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.

1. Source: http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/05/20/update-jeremy-renner/
2. Article: The Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Content: https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575702120&oldid=575684304
4. Discussion: Would like some additional opinions regarding this source. I also have some alternate sources (or additional, if multiple sources would make a difference). These other sources are:

• http://screenrant.com/avengers-2-age-of-ultron-hawkeye/
• http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Avengers-2-What-We-Know-So-Far-About-Age-Ultron-32405.html
• http://splashpage.mtv.com/2013/07/25/avengers-age-of-ultron-black-widow-hawkeye/
• http://www.mstarz.com/articles/16836/20130723/avengers-2-news-jeremy-renner-s-hawkeye-receiving-bigger-role.htm
• http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/03/elizabeth-olsens-age-of-ultron-casting-confirmed-by-samuel-l-jackson-4133029/
• http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a519517/james-spader-on-avengers-age-of-ultron-itll-be-a-lot-of-fun.html

Thank you for your opinions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Metro citation seems decent. Shii (tock) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Splashpage would be reliable if it were sure of itself, but in the linked-to article it specifically says it's reporting a rumor. We don't do that. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Metro source says that Renner is "expected" to return. That sounds like a prediction based on conventional wisdom, instead of fact-checked and verified information. I don't think that's good enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://xcor.com/press/
2. Lynx (spacecraft) - a concept under development by xcor.com
3. Basically the entire article is sourced either directly from XCOR or obvious press releases - such as the article in Popular Mechanics. First announced in 2008 with "flights within two years", the project still has nothing beyond a mockup and a few pieces of equipment such as a nosewheel. The article looks to be little more than advertising for XCOR, with the aim being to maximise the number of links to their site that they can cram into a single Wikipedia article. --Pete (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is that while we can use press releases to support specific facts ... we should not build the entire article on them. We need more than just obvious press releases. I don't know enough about this specific topic to know whether such sources exist... but if not, I would suggest discussing the article at WT:Notability. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Press releases should be used sparingly. However even though business writing bases a lot on press releases, these articles are reliable sources if the publication is. Presumably their journalists are sufficiently knowledgeable to determine what is significant and authentic. TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

^This; Popular Mechanics, although not what it used to be, is a WP:RS; looking at the article in question, Air & Space Smithsonian is another "blatant RS", as is AW&ST. Space.com has also been determined to be a RS in the past; while The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC also require little to no questioning. Even if they themselves based their writing off press releases, it doesn't change the fact that it's reporting in a third-party source (therefore clearing the WP:N issue). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

...also a serious {{trout}}ing for the OP here, who started the discussion here then without waiting nominated the article being queried at AfD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The trade press uses press releases a lot. And why shouldn't it? Say you are the editor of The Widget Magazine. Widget manufacturers send you press releases on their new kinds of widgets. You don't distrust their factual content. You just tone down some of the most exaggerated language. Everyone happy. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are arguing in support of more liberal use of press releases, or making some other point. I think the original advice, they can be used, but sparingly, is on point. There is no question that many RS sources use press releases to create their material. I have no doubt that they are sometimes used with scant fact checking, however the difference is that they are professional journalists, responsible for their content, while we are not professional journalists. While I am sure some editors have developed a radar for creative press release wording, we do not distinguish between levels of editors so we ought to use them sparingly, for uncontentious facts, and information not likely to be made up (location of operations, etc.) The fact that a professional journalist has chosen to reprint the material provides us with a sort of safe harbor, which we wouldn't have is we used it directly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Between the Woods and the Water a professional work when talking about the history of the town Alba Iulia?. I am asking this because an editor just added it to the article (Alba_Iulia#cite_note-Fermor-6) and I am not convinced that this is a good source (he does not seem to have an academic recognition as a historian) 79.117.168.132 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The source given only includes part of the book. The final section "Notes" is not visible in the preview. Before any comment is made about the historic accuracy of the book, one should look at that section - the author himself might let readers know of the limitations of the work. If the author asserts that he has accurately represented the history of Alba Iulia, it might be appropriate for somebody who knows about the subject to check whether or not this book is reasonable. If it is, then in my view it is worth keeping the citation, but flagging in "Better citation needed". Martinvl (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously what Paddy Leigh Fermor is famous for is kidnapping Heinrich Kreipe with Billy Moss, and carting him off Crete in a small boat. However, he was also an erudite and well-respected writer, though not a professional historian. I think it's safe to assume that what he wrote is based on sources he regarded as reliable; he might perhaps have seen something like this. Is there anything contentious about what is sourced to him in the article? I have the book, if that is any help; my copy doesn't have a Notes section, just a brief appendix. He spells it Bălgrad not Balgrad, by the way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, etymology of Alba Iulia is a very specific subject and I could not find better source than this. Any helpful contribution is greatly appreciated. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Better source needed" is correct, I'd say. It's quite likely Patrick Leigh Fermor has got it all right, but he isn't a historian or an etymologist. I don't suppose Coriolan Suciu, Dicţionar istoric al localităţilor din Transilvania, 1967, is available on line? Andrew Dalby 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reliable secondary source? I am interested in the story that she narrates in this page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a lot of positive reviews here including one from Professor Wilferd Madelung.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an issue with Italian Olympian Gabre Gabric, whose year of birth has been listed as both 1914 and 1917. Until recently, we listed 1917 based on the explanation at Sports Reference, a site whose data and biographies are provided by a team led by Olympic historian Bill Mallon, as well as an Italian report where the athlete herself explains how 1914 came about as an error. User:Kasper2006, however, who claims to know the family personally, has changed it back to 1914 based on a blog run by a family member. I suggested that Kasper2006 submit anything relevant from the family to WP:OTRS but, considering that the last time I sent something from a family member there they told me to get an account and do it myself, I can't really fault Kasper2006 for not wasting their time on that. So, the main question is is there are a consensus that the sources added by Kasper2006 are reliable enough to change her year of birth (with maybe a footnote about 1917)? If there is, then I'm fine with that, but I would like some clarification, as they don't seem reliable enough to me (but I admit that it can be construed as a grey area). Canadian Paul 22:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Her doughter and her son i law Eddy Ottoz explained this. See here --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I have created a section where everything is explained better Question about the date of birth - Documents proving the birth in 1914. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

