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.

This is one Cnfusing place --No Idea if this is posted in appropriate place --OR how to FIND same.

Community where I live: full of creative people, structures and beautiful geography, some reasons why it has a page here. I have a website about the community (every aspect), started three years ago, with Sidebar links to everything a neighbor would want, which is why I attempted to add the page, under "external links" --but promptly got notice: 'a bot will remove your link'

So I'm asking: a.) why --isn't blog allowed b.) if I am the author/owner of the blog and its contents: why can't I add a link (of the blog) to community page? --All the material is original, neutral (except for political news) nothing inappropriate, crude, vulgar or others' material. So what's the prob? Thanks for help, Poppy

That's another page. Someone will mention it soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia has high standards regarding cites and external links, and blogs fail to meet those standards.

Specifically, here's what Wikipedia's policy on verifiability has to say on the subject:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Wikipedia's policy on external links specifically lists blogs as links normally to be avoided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To Quest: thank you for replying (aren't you impressed I Found this page again, lol, I am!) I appreciate the material you listed, my *search wasn't as successful. Ironically: I usually have the same view, about blogs, most (90%?) are junk; my background in English and ethics, standards grounded in journalism prevent me from producing typical blog type stuff; doing things even daily newspapers do, so (*blush*) my view of the neighborhood-grounded blog: NOT the usual rag of sort. e.g. several pages, with cites, on controversial issue of our reservoirs, surrounding meadow, and future use. e.g., Under "Food" all external links to Forums, boards, websites - pre-set to community restaurants. e.g., recently a series of crimes occurred (for the first time in years) and all kinds of people popped in looking for news, up-date, notice/details of police-community meeting to discuss.

Blog is not my personal 'daily travails in the 'hood' sort, but links to all categories, in/related to the community. Ergo: I thought it would be useful to readers of the wiki Page; apparently I'm not as neutral as wiki wants? Could I list it if I cited myself as the owner?

Ah well, would you take a look, see if blog is acceptable? I'll check back tomorrow for reply. Thanks for reply, Poppy (--I don't know how to sign off with the icon/sig thing)

I don't know which article you are referring to or the blog either, but based on what you've said so far, no, it does not seem like it would be an acceptable for external link. Blogs are only acceptable if the author of the blog is an established expert on this specific topic and has been published by reliable third-party publications. Has the blog's author been published by any reliable sources about this specific topic? If so, how many?

To sign your posts, just include four tildes at the end. Just like this but without the spaces: ~ ~ ~ ~. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I put a dubious tag on the claim in the Video assist article that Jerry Lewis has a US patent on the technology. Other editors removed the tag on the theory that the patent is widely believed to exist.

Ordinarily, such patents are easy to find. I tried to find the patent, and couldn't. Although such a patent would almost certainly be mentioned as prior-art in later patents, there are no such references. There's a well-known patent by actress Hedy Lamarr that is trivially easy to find and frequently mentioned by later patents. In short, the factual evidence does not support the claim in the article.

The reference in the article only shows that this patent is widely thought to exist, not that it does, and in fact the author of that reference says he has no evidence that the patent exists.

Please see the discussion here: Talk:Video_assist#Jerry_Lewis_patent

I hate having to say this, but I have no particular opinion on the matter. I respect Mr. Lewis and there is a vast amount of evidence that he made substantial contributions to the development of this technology. That's basically what the Jerry Lewis article says, and I'm fine with the language there. But the claim in THIS article is that he has a patent, so there should be a reference to support that claim.

Thanks.67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced now. For something uncontroversial like "there are 24 hours in a day" it's obnoxious to demand a source, but I think it was reasonable for you to suggest a source was needed for something not immediately obvious like the Jerry Lewis patent -- I know a lot of trivia, and a lot of legal history, but I didn't know that. THF (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand-- what is sourced now? The claim that Lewis has a patent is still not sourced. The claim that he is credited with the invention is, but that is a separate claim.67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The cited source says that he got a patent for it. (The cite might be wrong, but the Wikipedia standard is verifiability.) If the argument is that the source is not reliable because it's wrong, that's a different question. It could well be an urban legend (one even repeated by Jessica Biel at the Oscar ceremonies and by Lewis himself, and you could be the one to debunk it: best bet is to take it up with Snopes. My own OR shows that this could be an urban legend; there's no patent by the name often credited to the one Lewis claims to have had. For $2.95, you can check out this article, which may be the answer you're looking for, or may not. THF (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the cited source told me he doesn't have any evidence for his own statement that Lewis has such a patent. But this isn't about that source. It's about the fact that I put a dubious tag on a specific claim in an article, and the tag has been removed because that claim is widely believed to be true. I'd think such a tag could only be removed if the claim has, you know, factual support somewhere, so that the claim isn't dubious. How in heck does "widespread belief" constitute a reliable source?

