This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 135

←

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

→

Archive 145

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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

I am going to unwatch here, so if anyone has questions they can go on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

I can't see any indication this is more than an anonymous website - not a reliable source, certainly not for blp material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli is an Italian-American financier.

I would like to know if this Forbes article could be considered a reliable source for information regarding both the net worth of Agostinelli and also the value of fund managed by the company he co-founded, Rhone Group. User:Spacevezon^talk 21:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not if supporting source data is entirely absent. A blog post is not the same thing as a magazine article. There is Forbes.com, which is a clearing house blog on which anyone can write or promote themselves, and then there is Forbes Magazine. The source you identify is the former; a blog posting without either an author or actual data.

See the Mitt Romney article for the standard of reliable sources on personal wealth. Both contain clear sourcing of related data - one a government personal finance document filing with very precise and detailed figures. The other, again, precise data derived from a specific government filing. There is no "about a billion" or any such ambiguity or guessing. The data is sourced, clear, irrefutable, and concrete. That is the threshold we must achieve in backing up financial assertions about personal wealth: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/08/13/romney_worth_between_190m_and_250m_campaign_says/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html

I think you have it wrong. Anyone can post a comment, certainly, but the the page itself is part of The World's Billionaires which is explicitly credited to "Forbes staff." But we have more that that vague by-line to rely on: They explain the methodology they use, at , a page with the by-line of one of the two individual people on the staff with overall responsibility for editing the list--and the right sidebar names his colleague. At the end of the page are the names of their reporters and data sources. It explains why the numbers are approximate--it also explains that they are primarily based on Forbes research, and lists the specific factors they include and the individuals they consult. It is very clear that the magazine puts its reputation behind the data, and so do the individual editors. For this particular topic, of individual and family financial status, I therefore consider Forbes data--regardless of the format in which it is published--to be reliable unless contradicted by another RS, in which case both have to be cited. There are more exact sources, but they too need to be interpreted. I note the articles you cite also give the data as "about", and there will factors Forbes takes into account that do not show on government forms. The WSJ article discusses some of them, and I think that article a very good explanation of why we do not trust primary sources in this area, but the secondary sources, where they are interpreted by reliable experts. I consider the senior editor at Forbes responsible for this list an expert, and I think the rest of the world does also, for this is the most widely used source, as used by other known reliable sources that have the ability to judge.

More generally, not everything that calls itself a blog is a blog in the sense that anyone can write the contents, just as not everything published as a wiki is open content. Most newspaper and magazine blogs from reliable magazines and newspapers are simply the format they present their editorial content, a popular format because it encourages reader comments. I consider them as reliable as anything else they publish, and that is in fact our general practice. It caused some confusion in earlier years, when newspapers were still adopting this format. Of course, for anything a newspaper or magazine publishes in any format, it can be hard to distinguish true reporting from personal opinion of the columnist, but this particular set of data is exceptionally clear to be reliable financial reporting, If you want, you can even cite it as "Kerry Dolan, the Forbes editor responsible for their list of ob billionaires, reports the figure as ..." to emphasise the fact that it is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all.

Source: "A View of the External Affairs Power" by Sir Garfield Barwick: 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)

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)

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)

Given that there are dozens of high quality sources on this topic, I'd suggest that you consult them. Nick-D (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why is there a need to use the Army's website as a source for this rather than the many high quality books, journal articles, etc, on the topic? The Army's website is not a good source for anything other than the Army. Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 an 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)

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)

Yes, well....forgive me for not using our article as a reliable source Doug. especially after recent events. Although there is some indications of such there. My point is, I don't know if there is enough for me to go by on my own. So...I bring it to the community and allow for the discussion to decide. This is much like the "Huffington Post" discussions. See the archives.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, a problem here, perhaps just for me, is that I know the Independent is a proper newspaper, whereas the Daily Mail is not quite as much a proper newspaper. But how do I know this? Is it because the Mail was originally published in tabloid format, whereas the Independent was originally published in broadsheet format? Is it because Jimbo once questioned (perhaps rhetorically) whether we should use the Mail "for anything at all", never mind BLP information? Has this changed over time? If it does change, who tells us?