But the most wonderful thing is that, beyond what it will obtaine Canadian Paul, there is a real life. ;) Look at this picture, please ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the famed linguist Noam Chomsky a reliable source for historical facts about the Phoenix Program?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO, no. He's a polemicist, whose opinions are notable only as his opinion. WeldNeck (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

what source for what claim in what context? he is unlikely to have gotten facts wrong, but his interpretations are probably not representative of the mainstream, although as a noted opinionista, his opinions may be worthy of including, attributed in the article as "Chomsky called this X" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky is a reliable source for theories of linguistics, and only for his own opinions outside that field. Though I haven't read his work on the Phoenix Program, I assume that he references or mentions work by professional historians or other reliable sources. Reading and citing those other sources is probably a better approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky is cited for the following claim: "After Phoenix Program abuses began receiving negative publicity, the program was officially shut down. However, another program of a similar nature, code-named "F-6", was initiated as Phoenix was phased out." I believe this should be removed unless a better source is provided.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky is known for his meticulous footnoting and sourcing of all his assertions. In this case, he cites Earl S. Martin, Reaching the Other Side, Crown, 1978, p82. So perhaps somebody could check this work, to see if it confirms Chomsky's citation of it. RolandR (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, instead of removing it, I'll just tag the statement with "better source needed".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can see it here on p. 82. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The text should probably be rephrased to better reflect that source; namely, this is an allegation from "several antiwar journals".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it probably needs tweaking, given that it's a personal account. Earl Martin was apparently a Mennonite conscientious objector who volunteered for service in Vietnam, worked with refugees and helped clear unexploded land mines1. He's still doing MCC work. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably better to use Chapter 28 in Douglas Valentine's The Phoenix Program (ISBN 978-0595007387), for this. It seems F-6 was just a procedural change to Phoenix/Phung Hoang authorized on 21 April 1972, to make it easier to arrest people on the basis of 1 report instead of 3 reports. It was cancelled in December 1972 and the 3 report requirement was reinstated. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Yahoo Contributor's Network a reliable source for this? My contention it is not as it is essentially composed of anonymous authors signing up here and writing with no editorial oversight or independent fact checking (no matter what references are listed at the bottom of an article). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And getting paid for it. "Performance Payments are payments made to the contributor based on the amount of traffic that a piece of content receives." It isn't a reliable source. If something written there is correct and significant it will be sourceable elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually opened a discussion about this as well, just a few days ago (see here - Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard#Yahoo! Voices). There actually is editorial oversight; 2 everything submitted to the website has to be reviewed by a professional editor, who then decides whether to publish an article or reject it, providing feedback on how it can be improved. 3 According to the Submission Guidelines, 4 anything published by the site is required to include reliable references for all information that is not common knowledge. Articles are also generally expected to be within a certain word count, are supposed to follow a specific format, and cannot be unfair (no ranting, cheerleading, misleading, name-calling, or gratuitously attacking). Yes, as Dougweller pointed out, the writers are paid for their articles; I don't see how that makes them unreliable though. To the contrary, that makes them professional freelancers. All of this had led me to the opinion that the site meets Wikipedia's reliability criteria (it certainly is much more reliable than self-published sources like blogs); the one thing that is making me unsure is NeilN's claim that the authors are anonymous. Technically, the author of the article in question is not anonymous (it was written by Adam Hornbuckle), but no information about him is provided whatsoever, so his identity is still somewhat unclear. I don't know whether all reliable sources provide some kind of information on their writers, so I don't know how much of an issue this is, but I can see how it might be a concern. I should mention though, that the author of the article that I had been interested in using does provide information on himself. 5 6 It doesn't seem to me that the reliability of this website is a clear call, so I would be interested in getting the opinions of several editors on it. --Jpcase (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting points Jpcase. By anonymous, I meant Wikipedia-like anonymity in that my author (editor) name can have no real-world connection to who I actually am. Regarding the review process, I'd be a lot more comfortable if it said, "A trained editor will read and review content for subject matter, clarity, and accuracy". We need more opinions from Wikipedia editors on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced that the 'editorial oversight' is anything like we'd expect from say a newspaper. "A trained editor will read and review content for subject matter, clarity, and adherence to our Submission Guidelines. Depending on the quality of the topic and content, the editor may decide to make an Upfront Payment offer based on the projected number of page views the piece will receive as well as the shelf life of the topic." The submission guidelines to ask that material be accurate and cited, but I would be surprised if there is that much content checking, let alone by experts in the field. I read 'review content' as making sure that the content is something that will interest readers and get as many hits as possible. Their page on promotional tools is interesting.7 I agree that the authors might be called "professional freelancers". But I don't think we should treat them as we might treat a freelancer's article in the New York Times. Maybe we should just fall back to the author needing to be a recognised authority in their field. And if the author is anonymous, not use it. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course Yahoo! Voices won't be interested in publishing something that is unlikely to attract readers, but that's no reason to assume the editors don't check for accuracy. The Submission Guidelines say that they do and that they require reliable references for anything that isn't common knowledge. If someone can point to several (even the most reputable sources are bound to make a few mistakes) instances in which the website has published inaccurate information, then it would be fair to say that their editorial oversight isn't up to par. But otherwise, that's just a hunch. My personal opinion is that the site's reliability should be determined on a case-by-case basis. In instances where the author does not provide any kind of background information on him or herself, then I would be hesitant to use their articles. But I'm not sure that an author on the site should necessarily have to be a recognized authority in their field (Though this should probably be a requirement for certain topics). For example, the article that I had been interested in using 8 is an album review by an author named Jonathan Frahm, who has provided detailed information on himself; he is a published author of fiction novels and has written one hundred and twenty articles for the website, most of which seem to be related to music. Although I don't believe that he has ever written a music review for any other publications, I don't see why he shouldn't be viewed as a qualified music critic. --Jpcase (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate queries have been raised about the site knowyourmeme.com previously and can see it is generally not accepted as a reliable source, which is my re-action to it. However, it would be helpful if it could be confirmed as it was inserted in the Shiba Inu article last night (despite the discussion on the talk page). I have just removed it pending thoughts from editors here. The article keeps being protected to prevent the constant changes of the word 'dog' to 'doge' or 'dogge' etc as can be seen in the article history9. It is being used to support the following insertion:

The Shiba Inu has also received internet popularity in 2013, with "doge" and "shibe" becoming an internet phenomenon. This spurned forth from a picture of a particular Shiba Inu reaching out with its left paw, and similar images of Shiba Inu in various poses with text in the Comic Sans MS font overlaid has spread through the internet (as an internet meme). Although the term "doge" afterwards began to be used broadly towards dogs in general, the Shiba Inu breed has gained popularity since.

The ref being used is here. Comments and opinions would be very welcome! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think knowyourmeme.com is a reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content. However, this particular article is still in "research" mode and being evaluated by website staff. So, I'd say the page is still in a transitional state and shouldn't be used until the article is evaluated by the website editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Official government publications, from unrecognized states -- are they not eligible to be considered "reliable sources"?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Ohanyan is a mass nomination of articles about individuals that assert they are members of the legislature of the breakaway state of Nagorno-Karabakh. The nominator claimed, first, that these individuals wouldn't meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN; second, that there were no references to document these individuals were legislators.

I didn't trust that the nominator had been diligent enough in whatever attempt they may have made to comply with WP:BEFORE. My own web search found that Vardges Ulubabyan had lead a diplomatic mission to the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic. Press releases from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic confirmed he was a legislator in the Nagorno-Karabakh legislature.

Well, the nominator at the {{afd}} is asserting that press releases from unrecognized states shouldn't be considered Reliable Sources.

There are coups, uprisings, that are mere flashes in the pan. When a coup or uprising has just occurred, and some hither-to shadowy or completely unknown group claims to be the new legitimate government in that region, I agree we should treat their press releases with great caution. Such groups can disappear overnight, without anyone even learning who had been in charge of the group.

Both Nagorno-Karabakh and the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, and South Ossetia, for what it is worth, date back to the breakup of the old Soviet Union, over 20 years ago. While these governments may not be recognized internationally, they provide the same kinds of services to their citizens as other countries. They build roads, run schools, operate Foreign Ministries. Is it possible their official press releases contain untruths? Sure. But (1) so do the official press releases of well-recognized countries, like the USA; (2) our material complies with WP:VER "verifiability, not truth". Press releases from a foreign ministry that has been in operation for over 20 years should be considered verifiable, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If the editor who believes that breakaway states official information can not be RS then anything by the PRC before 1971 can not be used and anything from the ROC after 1971 can not be used, and by that editor's logic all legislators from the ROC are not notable because they don't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Oh, and of course don't forget the Confederate States of America, mass deletions of sources from the Confederacy used in Jefferson Davis and any Civil War politician from the Confederacy, they barely lasted 1/5 the time Nagorno-Karabakh has. Down with the South (as a source on Wikipedia)!! (joking, calm down hillbillies).Camelbinky (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

RS policy on WP is not like being recognized by the UN, so of course we can report the announcements of organizations not recognized by the UN - as do other types of publications such as news organizations. To start, with nearly any source is reliable for its own opinion. The key things to check are:

• Is the organization notable? For example do news media mention it?
• Is the publication we are using really from that organization? Again, seeing if news media cite it might help if there is any debate.
• How are we using it? For example we should not be using a self-published source in order to say overly positive things about them (self promotion).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rightpundits appears to be a blog with low standards of fact checking. It describes itself as a "a political gossip and news organization focusing on election information and editorial opinion" but writes about “blogger diversification” and "other blogs" on their "About us" page. It repeats uncritically an article from the European Union Times about how Obama Orders 15,000 Russian Troops to Occupy America. It should be noted that the EUTimes is called a conspiracy site by Snopes.com and according to RationalWiki "strays deeply into tinfoil hat territory". Rightspundits is used as a source or an external link in a number of articles. It's not always obvious what the link is suppused to contribute, such as a biography of Ruth Madoff in the Participants in the Madoff investment scandal. Sjö (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fails WP:RS, except possibly as a primary source for verifying information about itself or one of its writers. I'm also having trouble imagining a scenario where it would meet WP:EL. As for its presence in Madoff, I wouldn't care to guess about the motives of the user who added it, but my first inclination is to consider the last sentence of the "biography" and think "guilt by association". Rivertorch (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this undergraduate dissertation good enough for the idea that there was a (pro Khmer Rouge) "Standard Total Academic View" on Cambodia in the late 1970s? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this excluded by WP:SCHOLARSHIP i.e. "are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" ? It's an interesting source though. "an unequivocal record of complicity existed between a generation of academics who studied Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge."...ouch. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The thesis is only talking about 1975 to 1979, so not really a generation, and the author identifies fewer than ten academics. The complicity he talks about was real, that's for sure. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ouch indeed. But I agree, an undergraduate dissertation seems to be ruled out by WP:SCHOLARSHIP criteria, unless it can be demonstrated that it been cited as a credible source by more qualified academics etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tip of the complicity iceberg... Luckily a simple solution to the complexities of history seems to have been found in contemporary Cambodia, in my experience, by just blaming Vietnam for everything. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've read a lot of the books in the dissertation, the quote bothers me "Standard Total Academic View" (there were several non-academics that disagreed, one of which was given lots of publicity in Reader's Digest) but the source is pretty good (I added it to my webpage about Pol Pot). I agree with Andy about WP:scholarship. No solid numbers about how many were killed by Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia and, blaming Vietnam for invading is a good excuse for never finding out the truth. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that STAV term should be employed using the encyclopedia's voice without attribution. See The Genocide Debate: Politicians, Academics, and Victims p. 56 or Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982 p. 131 for examples of how secondary sources handle it (and I guess secondary sources should be used rather than the thesis). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these sources, a distinct improvement. It is even murkier than I remembered when I used to read about it. Scholars who are still publishing are being accused. Are we dealing properly, with the record of Ben Kiernan, in the article I mentioned above and in this aspect of his biography? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ben_Kiernan#Criticism_of_Kiernan.27s_scholarship section looks like it might have the imprint of an editor hostile to the subject i.e. wiki-editor sampled quotes rather than secondary source sampled quotes. I guess they should probably go. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I took out the cherry-picked quotes as BLP violations. The rest has secondary sources but I don' think they're strong enough. If an academic's work has been criticised in academic sources, we should cover that. I'm not sure that even the WSJ is an appropriate source here. Further comments would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The heading is misleading. The section as I read it now (I haven't checked whether Judith was the last person who edited it) is not about criticism of scholarship, it's about criticism for having previously been "on the wrong side" politically. Andrew Dalby 08:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For a start, "The dispute is significant because it highlights the intellectual rifts in the post Vietnam War period in which the ideological convictions of anti-war academics often seemed to outweigh rational analysis" needs to go as POV editorialising. The Murder of Malcolm Caldwell section seems to have been added as some sort of morality tale - or at least, it is off-topic. Frankly though, the title is questionable, and I have to query whether it is normal for sources to discuss this episode in isolation, rather than in the broader context, where other Western players in the Cambodia saga don't always come out smelling of roses either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Without regarding the merits of undergraduate "honours" theses in various academic systems, I do not believe jim.com is a credible mirror for any source. Reject as republished through jim.com. In relation to Ear (1995) The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia: Ear has had 18 years to seek journal publication of this work; and not having done so the work has not received appropriate scholarly oversight fit for its claims. The work itself ought be rejected as failing to meet the criteria for scholarship. Review Articles are readily published. This is a non-expert publishing outside of appropriate forums, in a SELF grade mirror. Reject. (I'd encourage Ear to seek publication though). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, he's not a non-expert any more though, he's an Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.10 Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, that's very interesting :) In 1995, though, he was an undergraduate, and we would only cite an undergraduate essay if it has meanwhile been cited with approval in RS publications by experts in the subject (which is, in a sense, post-publication peer review). Setting aside that case, I agree with Fifelfoo that we shouldn't treat this as RS. Andrew Dalby 08:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I should say, just to be clear, that I haven't advocated using this source and there's secondary source coverage citing his work that can be used in its place. Everyone appears to agree that the source is ruled out by policy, although I'll happily admit that if I were asked to demonstrate that something has had a "significant scholarly influence", I wouldn't exactly know how to go about doing that in a way that would produce a reliable and repeatable result (other than via a very reliable meta-source that said it has a "significant scholarly influence"). Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. He has published on a number of topics subsequently, which should make us wonder why he hasn't published this particular work. He cites someone called Bruce Sharp as his "friend" and that is even more frustrating because Sharp has a website with a number of essays that are, actually, very good scholarship. Everything about his website screams advocacy publishing, just some old website, but as an account of the genocide denial (not the genocide) it's thorough and nuanced. Sean, what I think we would normally do is count the citations in top-quality academic sources, although sometimes you see a wording like "like every scholar in the field I will rely on Blogg's blog". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Source

Al Azhar Islamic Studies Scholars Expose Dr. Tahir Qadri as Imposter, Fake Sheikh and Demand: Prove Your Claims 11

Al-Azhar scholars expose Tahirul Qadri 12

The Head of the Qadri Tariqa Publicly Denounce Dr Tahir Qadri 13

2. Article Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Muhammad_Tahir-ul-Qadri

3. Content

On 12 April 2012, it was reported that Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri had been challenged and refuted by scholars of eminent Islamic institute, Al Azhar Islamic University, Cairo, Egypt regarding his self proclaimed title of Shaikh ul Islam. This refutation was also published in leading newspapers of Pakistan. In another development, he was also refuted as Sheikh ul Islam by head of Qadri Tariqa (Qadri sufi way of worship).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Farooq 78 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 October 2013‎