I appreciate the point about verifiability, but I think this is a special case that needs special consideration. The verifiability policy says the burden of proof is on the editor adding a factual claim. I don't think an editor satisfied that burden by saying that other people believe the same thing, no matter how reputable they are. If a US patent exists, there's exactly one way to verify it: provide a patent number. I don't think that widespread belief is a reasonable alternative to that standard in this case. And that's why I'm here-- to see if there's a consensus on that point, or if not, to build one.

I also appreciate that article, but Songer's work in the area began in 1968, long after Lewis was said to have received the patent (around 1956). 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This hinges on the exact wording in the article. If the wording is that Lewis had a patent, then I agree, we need better sources to verify that statement. If, on the other hand, the wording is that a given author believes he had a patent, then the source THF gives is reliable (as it discusses that author's belief). It is the difference between a statement of fact, and a statement of opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I suggest we change the Video assist article to say "Comedian and director Jerry Lewis is credited with inventing this system, although some similar systems existed..." which matches the language in the Jerry Lewis article.

That would eliminate the specific claim that he has a patent. If I can find the patent-- and I'm still looking-- I'll add the number to both articles. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) removed a comment that Chuck Baldwin opposes interracial marriage. The statement was sourced to a BET article detailing Chuck's political opinions in which they made the comment that Chuck Baldwin believes that interracial marriage is a from of white genocide. It seems like this is both a WP:RS and WP:BLP issue, but since the original verbiage in the article was fairly neutral, I am assuming that the RSN was the place to go.

I searched around to see if I could source the statement elsewhere, but the best I could do is link it to his opinion of the book Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants here but without listening to probably dozen of sermons, if he has even left the questionable material available, I doubt we'll get better until a mainstream media source gets bored enough to crucify him.

I haven't reverted it yet, as BLP is still an issue, but do we have a policy for requiring sources to be sourced? Burzmali (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof especially in BLP situations. If we are going to say that someone opposes interracial marriage, over 40 years after the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation laws, we better have solid proof. I would suggest great caution, and either not using it at all, or else start it "According to BET, ..." My advice would be that if you have nothing more than that, to leave it out. I think the BLP issue is paramount.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the BET summary of the candidate had said "Likes pancakes" under "Stuff you may not have know", I would have said it is a reliable enough source; but since the claim ("endorses the viewpoint that interracial relationships are a form of white genocide") is significantly more serious, and concerns a BLP, I would have to agree that the source is not sufficient by itself. Unless we find independent corroboration, it would be prudent to leave it out. Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would add that the deleted language you mention differs considerably from what BET said. "Endorses the viewpoint" might mean that Baldwin didn't say it himself, but when asked about someone else's speech or book, said something that favored the speech or book, perhaps not even realizing the full contents. Lots of possibilities here, and since even the BET quote is rather POV (white genocide?) suggest we stay far away from this until there is an independent source.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Chuck Baldwin didn't win the endorsements of every major white supremacists by being a friend to people of all races and creeds. The term "white genocide" is a direct quote from James Edwards on whose radio show, The Political Cesspool, Baldwin has been a guest. Without listening to each of the radio shows to find the ones with Baldwin and the ones with decrying interracial marriage, it is hard to make that a definite statement as to his politics, but that's would secondary sources are for, no? Burzmali (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. BET might take the position that appearing on Edwards' show means Baldwin "endorses" Edwards' views.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently ran into an article on sohh.com, but I'm not sure if this website would be considered reliable and if it would be deemed reliable if it went through GA, FL or FA. DiverseMentality 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It dont think it meets the guidelines for a WP:EL (fan site, blog etc.,), Let alone, WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of the above mentioned is questioned, and a user removed material sourced to a book authored by them 1. This removal (not the first one) is based on un-proven reliability.