I think the comparison with the Daily Mail may bring out some nuances that a comparison with the National Enquirer (which I have never seen a paper copy of) may not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever works. As I am not in the UK and know little about the publication besides what I can glean from sources and what they claim about themselves, this may well be a useful direction to take.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You quote from an opinion piece written by a tabloid journalist writing freelance for The Independent—Wynne-Jones, Ros (22 July 2011). "Red-top redemption: Why tabloid journalism matters". The Independent. London. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) When Wynne-Jones says "Can we really complain now that we are held in lower esteem even than MPs?" (my emphasis) he is likely using the pronoun to refer to himself and other similar journalists from The Daily Mirror. I do not read his piece as directly declaring The Independent as a tabloid newspaper. But does it matter if it is? There are other confirming sources such as her GRO reference via Ancestry.com which suggests 1981 is correct. In this particular case, if it was me, I would state her birth year as X sourced to x with a reference note giving her birth year as Y sourced to y etc. Otherwise other well-meaning editors will only change it again as they come across 1985 as her birth year in the tabloids --Senra (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Both your opinion of the suggestion of "we" and your compromise to the DOB. I know an editor had brought the Ancestry.com question here a short while ago but there was some who believed it did have some limited use.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, care needs to be taken using any genealogy database as a source. I believe the key issue is knowing if we have the right name. In this case, I could find only one Paloma Faith Blomfield within Ancestry.co.uk (sorry, I incorrectly said Ancestry.com before) between 1976 and 1985 --Senra (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Independent seems to me a reliable source for someone's date of birth. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, The Independent would still be considered one of the UK's more serious-minded national papers, and although it does appear to have gone a little more populist since the Lebedev acquisition, I'd still consider it a RS for pretty much anything. Barnabypage (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; the Independent's reporting is more or less as reliable as that of the Times, Telegraph, or Guardian. (I'm not sure I'd want to rank them). However, do bear in mind that small details about people's personal lives (birthdates, names of children, etc) are one of the things that newspapers are peculiarly talented at getting wrong, so if you have other sources contesting it, I'd treat it as slightly less cast-iron than the fact of "published by reliable journalists" usually suggests. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who participated in the discussion to help determine the source as generally reliable and not to be seen in the same light as News of the World or the Daily Mail or The National Enquirer. And thank you to Andrew Gray for the last post that helps a great deal on the specific dispute over the DOB.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a need to define tabloid newspapers?

This does bring up a larger overall point: Wikipedia doesn't really define what a "tabloid publication" or "tabloid journalism" are, as far as I can see. That leaves it open to subjectivity. And there's a tricky side issue: TMZ.com certainly seems to me to be a tabloid sitem yet (perhaps because its chief founder is an attorney) it's scrupulous in citing and even posting public documents and quoting name law-enforcement sources. And reputable mainstream publications cite information attributed to TMZ (as they do not, perhaps with one or two exceptions over several years, things like the National Enquirer). It might not be a bad thing for us close the issue on The Independent, which I think is WP:SNOWBALL, and start a larger discussion about defining the term and even proscribing certain publications, at Talk:Biographies of living persons (since it's usually people and not, say, uranium or the Magna Carta that's the subject of tabloid journalism). --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the reasoning for the board. There is no snowball by asking for clarification on a specific source. Either we think it is or we think it isn't a tabloid Journalism source. As I said I stopped to ask because I didn't know and began to doubt I was correct. The editor who added it made a small note about not knowing it had become such a source and they are in the UK I believe so that made me wonder. I think it is pretty clear that The Independent is to be treated in the same manner as the New York Post and consider it relaible for sourcing facts. But this is not the venue to discuss wording or changes to the BLP policy. That discussion, if needed would be best attempted at the village pump.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: because any source can be WP:RS for a specific statement. We might, for example, use the tabloid The Daily Mirror for the statement: The Daily Mirror says: "West Ham boss reveals he's keen to strengthen further ...". On the other hand, we might be more careful about selecting the same tabloid as a reliable source for the state of the US economy --Senra (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• My opinion is that we should discourage the use of the term "tabloid" as a signifier of unreliable journalism. In the last decade, three major daily newspapers in the UK (The Times, The Independent, and The Guardian) all switched from broadsheet format to smaller formats. You can question their journalism, but I doubt that any problems with those papers' journalism were caused by their format change. Occasionally on this noticeboard, people have assumed that any paper published in a tabloid format is focused on gossip and sensationalism. Some are, but many are not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not, and never has been, about the size of the paper used. Wikipedia did not invent the term "Tabloid Journalism". I have noticed lately that the term Red top seems to be catching on. I do like that better.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's true that the term "tabloid journalism" (meaning sensationalist/unreliable journalism) long predates Wikipedia. But it does have the effect of stigmatizing some legitimate newspapers that are published in non-broadsheet formats, at least in some people's minds. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. My point is, the stigma is not something we as editors are resposible for. As I said there are other tems. This may well be something to suggest at the village pump. I can only show the other terms. I cannot force the community to accept them.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the UK people sometimes now say "red-top tabloids", to distinguish the populist papers from the others. Even that doesn't work well now when content is accesed online. My ow feeling is that all the broadsheets are becoming more populist. Even BBC News is.. We just have to make sure we distinguish between the news, the celebrity news, the serious commentary and the wild opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid is like porn. You know it when you see it. And sometimes tabloids can be considered reliable. Context is key.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats the problem though....we don't always have access to really see them.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The information is likely true, however, I have concerns regarding the reliability of a press release from a non-authoritative source:

1. Source: Blomgren, Nicole (September 20, 2012). "Half Marathons Reach a Milestone and Surpass the 2000 total mark in 2012". PR Hwy. Retrieved 2013-01-04.
2. Article: Half marathon and List of half marathon races
3. Content: "Most recently, 2012 research conducted by Nicole Blomgren, CEO of Fifty States Half Marathon Club and Halfmarathonsearch.com™, reported half marathons reaching a milestone, surpassing over 2000 half marathons in the United States in August 2012, recording a total of 2005 half marathons in the U.S. alone, with California leading the way in totals surpassing 250 half marathons in 2012."

Thanks! -Location (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

halfmarathonclub.com looks like an WP:SPS. Anybody can create a web site, that doesn't make it reliable. A reliable source is one with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I don't see and could not find any evidence to say that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See this edit 5 - the sources do not say it was the vandalism of the Armenian Christian Cemetery (and a Greek Orthodox Monastery was anti-Armenian, and indeed the editor actually wrote " According to media reports it seemed to be more of an anti-Christian act as the vandals also targeted the Greek orthodox monastery. They spray-painted phrases such as "Death to Christianity", "Jesus, son of a whore", "Happy Hanukkah"." Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't need to literally state that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery is an anti-Armenian act, because as I understand it is too obvious. It's intent may have been anti-Christian, but again, intent does not matter. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The source explicitly calls the attack "anti-Christian". Unless I missed it, I don't see anything in the source that says that it was an anti-Armenian attack. The source is reliable, but not in the manner that it's being used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery isn't an anti-Armenian act? --Երևանցի ^talk 22:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What you just did is sort of what you are doing with the source, Yerevanci. This is a common mistake many editors make. We call it synthesis or analysis. See Wikipedia:No original research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.1 This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A vandalizm of an object belonging to a certain group is an act of discrimination against that group. What part of this is original research? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are making an assumption there that vandalism is always an act of discrimination, and that is certainly not true. It may have been in this instance, but you simply cannot make that judgement yourself, that is what we need the sources for. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply absurd. It's almost impossible to find sources that literally state that anti-Armenian acts are such. For instance, a sentence in the same article (" In a telephone interview on May 24, 1995, broadcaster with Radio Free Europe, Estonia service in Prague, stated that in February and March 1995, there have been several bomb attacks on Armenian-owned kiosks in the capital city Tallinn. The editor added that the identity of the perpetrator(s) of these acts remains unknown.83") and this has been in the article for years and nobody had a problem with it and there's no word in the source that describes it as "anti-Armenian". I'm not saying it was clearly an anti-Armenian act, but the Armenian cemetery was its target and it needs to be mentioned in the article. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is something that many editors have a hard time dealing with. You have to write in a disinterested manner. We all have our own biases and point of view, but we simply cannot write the article using the narrative voice of the encycolpedia to present, as fact, what are questionable claims gleaned, assumed or taken for granted, from the sources. We can't "Read between the lines". Having something in an article for years does not guarantee it is not innacurate. Making such claims without full reference support is not within the policy, guidelines or spirit of Wikipedia. Take a minute, look through other sources and see if there is not a better way to phrase this that is directly supported by the source.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't word it the way it should've been done, but let's agree that event has a place in the article.

