the article George Harrison (which will be nominated for FA status this week) to cite the following info:

On 12 November, the three living Beatles met for the last time for a luncheon at Harrison's hotel in New York, with McCartney flying in from London with his fiancee Heather Mills. The party laughed and joked throughout the 90-minute meal and when Starr said he had to go, Harrison's family and other friends retired to leave the three ex-Beatles alone together for the last time.

While the info is definitely in the source cited, I am not certain that the source itself meets the requirements of WP:RS. It is in the format of a message board, for one thing, which raises some immediate flags. While I don't think Mr Hoffman simply invented facts that sounded nice, I am wary about citing his article if others doubt its reliability. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The top of that post says "British Mirror". I assume that that's a British newspaper? If so, why don't you just cite that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked, and I probably should have mentioned that I assumed it was a newspaper, too. I've checked, and can find no record of its existence, assuming Hoffman isn't referring to the Daily Mirror. If that is what he's referring to, their online archives don't seem to have it. After checking I assumed it was a name Hoffman gave to his original coverage of the music business (through his website, outside of a formal publication), but on second thought that doesn't seem too likely. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's the Daily Mirror, which was officially published as The Mirror for a short time. The same report seems to have been published in several papers in the same stable (Trinity Mirror). See [47]. These are all basically reliable tabloids, but not excactly high quality sources (Birmingham Evening Mail; The People) . Paul B (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better source for the same article: [48]. Formerip (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the version from The People transmitted through HighBeam. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, Paul, I cross-posted and didn't see your link. Howeever, looking at your link, it's not the same article. Formerip (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, yes, I've accidentally linked to the wrong HighBeam page. Still, the same report seems to have been published in several Trinity Mirror publications, Paul B (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, guys! Would you say any of those links/publications are high-quality enough for a Featured article? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In RS terms, the HighBeam/People link certainly cuts it. FA will also be looking at the quality of the content - you'll just have to see what people say about it when it goes up for review. Good luck. Formerip (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. The People is a daily newspaper, and absent of anything to contrary, we normally assume newspapers to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, guys! That's one of just a handful of sourcing issues left at the article, so I really appreciate the help. (I knew I should have signed up for one of those Highbeam accounts...) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Evanh2008: I maintain a "Reliable Sources Search Engine" that you may find useful in case you need more sources. A link to it is available on my user page, under "Tools I find useful". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would never trust the The People [49] (a Sunday paper, by the way) without a second source. Here are some recent examples: [50] [51] [52] [53] and a selection of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission on the grounds of accuracy [54] (the PCC is generally regarded as inadequate but not everyone wants to take on the People's lawyers in court) NebY (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Now at AfD. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "References" and "External links" section of William Robert Plumlee contains a link to http://toshplumlee.info/ , which appears to be a collection of primary source government documents obtained via the FOIA. Who is responsible for the website and gathering the information is not indicated, plus some of the documents appear to have comments "filling in" whatever information was redacted (e.g. http://toshplumlee.info/pdf/fbi9o.PDF). Furthermore, the documents appear to be cherry-picked in that other primary source information on the subject can be found elsewhere (e.g. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). I believe this to be an unreliable source, however, I hope to obtain a second opinion on whether or not this could be removed from both sections of the article. Thanks! Location (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The external links are the least of its problems. This unsourced BLP should go to AfD. Trying to fix the link problem is like trying to put a band aid on someone missing their head. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Afd. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Robert Plumlee. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't like to send something to Afd until I can make sure that someone doesn't come back with the assertion that there are reliable sources. Location (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although a government website I am curious if this is in fact RS for use in the Kashmir conflict article, currently it is used to support this text "Pakistan's claims to the disputed region are based on the rejection of Indian claims to Kashmir, namely the Instrument of Accession. Pakistan insists that the Maharaja was not a popular leader, and was regarded as a tyrant by most Kashmiris. Pakistan maintains that the Maharaja used brute force to suppress the population" I cannot see it as a RS for issues relating to the Kashmir problem at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that if it was an official website for the Pakistan Army, it could be cited for the opinion of the army - though not necessarily for the opinion of 'Pakistan' on the issue. Pakistan is at least formally a parliamentary democracy, and the army doesn't get to decide opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Source [55]
• Article War on Women
• Content