The questioned book 2 was published in 2006, and despite being a recent publication has already been cited by numerous other authors 3. It was written by two professors, Brunnbauer 45 and Sundhausen 6, and a PD, Esch 7, all historians and experts in the field the book is about (modern Eastern European history). The book was published by LIT 8, a publishing house specialized on science.

All the informations are easily verifiable (googleable) and though the sites are in German, the basic information should either be understood by non-German speakers, too (eg "Professor" and "Universität foo"), with other key words like "Geschichte Osteuropas" (history of Eastern Europe) a web translation will turn out a result. Therefore, I think that an English speaker should be able to retrieve the key information about the authors within a few minutes. Additionally, the disputed quote was given in the footnote, also the respective URL, and a translation was provided on talk 9.

The questions I have are:

• Am I right that the source is reliable?
• Do I have to further prove (if yes, to what extend?) the reliability if the URL of the book preview, authors and title are given, and as shown above further information about authors and book are easily retrievable online using the information given in the footnote?

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The book seems like a reliable source in every respect. The quoted article by Prof. Detlef Brandes seems as reliable as a source can get. I don't see how there could a problem here. No need for any further proof. Offliner (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Detlef Brandes writes about Czechoslovakia. His expertise in Polish matters is doubtful. Poland isn't Czechoslovakia nor Russia, what people in the West generally ignore. Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Brandes does not write only about Czechoslovakia.

"In seiner Habilitation über Großbritannien und seine osteuropäischen Alliierten in den Jahren 1939 bis 1943 beschäftigte er sich mit der Politik der Exilregierungen Polens, der Tschechoslowakei und Jugoslawiens unter anderem hinsichtlich der Vertreibung und Zwangsaussiedlung der Deutschen aus dem östlichen Europa – ein Thema, das er in einer Studie über die Pläne zur Zwangsaussiedlung der Deutschen aus Polen und der Tschechoslowakei wieder aufgriff. In seiner neuesten Monographie widmet er sich der Geschichte der Sudetendeutschen in der Zeit vor dem Münchner Abkommen. Ein weiteres Forschungsfeld von Brandes bildet die Geschichte der Deutschen in Russland und der Sowjetunion, wobei vor allem die deutschen Kolonisten und Balkansiedler in Neurussland und Bessarabien in der Zeit von 1751 bis 1914 sowie über die Sibiriendeutsche in der Sowjetunion im Mittelpunkt stehen."

It seems quite clear than he has more than enough expertise in the subject of the article in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, even in "Polish matters." Offliner (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This book is a WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? And your source is?Xx236 (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:RS, whether the information in it is correct or not is another issue, and I suspect is where the dispute lies. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The anthology's publisher (LIT), editors (Ulf Brunnbauer, Michael G. Esch, and Holm Sundhausen), the author of the cited chapter (Detlef Brandes), and positive review in American Historical Review (quote: "This book adds to the substantial amount of research about “ethnic cleansing” that has been published in recent years in the German language." ... "It is a virtue of the volume that it unites authors from various disciplines and nationalities. The essays also provide a good overview of recent research on ethnic cleansing in various European countries.") establish that this is a reliable, and, in fact, a good source to use on wikipedia. That doesn't, of course, make all its contents indisputably true, but if there is a controversy, present the alternate view too; don't simply exclude this source. By the way, while referencing this work, you should cite the actual article and its author(s), and not only the book and editors. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes if there is a controversy or others dispute this view, you can present it as "so and so scholar argues that ...." (see WP:WTA for words usage), by stating opinions as opinions and not as facts. like this the article will be more neutral and all POVs will be represented. --Nvineeth (talk)

"Brandes does not write only about Czechoslovakia" - Brandes is competent (probably) when writing about Czechoslovakia. He writes sometimes about Poland and creates problems. Here is an academic opinion about his another book 10. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the courtesy of pointing out the relevant section of the review: "this is not an explicit comparison between the Czech and Polish cases. In general, the Czechs (and Sudeten German exile politicians) get the overwhelming majority of Brandes' attention. When the Poles do appear, it is rarely in a comparative context." - that review just says that he doesn't make a direct comparison between the Czech and Polish cases. That is not "creating problems", as you would have it, and the reliability of the evidence and conclusions is not questioned.