@Yerevanci: There is nothing in that source that says anything about this being related to anti-Armenianism. Three different sites were vandalized, only one of which happened to be Armenian. If this was related to anti-Armenianism, why were 2 non-Armenian sites vandalized? Your conclusion that this relates to anti-Armenianism is not in the source. This is pure WP:OR on your part. (And if I had to judge based on this source, I would say your conclusion is, in fact, wrong.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how ignorant you sound? Have you ever heard of the Holocaust? Did you know that millions of Poles, Gays, Gypsies and Invalids were also part of it? Just because the Armenian cemetery wasn't the only target doesn't make it less of an anti-Armenian act. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

And thus, if one of the victims of the Aurora theater or Sandy Hook murders were Armenian. those would also be anti-Armenian acts. All murders of Jewish people are inherently acts of anti-Semitism. And the killing of Marvin Gaye was an act of racism, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite an appropriate comparison, because you can't tell if a child is of certain ethnicity (at least in most cases) and Sandy Hook was clearly not an ethnic crime. But you can tell when a cemetery is Armenian. You can tell by the letters on tombstones (Armenian has a unique alphabet that can't be confused) or by the cross styles. And at last, didn't you know that Armenians are one of the largest Christian groups in Jerusalem and one of the 4 Old City sections is Armenian? When attacking a cemetery or a church in Jerusalem it's either gonna be Greek or Armenian. I don't think that the vandals were unaware of this fact. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil. Several editors have explained to you why you are wrong. I suggest you take a break and come back later with a fresh mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if offended. Didn't mean anything personal, but your last statement wasn't exactly reasonable. And yeah majority isn't always right.--Երևանցի ^talk 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Without looking into the detail, might there be a case for saying that its so obvious that sources don't see the need to mention it (and if they don't see the need, then why should we)? Formerip (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OIC, I didn't take into account the WP article title. Maybe my comment is not so helpful. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

playing devil's advocate -- vandalism conceivably could be the work of destructive children who have no idea about the ethnicities involved, no? If hate language is spray-painted on something, that's a different story of course, but... if we're talking about anti-armenian acts would it be possible in this context to simply say that the cemetery was vandalized without speculating on the motives of the vandals? Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the above. Unless the source (not its reader) links the attacks to anti-Armenian motivations, it would not be appropriate to suddenly make such motivations appear. That is especially true where two other targets with no apparent connection to anti-Armenianism were vandalized, and this is likely why the source concludes that the motivations were anti-Christian, not anti-Armenian. Regardless of why they do, though, we can't just synthesize such a connection. The source has to say it. So short answer to your above: Yes, it must explicitly say that, and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to directly contradict what it actually does explicitly say, that the motives were anti-Christian ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So you think the vandalizm of an Armenian cemetery doesn't have place in the article. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That is best asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy. It's either me who's not getting it or the users above that fail to understand. Anyways, I don't wanna continue wasting my time for nothing.--Երևանցի ^talk 02:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You can put it in as far as I am concerned, though other people editing the page appear to disagree. But what you have posted here is not enough for you to say that it was necessarily discrimination. Maybe it was just random ugliness. Find a reliable source that says it is and then you have a different question and maybe a different answer, depending on the source.99.11.227.190 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Source 6
• Article War on Women
• Content

• Author of source 7

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That is just wikilawyering. Once a question is asked people can give any opinions they want regarding any policy on the site or otherwise. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you can ignore it. (Personal attack removed) DreamGuy (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

The opinion was expressed that she is a reliable source for her own views, which is not the same as saying that she is reliable in general. Nor does that necessarily mean her views are ones that belong in an article, which is more a question of WP:NPOV policy than WP:RS. DreamGuy (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

I can't find many indepth articles about the Continental Kennel Club. The link you point to is a very off-hand mention, and it's not clear the source is reliable. Here are some other short, unfavorable, mentions: Kentucky Post article,North Jersey editorial. On the other hand, here are some slightly longer mentions that treat it as the younger cousin of the American Kennel Club, and almost as reliable: Catoosa County News; Wilson County News; Ironton Tribune. Unless we find some sources that are better yet, I'd say that as long as we attribute the opinion to the Continental Kennel Club, possibly saying that the American Kennel Club disagrees (with references for both), including the opinion might be worthwhile. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman ongoing review and discussion but appreciate if The Vienna Review, a monthly newsletter is Wiki acceptable. If not can editors pls join in removing the source there. A service of the "Open Society Institute" should not be a wiki source. Tellyuer1 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---