• Author of source [56]

This has been discussed on the Talk page of this article. The issue is with source 1, which needs verification from this noticeboard that it is a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first source could be used as a RS for the views of Rose, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE in the article in question. In general, mentioning unsupported allegations like this in articles is not very helpful. The second source is also an opinion column, and does not support the assertion that it was a "botched abortion". a13ean (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the word "botched" might be a tad aggressive, however I think the point of the reference was only to cooroborate the death.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a War on Women article at all is undue weight, and most people disagree that there is such a ridiculous thing. This edit would show the true war on women, and the fact that Planned Parenthood lied about the safety of abortion is supported by audio tape from actual calls to Planned Parenthood and an article from a reliable author, so it is not an “unsupported allegation.” What is an “unsupported allegation”, is the “War on Women”. It is helpful to the article because out of an incredibly bias article on Wikipedia, it would be one true fact to add some truth to the article, and it certainly relates to the topic of the War on Women, which is waged by Planned Parenthood. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of things, from molecules to musicians to mathematical proofs and even memes. Because the phrase "War on Women" has taken on a life of its own (like others including "War on Christmas" for example) we have a page for it here. Even though the title itself might seem to be pushing a POV, it's still our job to write as neutral an article as possible about it. How is it commonly used? Much in the way it's being described in the article. There are clearly arguments that could be made for the inclusion of something along the lines of the above, but your reasoning here is not among them. a13ean (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is completely truthful and neutral, and is supported by sources. Your job on this noticeboard is to verify the reliability of the source, not argue about what should be included in the article. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reliable enough to me for her views, but for gender based abortions see here Pretty sure sources are there for the rest also. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And he won the NPOV Barnstar of Merit. Sounds like the conclusion of RSN is that it's a reliable source. 69.37.2.59 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Source NPR
• Article War on Women
• Content In Arizona, legislators passed a bill protecting doctors from wrongful birth suits.^[1] Under the legislation, doctors who don't inform mothers about prenatal problems would not be liable for malpractice.^[2]

The issue at hand is the second reference. The statement as presented above implies that the NPR reference is making a statement that the Arizona legislation would prevent doctors (in Arizona) from being liable for malpractice. Not only does the source not say this, but it actually contradicts this supposition by saying The Arizona law does allow parents to sue for "intentional or grossly negligent acts .  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps suggest an alternate wording which does not make use of the word malpractice or clarifies that case of Arizona's case verses other states? Removing the second line requires the reader to click through to see a definition for a not particularly common term. Some of the confusion perhaps arises from the fact that others, like myself, might assume that "intentional or grossly negligent acts" includes all malpractice (and would have made this law rather pointless), but a quick look at Medical malpractice reveals that this is not the case. a13ean (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make any such suggestion with respect to this source, because this source says nothing about malpractice with respect to the Arizona law. Do you agree with this assement? Though if you can make a suggestion on how to fix this, I'm all ears.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this source have to do with the War on Women? Maybe I missed it, but where does it say that this is part of the "War on Women"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually no where. Good luck if you try to delete it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Several state legislatures have passed or are considering legislation to prevent parents from suing doctors who fail to warn them of fetal problems, which are sometimes known as wrongful birth lawsuits. Some of the laws, such as one proposed in Arizona, make exceptions for "intentional or grossly negligent acts", while others do not.(Both refs here)