User:Nvineeth offers some good advice above, which I would strongly endorse. Knepflerle (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "presenting opposing POVs" is that an opposing scholary POV has not yet been presented, and the removals I addressed here were based solely on questioned reliability of the source, which the removing user still does not see confirmed. I am all for integrating or adding other views, if just someone would present one. In any case I will take the advise of Abecedare, and if we come to presenting opposing views, I will follow Nvineeth' advise, too, which is regular practice I do not question. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - my preceding comment was addressed to Xx236. If there are scholarly views which disagree with those presented in Skäpperöd's source, he should include them in the article with citations. (Glad everyone agrees that Nvineeth's advice is good practice for all of us!) Knepflerle (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be a simple question. In relation to the article Feminine essence theory of transsexuality. This article is about the basic "woman trapped in a mans body" sort of story given to explain transsexualism. This particular variant of the idea is not edorsed by the APA, or any professional psychologist or physicians. I have a number of sources on this idea. The problem is that all of them could be considered self published depending on how you look at that. I will start with the strongest one.

1. Ts-Si.org "Why "HBS/TS" instead of TG?" This one seems to be the strongest. Does the fact that a group of people came together and formed a .org make what is published here a RS for this topic. It is one of the most authoratative on the thinking about what is termed HBS. Or is this self published?
2. womenborntranssexual.com This one is much weaker because the website takes the form of a blog. However it summs up the thinking nicely.
3. HBS International "What is Harry Benjamin's Syndrome?" This one is by a .org must like the first.

Searching google scholar brings up only "Unveiling the Mystique of Gender Dysphoria Syndrome"Margaret L. Colucciello RN, PhD11 Is the closest thing to this found in Google Scholar. In this case the word syndrome I think was used simply to avoid the word disorder and it's stigma. Are any of these acceptable? One may say well if it's not in a better publication it's not noteable... first of all anything in the TS communit takes a long time for mainstream media to get wind of. Second google the term, thousands of hits come up.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. I couldn't find anything on the first that indicated it had a strong editorial policy. It sounds like a controversial issue, so you'll want extra strong sources, not questionable ones. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

please take a look at the situation over at Talk:Sum 41 discography. Basically, there are multiple 3rd party sources that say that this EP is an EP, there are also multiple 3rd party sources that label it as a studio album. But there are 2 PRIMARY sources (The EP, and the Band themselves) that have stated that it is an EP, and not a studio album. Isn't it true that primary sources over-ride secondary source, especially in this case (respond on my talk page please) 70.242.179.192 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't take anyone long to verify that many reliable sources mention the idea that the Armenians are among descendants of Mitanni. Yet I have seen anyone who tries to mention these reliable sources on the Mitanni article, get called a "troll" and threatened with blocking, article locking, etc. So are all the cited authors who wrote about this, "trolls" as well? Or is there some foul play here that is purposefully trying to exclude relevant information, exactly as described at WP:BIAS? Readers researching Mitanni can easily find out elsewhere that some modern-day groups do claim descent from them, and these readers probably wouldn't want this relevant info suppressed by editors who think that they personally "know better" than the sources, and that therefore these sources must not even be mentioned. The fact that they don't even have a single source rebutting this peer-reviewed view, is summarily dismissed by saying "Well that's because we know it's so wrong, why would we even bother rebutting it with a source".

This is exactly how we get such vast discrepancies between what wikipedia says, and what other sources say. It only takes about one second on google books or google scholar, to find copious scholarly books (NOT blogs) that mention the Armenian-Mitanni connection. But it seems that there are hidden, higher standards than "verifiability" at play, and that is the "prestige" that certain editors give one another, and the "cause" of "anti-nationalist globalism" which regularly denies all published evidence that any modern people could possibly be descended from any ancient people. (So the stork brought them, or what?) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it takes "about one second on google books or google scholar to find copious scholarly books" that illustrate your point, you should provide citations to some of them here. Otherwise, your post looks more like a rant than a constructive attempt to solve an editing problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. DB at Talk:Mitanni has even admitted that the Armenians are likely descendants of Mitanni via the Hurrians, but insists that it shouldn;t be mentioned, and furthermore, he admits that there are sources, but says they don't count because he thinks they were written by "Armenian crackpots" and "Soviets" whom he claims to have "debunked". In response I just pasted the following comment and citation at the talkpage:

As I research more, it appears that after the Indo-Aryan character of some Mitanni names became known in the late 19th century, several scholars wrote on this, and it is still considered by linguists as evidence for an Armeno-Aryan proto-group. Henry Hall (Egyptologist) was one of of several to suggest this, see Ancient History of the Near East from the earliest Times to the Battle of Salamis p. 475 - was he an Armenian crackpot, or a Soviet? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This still sounds ranty. Henry Hall died in 1930, and without more recent sources, there's no reason to assume that he represents a prominent viewpoint today.