This has already been addressed on the biographies of living persons noticeboard: 14 Regardless of the reliability or otherwise of sources, we do not report opinions as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources:
1. Lazer, Eddie (January 28, 2010). "Did Avatar Completely Rip Off An Obscure British Comic Called Firekind?". Heavy.com. Retrieved October 13, 2013.
2. Lazer, Eddie (29 January 2010). "Avatargate: The Case for the Prosecution". Heavy.com. Retrieved 13 October 2013.
3. Goellner, Caleb (29 January, 2010). "Is Avatar a rip-off of 2000AD's 1993 story Firekind?". Comics Alliance. Retrieved 13 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Anders, Charlie (11 February 2010). "The Complete List of Sources Avatar's Accused of Ripping Off". io9. Retrieved 13 October 2013.

(Note: sources 1 and 2 are the same person; and sources 3 and 4 cite them.)

Article: Firekind.

Content:

"James Cameron's Avatar has a number of parallels with Firekind:

• A human goes to a jungle world with deadly plant and animal life, as well as poisonous air.
• Floating rocks fill the sky.
• Aliens inhabit the planet and are not understood by the humans.
• A human goes to the natives and lives among them.
• The aliens ride dragons.
• The protagonist eventually helps the aliens defeat the humans with help coming from the planet itself, which turns out to be 'aware'.
• The native species and their environment are interconnected by some sort of "neural net". "

Request: Following an earlier discussion at Talk:Firekind, another editor (User talk:Betty Logan) and I failed to agree about whether the above sources were good enough to justify including the above material. Having reverted each other three times each and not wanting an edit war, I wonder if anyone else could offer their views? Many thanks. Richard75 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that I am not disputing the reliability of these publications for factual claims. I am questioning the WP:WEIGHT that is given to non-notable reviewers. These fanzine style websites are two a penny on the internet, and Richard has so far failed to convince me that the opinions of these people are relevant. We don't really have any WP:FRINGE guidelines for media reception, but the same principle applies: if a view isn't shared by mainstream reviewers should we really be including it in our articles? Charlie Anders seems qualified to speak on the subject, but what qualifies Eddie Lazer and Caleb Goellner? None of these reviewers have had reviews accepted at Rotten Tomatoes which has a basic "prominence" criteria for critics to be included. At the end of the day we are not a fan wiki, and any "expert opinion" whether it is scientific research or critical opinion should meet basic peer review criteria. Just because someone somewhere writes an opinion on the internet doesn't mean we have to register it here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment The text was too long but I tried a compromise. Will this work for involved editors? QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment (1) QuackGuru's compromise works for me. (2) My reading of WP:WEIGHT is that it says that if 99% of people say one thing and 1% say the opposite, then don't give undue prominence to the 1% as they are likely to be extreminsts -- the example given is the Flat Earthers. That doesn't really describe the situation we are dealing with here (the analogy is if 100 people reviewed Firekind and only one of them saw a similiarity with Avatar -- but just about any review of Firekind post-2009 compares it with Avatar). Richard75 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your comment seems correct to me: this is not a classic weight issue if concerning the subject of the sources (claims of plagiarism) you do not have counter claims from other sources, just a lack of claims. So looking at Betty Logan's comment it is not an RS matter, and based on the point of Richard75 it is not a black/white NOTE or WEIGHT matter. It seems to be a matter for editors to argue in terms of what makes a good article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd find more sources that believe Avatar is a ripoff of Dances with Wolves than you will this British movie... and the conspiracy theory on it is more believable. In fact South Park did an episode on it.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't about Dances With Wolves, or Avatar per se. Richard75 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/09/the-evidence-for-syrian-chemical-weapons-use-crumbles/

Article: Syrian opposition chemical weapons capability

Content:

According to former defense correspondent Kenneth R. Timmerman, writing in September 2013 regarding the August 2013 Ghouta attack, sources with access to intelligence reports had told him that "intelligence reports from French and Jordanian military intelligence show that the jihadist al-Nusra Front rebels acquired similar rockets and chemical agents earlier this year when they overran a chemical weapons depot in Aleppo on May 17 and captured a rocket unit in Daraa not long afterward".¹

Is this suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

he source is an opinion piece and hence fails rs for facts, in this case what Timmerman said. While it may be possible to find an rs, it should not be included unless included in mainstream sources, because of weight. If his claims are generally ignored then they should not be included. TFD (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nelson knows full well that Timmerman isn't just some random blogger mouthing off; he's a respected former defense correspondent and his claims about the US misrepresenting the key intercepted phone call for the Ghouta chemical attack were picked up as the sole specific intelligence issue mentioned by Rep Alan Grayson in his critical NYT op-ed about the U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 (15). As such, Timmerman's comments are clearly significant and it is beyond absurd to try to exclude them from an article to which they are so fundamentally relevant. Furthermore, this is entirely the wrong notice board: the claim is clearly attributed in the text and there can be no doubt that Timmerman is a reliable source for what Timmerman says. Podiaebba (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

TImmerman is an expert whose opinion is noted, not cited as fact. That's appropriate here, as commentaries from experts are encouraged, in certain situations, if they are contextualized. -Darouet (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the discussion:

Comparanda used by Koch

The comparanda used for translating Tartessian by Koch in Celtic From The West, Tartessian 2 and Celtic From the West 2 are the oldest attested forms of the Celtic languages concerned not Medieval Irish as was claimed by one editor for example he uses Oghamic ("Primitive") Irish then Old Irish if this is not available likewise with the other Celtic languages. I have removed the claim made by another editor that was not in the reference cited.Jembana (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jembana, Dr. David Stifter said that about the Medieval Irish innovations..."I do not share Joe's complete scepticism, but I can't see anything particularly Celtic at all. A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place." 18. It was linked above in case you did not see it. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your source is a discussion forum not a reliable source as per Wikipedia standards. It also isn't a published peer-reviewed source.Jembana (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate the statement I made in my first sentence which comes from reading the three peer-reviewed reliable sources named. They are observations as per WP:VERIFY.Jembana (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree, Jembana. Professor Dr. David Stifter is a highly reliable and respected source. He posted the very statement himself. His expertise is in the very area on which this topic is based. I read WP:VERIFY and your claim not solid. If you disagree, this can be posted on the noticeboards and they can decide.

His credentials:

Roinn na Sean-Ghaeilge/Department of Early Irish

Staff

Professor Dr. David Stifter

Professor David Stifter is the professor of Old Irish since 2011. He studied Latin, Russian and Indo-European linguistics in Vienna, and received his Mag. Phil. in 1998 for a thesis on the Old Irish influence on the Latin of the Nauigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis. He spent the year 1995/6 in Maynooth studying Old and Middle Irish with Prof. Kim McCone. In 2003 he was awarded the doctorate for a thesis on the didactics of Old Irish. From 2000–2008 he was contract assistant at the Department of Linguistics at the University of Vienna. During this time, he played a major role in establishing and developing the Celtic studies programme at the University of Vienna. He is secretary of the Societas Celtologica Europaea (http://www.celtologica.eu/). From 2006, he directed and worked in three different research projects, devoted to a dictionary of the Old Irish glosses in the Milan manuscript Ambr. C301 infr. (http://www.univie.ac.at/indogermanistik/milan_glosses.htm), an interactive etymological dictionary plus edition of texts of Lepontic (http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep?pojem=Main_Page), and a study of the linguistic remains of Celtic in Austria.

He has published widely on the Old and Middle Irish language and literature, and on the Continental Celtic languages (Celtiberian, Gaulish and Lepontic). His introductory handbook Sengoídelc. Old Irish for Beginners (Syracuse University Press 2006) has been adopted for teaching Old Irish in universities world-wide and was awarded the 2006 Michael J. Durkan Prize for Books on Language and :::Culture of the American Conference for Irish Studies. He is founder and editor of the interdisciplinary Celtic-studies journal Keltische Forschungen (Vienna 2006–) (http://www.univie.ac.at/keltische-forschungen/) and of its accompanying monograph series (Vienna 2010–). He co-edited several volumes in Celtic and Indo-European linguistics, among them the four-volume collection The Celtic World. Critical Concepts in Historical Studies (Routledge 2007).

His research interests are comparative Celtic linguistics (esp. Old Irish and Continental Celtic) and language contact in the ancient world and on the early medieval British Isles. 19 A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Can the statement be used since Professor Dr. David Stifter posted the comment himself? His credentials are about as excellent as one can have on a specific issue. I hope I formatted this correctly. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A.Tamar Chabadi did not include the following replies from me on this:

Stifter's credentials are not the issue A.Tamar Chabadi. I personally hold his work in high regard as I do for Koch - I equally admire his work on Lepontic as I do Koch's on Tartessian. The problem is with using a brief off-the-cuff reply from a discussion forum as a source as per WP:RS. There are wiki editors (including admins) weeding out such self-published web sources as we speak. They are not reliable sources and your assurances cannot make them so.Jembana (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as WP:VERIFY, A.Tamar Chabadi, there is a further issue with this source - it says: "A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place.". Note that this has no examples given and therefore is just a bald statement that cannot be peer-reviewed. Now to verify that Koch's use of other Celtic languages does not indeed rely heavily on Middle Irish developments (strange the ambiguous term "Medieval Irish" is used instead of Middle Irish in the post, but anyway), I need only read the basis for each inscription's translation in the 3 peer-reviewed texts that Koch has contributed to on Tartessian: Celtic From The West, Tartessian 2 and Celtic From The West 2 and I can only see from this that he has used Primitive Irish, Celtiberian, Hispano-celtic languages, Old Irish, Gaulish as a basis BEFORE looking for later comparanda to add to these. So the statement does not verify. Since you are in contact with Dr. Stifter, maybe you can get some examples from him that we can verify ?Jembana (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Jembana (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As a point of fact- self-published sources and statements by experts CAN and are indeed legitimately used and if there is indeed some "cabal" going around deleting them as implied above that editors and some admins "as we speak" are doing so... I suggest they quit it. It wasn't that long ago we had this debate and those that had the mistaken belief of what RS stood for were slapped down in the discussion. I suggest everyone reread the relevant policies instead of thinking it says that all RS must be third party, NO THEY MUST NOT!Camelbinky (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The source in question is a post on an electronic mailing list by someone purporting to be Stifter and on the personal say so of A.Tamar Chabadi. Are you saying he can use this source despite the fact that the bald statement concerning Koch's work contained therein doesn't pass WP:VERIFY on the material it is critical of ?Jembana (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Camelbinky!