I've always been a big fan of sticking very closely to sources when the subject is controversial, although it sometimes makes for dull prose. a13ean (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll throw it in and see what happens.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Jewish population comparisons#Comparisons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the table (the one that's still there right now) in this article (Historical Jewish population comparisons) original research by synthesis? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard for this question. Thanks and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, my fault - I suggested Futurist110 asked here, when I meant WP:ORN. Lack of sleep does funny things to my brain... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I get the same way. Also my typing goes to heck in a handbasket.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another from the I/P morass, attempted blanket dismissal of the Guardian in order to discredit this [57] article, as per discussion at Talk:Colonialism#Settler_demographics_in_Palestine. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine source to support "President Carter thinks Israeli policies amount to colonization of Palestine." Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I gather that it could therefore be integrated with other RS that represent the same POV, correct? The issue relates to a debate that has evolved from outright denial of sources maintaining such a position to a debate about majority POV in relation to including a country on a list. When an editor introduced this source it was immediately and summarily dismissed. The content dispute is slightly more involved, but I won't delve into that any further here.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking if it can be "integrated with other RS that represent the same POV" sets off alarm bells about synthesis. The best way to use this baord might be to ask, "Is X a reliable source to say Y." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Guardian article is a fine source for President Carter's views on the matter. Tom is right that other sources may or may not be good. They would need to be considered individually.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see the concern about synthesis. Thanks for clarifying the best practice for posing questions here.

The issue at hand is one that concerns precedence of a certain characterization (colonial), and the subsequent criticism of that characterization. I think that the precedence of the characterization (by the UN, etc) itself should suffice, but one editor has been dismissing the UN source, too, while pointing at other sources criticizing the characterization, when his dismissal of this article occurred. Please excuse this paragraph if it is beyond the scope of this board. --Ubikwit (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the Guardian article is RS for the view of Jimmy Carter. Additionally, it would be fine for the article on colonialism to talk about Israel, provided the content conforms to NPOV. But, looking at the talk page discussion, it seems a helluvalot more complicated, and establishing that you have an RS doesn't necessarily validate the edit you are trying to make. I will comment over there. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Kennel Club Currently being used in numerous articles a general source or to establish a type of dog as a 'purebred breed': American Mastiff, Sussex Spaniel, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog.

In 2000, the breed was recognized by the Continental Kennel Club as purebred. - American Mastiff

Although not recognised by any major kennel clubs, the Russian Spaniel is recognised by the Continental Kennel Club [...] - Russian Spaniel

There is an article here that explains some of their practices and why I have an issue with them as a reliable source (I found it as a citation in the Dog breeds article). You may have to ctrl-F 'continental' to find it. --TKK ^{bark !} 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the website PopDirt.com reliable for biographical material on notables? I couldn't find an "About" page on the site, but it looks like someone's entertainment or gossip blog. This PopDirt piece was being used to support the following passage in the Prince Azim article:

Prince Azim is known internationally, famous for throwing lavish parties. In the past, Azim has thrown parties with guest lists that have included Michael Jackson...

I also found other instances of that site being cited by Wikipedia, mostly in music-related articles. Here are six examples:

• Article: Heroes & Thieves
• Citation
• Passage: In December 2005, they completed half the album and experienced what Carlton described as a "whirlwind moment", during which they recorded five songs in two weeks. Carlton said on her website that Perry was "fantastic and genuine and really inspiring".

• Article: I Am Me
• Citation
• Passage: She also sang "Boyfriend" on the October 21 episode of The Tonight Show...

• Article: List of music videos set in London
• Citation
• Passage: Assertion that the video for "About You Now" was shot in London.

• Article: Exodus (Hikaru Utada album)
• Citation
• Passage: During an interview in the United States whilst promoting This Is the One in 2009, when asked about Exodus, Utada said that Exodus was "a very experimental album. I was like a mad scientist working away in an underground laboratory", going on to say "I had the time of my life but it was a very intense, introverted process".

• Article: Hook Me Up (song)
• Citation
• Passage: The duo promoted the track on Australian television, including Today...

• Article: Boyfriend (Ashlee Simpson song)
• Citation
• Passage: Simpson performed "Boyfriend" on Sessions@AOL on the Internet...

So is it reliable for this material? Nightscream (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Myung Moon passed away recently, and his obituaries in the New York Times, LA Times and The Washington Post all state that he had one child out of wedlock as a matter of fact, stating respectively:

Rumors of sexual relations with disciples, which the church denied, dogged the young evangelist, and he fathered a child in 1954.

He had a son with her and another with Kim Myung-hee, who lived with Moon during the 1950s.

Meanwhile, his first marriage ended in divorce. A relationship with another woman resulted in a child but no wedding.