Other issues you mention seem to relate to WP:UNDUE. If crackpots believe that the Mitanni are the ancestors of the Hurrians, who are the ancestors of the Armenians, but the scholarly consensus is otherwise, mentioning the crackpot opinion in Mitanni is likely undue weight. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scholarly consensus is otherwise"? Haven't seen a single indication other than bald assertion. RSS please.

Then there's this, but since the author is Armenian, he must be one of the "crackpots" DB refers to:

"The same applies to the anthropological strata of Armenia, whose chronology is stated by Professor A. Hatch as follows: Subarean basic stratum dating from 3000 BC. Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum dating from 2000 BC. Mosch-Muski-Aryan-Phryge stratum dating from 1176 BC. Hatti major infiltration into Armenia 1200 BC. Khald-Urartean rule in Armenia 9th century BC. Phryge-Armen rule in Armenia beginning 650 BC." 12 Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, please read more carefully. I'm not making any assertion what the scholarly consensus is, or isn't. What I'm saying is, unless you have a more recent source, there is no reason to assume that a source from the early 20th century represents current scholarly consensus. If, as you claim, there are tons of sources on Google scholar it shouldn't be a problem to present more recent material.

The quote you've provided doesn't say that the Armenians are the descendants of the Mitanni. It says that the Armenian language has a Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum. That's not the same thing as genetic affiliation. In any case, the book you linked to is published by indoeuropeanpublishing.com, a print-on-demand press. This is little better than a vanity publisher, so this book is not a reliable source. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, please read more carefully. The quote I've provided doesn't say the Armenian language has Harri-Mitanni-Aryan stratum. It specifically says (as I quoted above) "The same applies to the anthropological strata of Armenia". I have provided a more recent source verifying that this POV exists, but you are still coming up with various pretexts for suppressing the sources without even so much as a contrary opinion ever being published. The sources are all either too old, or they are "too recent". Tell me, exactly what age of a source would you like, and I'll try to find it, if there is any such acceptable date range for a published idea you wish to exclude. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in response to your attack on the publishing site, Here's the same 1958 book at the University of Chicago. But I guess it doesn't require any source or reference if your opinion that he's a "crackpot" is just somehow... right... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"anthrpological strata of Armenia"? Ok, I suppose the passage you quoted is talking about material culture, not language. This still doesn't support the notion that the Armenians are descendants of the Mitanni. And, hosting a chapter of a book on a personal website, even one with an .edu suffix, doesn't make a book reliable. The book in question, History of Armenia by Vahan_Kurkjian, was published by the Armenian General Benevolent Union of America in 1958; this is obviously not an academic press, and considering that Kurkjian was the founder of the organization, one may doubt whether the book was subject to a strenuous editing process. Nor, if we can trust his Wikipedia article, was Kurkjian a trained archaeologist or historian. This book doesn't look like it meets WP:RS.

By the way, Til Eulenspiegel, a bit less hostility might be helpful. Interpreting my comments as an "attack on the publishing site" seems a bit paranoid. This is the reliable sources noticeboard, of course we're going to look at who published a book to see if it's a reliable source. That's what this noticeboard is about. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The book in question is not a reliable source, even if a chapter is on a university site, nor does it say what you seem to think it says. This one published by Routledge 13 is, and doesn't support the idea that the Armenians are descendants of the Mitanni. dougweller (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact that source you just gave does support the idea that Armenians are decendants of the Mitanni; The Kingdom of Armenia by Chahin devotes much space to discussing the Mitanni, their relation to the Hurrians, and the Hurrians' relation to the Armenians. The sourece I gave also supports this, but it's funny how you say the source is not reliable AND I'm misinterpreting it. It lists the Mitanni among the anthropological stratum of Armenians, how do you interpret it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

this thread is flawed from line one, because there aren't "many reliable sources mention the idea that the Armenians are among descendants of Mitanni". Don't confuse this claim with "it is plausible that the Armenians have Mitanni people among their ancestors", because this would force us to mention the Armenians at mitochondrial Eve, just because all Armenians are among the offspring of Mitochondrial Eve. The Mitanni kingdom flourished 3,300 years ago, and if you know anything about genealogy, this means that everyone in Southwest Asia, and probably most people in Eurasia and Africa, are "descended from the Mitanni".