Actually, Jembana, you are being highly misleading. I posted the above question here before you posted those comments on the "Tartessian" language talk page...anyone can see the timestamp. I, only today, saw your comments on the "Tartessian" Language talk page and here. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Accusation rejected. It appears from the timestamps that you pre-emptively posted here when you saw I was online and answering your reply on the Tartessian language page. As I pointed out in the reply you had missed the point.Jembana (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I am sorry, Jembana, that is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. How am I to know when you are online? Please enlighten me as to how that would work? Does Wikipedia have a green light like Yahoo! Messenger? If so, you are not my friend on here, so how would I then know that you are online? I am not on Wikipedia 24/7. I may check in every 12 hours or so. So you are obviously lying. You treat every one like an enemy out to get you. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be very loathe to use anything from a mailing list (or Usenet). Not that I wouldn't love to as I am on several academic lists, but I think that the problems in verifying that the text is without a doubt by the expert are too great. The off-the-cuff issue is another one. A blog by said expert would normally be fine. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller, so using anything a source from mailing list (or Usenet) like the one cited is not allowable then ?Jembana (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Jembana, I am she, not he. Secondly, It is clear that Professor Dr. David Stifter wrote the post. He even signed it as David. Ms. Lenore Fischer, even acknowledges him and the person who originally posted the question about Tartessian 2 @ the Celtic conference at Maynooth, acknowledges him. Maynooth is where Professor Dr. David Stifter works and has worked for some time now.

He states in the post that it is clear that he made as it comports very well with his credentials:

"As for Celtic continuity and typical traits of "Celtic ethnicity", Patrick Sims-Williams (Aberystwyth) gave a wonderfully entertaining and elucidating paper in the session that I chaired. He made the point that none of the classic topoi that are usually adduced to bolster up the cultural continuity between ancient and medieval Celtic cultures (e.g. headhunting, champion's portion, etc.) holds up to any kind of close inspection. His conclusion was that the only connecting factor between the various Celtic cultures is the fact that they are derived from a common linguistic ancestor, but that's it. A point that I am pretty much prepared to subscribe. I talked briefly to John Collis at some stage. He seemed to make a kind of disparaging remark about the linguistic definition of Celtic, which I found a bit surprising. But maybe I misunderstood him there; as I said, the chat was very brief, another thing that inevitably happens at such large venues."

Jembana wants this removed (not because the source is wrong or unverifiable) because he wants, by hook or crook, for "Tartessian" to be Celtic (it is not and the academic majority clear agrees with me or vice versa). In fact, Jembana, has been admonished for vandalizing the "Tartessian" page by loading it up with massive, undue amounts of materials from Koch's book, to the point that it looked like an advertisement for the book, with no dissenting academic opinions (which existed and are the majority) represented and also vandalizing other pages associated with the "Tartessian" topic. Just look at the "Tartessian" language talk page 20 to see the admonitions.

Professor Dr. David Stifter's credentials are from the official page of the National University of Maynooth. For, Jembana, to do this type of thing is, apparently, not unknown. Pettily calling into question, the expertise, of legitimate experts that disagree with his notion of how things should be. "Oh, how can we know that this is Professor Dr. David Stifter? It can't be him because he would never post in an academic forum dedicated to and moderated by academicians like himself. That would never happen. So the source cannot be reliable." That is absolute rubbish and Jembana knows this, at least, he and others should. John Koch publishes a book representing a distinctly minority and largely academically rejected opinion and Jembana eagerly wants to crazily load up the Wikipedia article with nothing but that. He is not concerned with accuracy, only with the promotion of his wrong-headed Celticist ideology. Being a Celticist is not bad at all, but being the type that Jembana is, is utterly deplorable to say the least about it.

Also the links are above within this discussion if anyone needs to see them. I am mentioning this just in case people overlooked them. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think that Camelbinky and Dougweller have between them pointed to the only policy guidance we can give on this one, and the balance will need to be found between editors. We can use online postings of obvious experts, especially if it is clear it was something thought-through, which seems to be the case. But Doug is also right to say that we normally say that this is not something to do too often. In favor of using it, my understanding is that this is a subject where there is not a lot published and the figures involved are the ones experts would be watching. It would be good if Stifter published his thoughts somewhere else though! As a compromise you could consider, what about writing in such a way that it is clear that the source is an online forum? Then at least our readers can be warned.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Andrew, I propose the following change in wording then:

FROM:

Since 2010, John T. Koch and Francisco Villar Liébana have argued that Tartessian is a Celtic language and that the texts can be translated. However, their proposals have been largely rejected by the academic community; the identification as Celtic relies on features specifically Middle Irish rather than Celtic in general and the script, which is "hardly suitable for the denotation of an Indo-European language, leaves ample room for interpretation."

TO:

Since 2010, John T. Koch and Francisco Villar Liébana have argued that Tartessian is a Celtic language and that the texts can be translated. However, their proposals have been largely rejected by the academic community and the script, which is "hardly suitable for the denotation of an Indo-European language, leaves ample room for interpretation.". In 2011, in the Old Irish message list, David Stifter claims that the identification as Celtic relies on features specifically Middle Irish rather than Celtic in general but gives no details.