These three were used to source the rather bland statement "Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954" to help explain the total number of children in the infobox, but several users at the page have reverted this, claiming that these sources are "heavily biased" or "rumors". Outside input would be appreciated. a13ean (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking at RSN?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The British paper known as "The Independent" used to be considered one of the United Kingdoms most respected newspapers. But time and a buyout, as well as a change in both format, style and coverage seems to have moved the paper into the realm of "Tabloid Journalism". This is not an issue in regards to the papers format size, but its coverage of news and events.

In researching this out I found a number of indicators that would seem to show the paper as just such a publication, especially over the last few years. Criticism of the publication, its coverage and headlines, and a perception of a lack of fact checking could lead one to speculate....but is that accurate. Is "The Independednt" a tabloid journalism source?

This is in regards to the article Paloma Faith and the source used for dating the subject's date of birth, which appears to be in dispute. We want to get this right....and since there was some recent news coverage involving this paper and its Wikipedia article in regards to the Leveson Inquiry, I felt it best to ask the community for a discussion to determine how to handle this source moving forward. (Disclaimer: I have removed a good deal of content in only the Paloma Faith article, over this being a "tabloid journalism" source, but have decided to bring this here. If the conclusion of the discussion is that it is not a "Tabloid Journalism" source, I will return everything removed. However the dispute over this figure's date of birth will still remain).--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone could reasonably conclude that a newsgathering organization as large and as established as The Independent is not generally considered a reliable source. "Tabloid journalism," in terms of content and not size/format, certainly fits something like the National Enquirer or Star, which are almost strictly celebrity/gossip. But The Independent covers national and international news, financial news, political news, etc. One might compare it to the American newspaper the New York Post, which is known, in part, for celebrity gossip with its famous "Page Six," but which covers national and international news, financial news, political news, etc., and could not be called an unreliable "tabloid." --Tenebrae (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I concluded as much with what I consider to be reasonable consideration. You need not use such wording that would imply an insult to the one bringing this here. You don't seem so sure yourself by your post. Is it possible then, that there is some inbetween? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 January 2013 _{(Sorry for forgetting to sign that.)}

I am not always on top of things, but I am not aware of any guideline or policy that indicates "tabloid journalism" must be presumed to be non-reliable. The term may mean different things to different people. To my ear, "tabloid journalism" refers to a tendency to sensationalize the facts -- through content selection, headlines, photos, and writing style that emphasizes the news that is most likely to grab attention. It does not mean that the content is not factually accurate. Mainstream tabloid-format newspapers like the Independent and New York Post may sensationalize the facts but they are generally reliable, whereas fringe publications like the National Enquirer are not. --Orlady (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPSOURCES

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Just for clarification.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree with you. We're on the same page there. I'm just saying that The Independent is not tabloid journalism. It's not News of the World or Star or The National Enquirer. It's a real newspaper. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am asking. Although they are all real newspapers in some form. Hate to bring this up, but the The National Enquirer has real news (even being the very first to write on certain issues). Just what is considered "Tabloid Journalism"? Sure, we may not consider some of the stuff news, but what concerns me about The Independent is whether or not the changes to the publication over the last decade or so has made it less "news worthy" in a traditional manner. I have seen article where they refer to themselves as tabloid journalism in the same manner as other UK publications. The recent Leveson Inquiry has had them come out in defense of such journalism using the term "we". Is that an admission or just one journalists opinion. See this, where the article (which appears to have no by-line) states: "Long before Hackgate, tabloid journalists were surveyed as less popular than second-hand car salesmen. Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?"--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost. What are the grounds for suggesting the Independent has become tabloid journalism? Or that it's not still one of the UK's most respected newspapers? Nothing in our article suggests that, nothing in my experience suggests that. I don't read it that often, but I do get it's mini-publication the 'I'. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a debate at Talk:Sun Myung Moon over whether Moon's article can include the sentence " Moon fathered another child with another woman in 1954.". This has been cited to three obituaries but the only one that specifically states this is the New York Times[58] which says "he fathered a child in 1954". Another editor is calling this a media rumour and arguing that it can't be included unless a sentence saying "was later seduced or raped in Japan and did not come back to him until his next marriage" is included also. This claim is from the website of the True Parents Organization[59] which I don't see as a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]