As for the claimed "RSs", there are none known. Witness this revision, which shows the hallmarks of pov-pushing, with "possibly "Armeno-Aryan", origin ... regarded by many historians as among the ancestors of the modern day Armenians" (pure weasling), garnished with 13(!) footnotes rather than a single quotable RS. For your edification, the 13 footnotes amount to:

these indiscriminately mix random urls (allnewsweb.com, touregypt.net... -- it remains a mystery why we should quote those when it is so "easy" to come up with real RS), and sources that do in fact argue for either the Anatolian hypothesis or the Armenian hypothesis (which are incidentially mutually exclusive, but never mind that), and imply that scholars arguing for either of these automatically support "Armenian Mitanni" which is utter nonsense.

Now Til knows all of this, of course, being a veteran editor, but he is also a veteran pusher of ethnic crackpottery. He should also know better, I suppose, than calling me names like "racist" for removing the above clutter of "references", but I suppose after getting away with his approach to Wikipedia for years, he doesn't see any reason not to.

Til at this point isn't an asset to Wikipedia as much as a liability, and if I wasn't his target in this case, I would consider imposing a block on him for his recent exploit. Briefly, he is wasting everyone's time over stuff that has been discussed exhaustively two years ago, and he isn't doing it politely and innocently, but in a manner that really begs that somebody should show him the door. --dab (𒁳) 16:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we cannot verify that the school of thought actually exists in print, because the sources are obviously wrong and thus "unreliable", therefore we do not mention this school of thought at Mitanni as existing at all, am I reading all this correctly? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to the Mitanni in the index of Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.) The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times: Vol. I: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). Since this is a pretty standard work on Armenian history this might give us some indication of the importance (or rather lack of it) of the Mitanni theory. --Folantin (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... so the fact that no scholars have ever even rebutted this theory, would be irrelevant then. All the ones who do mention it are magically obviated, by the fact that another source does not - hence the sources that do mention it are all wrong, and may not be cited. This really is an unprecedented high standard of verifiability, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What kind of logic is that? --Folantin (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your point. There really is no dispute among scholars that Armenians are among the descendants of Mitanni, via the Hurrians. I say this because haven't seen even one scholar say otherwise, or say "No they weren't" to contradict the experts who say they were. But you found one who doesn't mention them at all, and if I'm not mistaken you are suggesting that this somehow cancels out the ones that do mention it. If this is a new precedent for standards of verifiability, it should be clarified soon, hopefully so as to keep us from all these unfortunate charges of "OR", "trolls", "crackpots", page-locks, threats of blocks, etc. in lieu of actual scholarly rebuttals Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence of language allows us to construct a tentative model of Armenian origins. Related Phrygian and Armenian populations in the middle of the second millennium BC crossed from southeastern Europe into Anatolia. The people whose descendants became the Armenians were the ones who moved the farthest eastward. The latter took their ethnic name hay from the Hattian people whose state they overran. They settled down, learning the words for some local fruits and other everyday items from the native Hurro-Urarteans. Other aspects of their culture had the common Mediterranean stamp." (The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times: Vol. I, pp.23-24). --Folantin (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've given a link to Google Books and The Kingdom of Armenia By M. Chahin - search it for Armenians, it seems to be saying basically what the book above says. The Armenians are not the original inhabitants of Armenia it appears. dougweller (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Armenians descend from Mitanni, I know nothing about that and I haven't seen any reliable current sources for that in this discussion, but you have to be careful here not to confuse linguistic and cultural descendence with genetical descendence. Those people that moved in from the west and brought their language and culture won't have replaced everyone who has been living there before. Most Europeans speak Indo-European languages now, but are for some 80% descendent from people who lived there before and spoke all together different languages. Similarly, Indians did not 'come from' the west just because part of their languages and cultures did. Of course, this only goes to show that it is really dubious what sense it makes to say that this people descend from that other people. Just my two cents.sephia karta | di mi 00:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this is simple. It seems that there are reliable sources that say the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni. It seems that there may be reliable sources that disagree. So the key is to discuss the fact that there is disagreement, present both views and stop trying to "prove" one side and "disprove" the other. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"It seems that there are reliable sources that say the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni." I don't think we've seen any yet. From the sources given in this thread, we cannot even conclude that the opinion that the Armenians are descended from the Mitanni is a claim that is made in any current mainstream scholarship. So I don't think this is a situation where we need to present both views--the alleged controversy doesn't seem to exist. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barring finding some real sources, Akhilleus has it right. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