Jembana (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with either one, Jembana. You and other editors can "edit-war" about the specifics. My contention was that Professor Dr. David Stifter's comment not be removed as it IS a valid and verifiable source. Also, the link to his comment is referenced or cited in the article. One has but to click the reference/ citation number to see where his comment came from. Again, either one seems quite fine. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks A.Tamar Chabadi. We will use Andrew's suggested change then.Jembana (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Source : http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444

Article : B.R.Ambedkar

Content : “In 1942-46 he (Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premknutsford25 (talk • contribs)

A website which describes him as "emperical philosopher" does not inspire confidence. It appears to be a legitimate government site, which does not mean that it's good for matters of history, but should be usable for uncontroversial facts. Is there some dispute abourt whether or not he did these things? Paul B (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:TM-Sidhi_program#Studies_in_peer-reviewed_journals have a stonewalling editor insisting that WP:PRIMARY studies on the effects of transendental meditation, which were performed by those associated with TM, are reliable sources, because WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS don't apply to social sciences (and somehow, the effect of meditation on the real world is a social science, and not some unknown physics or energy based science. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

At Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is this news story a reliable source for the following statements?

After clandestinely spending two months in Jobar, Damascus, several reporters for the French news media Le Monde personally witnessed the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons on civilians in the Jobar chemical attacks. French intelligence later said that samples from the Jobar attack in April had confirmed the use of sarin.

The French newspaper Le Monde reported in the months before the Ghouta attacks that its journalists embedded among opposition fighters had personally witnessed several chemical attacks on a smaller scale by the Syrian Army against rebel positions.

Additional discussion can be reviewed at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Jobar. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm I dont think it is. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

We know. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate on Kudzu1 (talk)'s comment, Blade-of-the-South (talk) is extremely active on the Ghouta chemical attack and related pages. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And has made no effort to hide his personal POV, nor any effort to edit in an NPOV way, openly admitting that he seeks out sources that contradict "al Qaeda" and "Western" "bias". So I find this "hmmm I don't think so" act to be highly disingenuous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

VQuakr: When seeking outside opinion, please represent both sides of the discussion. No one is disputing that the quote you gave is enough to back the claim. The problem is that it comes from the article summary and not from its full text. The full text never describes such an event. The only thing it has is one reporter witnessing people with symptoms. There is no way to know these are chemical weapons, whether they were used by the Syrian Army, and were they used on civilians (a claim made elsewhere). The question is whether a full text is a more reliable source than its summary. That's all.--Swawa (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swawa Thats my view also. Its biased. Thats what the hmmm meant. BTW Kudzu1 dial down the hysterics Blade-of-the-South talk 05:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Swawa and Blade-of-the-South: I provided the source and the two sections of article text it is used to support, without commentary and certainly without misrepresentation. I find both of your accusations that I presented any "sides" of the discussion completely spurious. VQuakr (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted Blade-of-the-South talk 06:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

An eyewitness account by Le Monde journalists is reliable, and not only that, it is an important source and should not be ignored. What is much more dubious is the juxtaposition of this with the statement about French intelligence confirmation of sarin. That would need its own source anyway, and should not be placed next to the summary of the Le Monde report in such a way as to advance the argument that the Le Monde report is necessarily correct in all details. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I actually oversimplified in my quote above; the French intel portion is separately cited but I see your point about the implied cause/effect in their order. I will see if there is a way to make clear that these are very intellecutally independent reports. VQuakr (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmejudith. Note that the question is not whether Le Monde journalists accounts are reliable. The question is should we use a summary of the article which describes events that are not found in the full text of the article.--Swawa (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the question is whether the source provided is a reliable source for the statements quoted from the article. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean, can we use the introduction to the report, written in Paris by Le Monde editors. Yes, but it is better to use the precise information from the report body. Use direct quotation if necessary. If the report is doubted in reliable sources, you must use them too. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmejudith. What do you think we should do if the introduction describes events in a manner that is not supported by the full text? Specifically - the intro says reporters witnessed an attack by the Syrian Army with chemical weapons on civilians, but the full text only describes the militants and the reporter suffering respiratory irritation and vomiting (i.e. no indication it was the Syrian Army, no indication it was not a riot-control agent, and no mention of civilians).--Swawa (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The editorial voice of Le Monde - in this case the introduction - is reliable for news. (Headlines, on the other hand, are not generally reliable). If the introduction were inconsistent with the report, we would have a problem, but there does not seem to be an inconsistency, only that the introduction makes a more definite claim. These are recent events and there may be inconsistencies and debatable points. We follow the debates; we don't lead them. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to WP so not always sure what's acceptable and what's not. Knowing how papers work and their strong incentives for outrageous stories, my common sense tells me to always prefer the full text to the summary, especially in such a sensitive subject. Can you explain what in WP guidelines goes against this? Thanks. --Swawa (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is referenced as a source of information on its founder and Chief Editor, Julian Assange, and Edward Howard. The referenced content is more like a rant on a blog and is not balanced and objective. Please remove them as a reliable source on articles that are directly related to their agenda.Patroit22 (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had my Edwards wrong. I meant Edward Snowden.Patroit22 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about your concerns? We don't expect the references we use to comply with WP:NPOV. We expect our contributors to use allreferences in a way that complies with WP:NPOV. So, if, for the sake of argument, WikiLeaks itself covers Assange and Snowden in a biased way, why should that matter if the contributors who reference that coverage, comply with WP:NPOV?

If you think material from the WikiLeaks site is being referenced in articles here in a way that you think is biased, is there a reason you aren't voicing your concerns about that apparent bias on those article's talk pages? Geo Swan (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have. Pro WikiLeak editors,in my opinion, stick to their agenda that parrots the WikiLeaks web position.Patroit22 (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158
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.