14

At Amway there is ongoing discussion about whether or not this site is a reliable source for commentry on the company Amway. The site contains self-published info relating to Amway (specifically this site Amway analysis is used as reference). The arguement against is basically that Hassan is a SPS and is not an expert on Amway, therefor his opinion on Amway and whether or not it's a cult should not be used in the article. Opinions from this board will be welcome. Shot info (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he seems to be a real author and expert on cults.15 I think using him to say Amway is connected to cultish behaviour is a little to controversial to use his website, though. I would recommend looking for something a bit stronger. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference on the article Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) using this source from the International Society for Genetic Genealogy. From their website the organization's mission is -"is to advocate for and educate about the use of genetics as a tool for genealogical research, and promote a supportive network for genetic genealogists."

The organization compiles information from various publications and creates genetic trees. That are available on its website such as Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2009. Where it states: ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) is not affiliated with any registered, trademarked, and/or copyrighted names of companies, websites and organizations. This Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree is for informational purposes only, and does not represent an endorsement by ISOGG"

The initial impression I have is that they are a private organization that provides a support network for genealogists. They do a good job of compiling information, however, they do not seem to have an established publishing system, or a system of peer review. For controversial matters, should they qualify as a reliable source. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To all readers, please refer to this discussion on the same subject that's already under way. Causteau (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If a source is routinely considered good enough for peer-reviewed specialist articles then it is good enough for Wikipedia. This has been pointed out to Wapondaponda 3 different times in different forums of discussion. Yes, to take one argument that has been mentioned on another forum, the sources are just the same academic sources as used in specific Wikipedia articles on detailed subjects. That is indeed because this is intended to collect all the information, which is not collected anywhere else. For a phylogeny, collecting all latest information makes all the difference, by definition. So to ignore the ISOGG webpage would be to make the Wikipedia articles deliberately wrong. Wapondaponda's concern clearly has more to do with specific "controversial matters" and therefore I disagree with the approach of questioning an important RS without being very specific about what those controversial matters are. Specific controversial matters should be dealt with as specific controversial matters?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I need your help for deciding which sources and which viewpoint has more weight. There has been a dispute over realistic estimation of Iraqi Turkmans and Syrian Turkmans for weeks. Some certain editors with a clear and heavy POV are are revert-warring on those articles, with no verifiable source, adding the most unrealistic figure for those articles, proven to be exaggerations by Turkman nationalists such as ITF. Please help us to solve this dispute. Ellipi (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that their only source (apart from a bunch of random urls) is UNPO, which by defination is a political organisation forming of and supporting ethnic nationalists around the world. There is a very huge gap between the neutral estimations by third-party and verifiable sources, which puts the estimation of Iraqi Turkmens as 1-2% (ca. 300-500 thousands) of the country, and these users' exaggerated figures which claim a funny lie of 2 to 3.5 millions. Ellipi (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

UNPO is not a reliable source. I persume with the interest in Iraq, you can check sources from 2008 from google books16 --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done, but my edits are reverted. Ellipi (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would report this to the Wikipedia:FTN. I checked the websites that are used and none of them meet WP:RS. They should all be removed. If the support does not come from there, go report it to the admins and get the article ip protected. Make sure to mention this:17 (page 11 in the bottom) in Wikipedia:FTN. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll report it to Wikipedia:FTN. Thank you. Ellipi (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Panthkhalsa (talk · contribs) has been adding a lot of spurious claims to the articles like Mazhabi, Hari Singh Nalwa, Udham Singh and Bhai Mati Das. Basically, his edits center around the claims that notable Sikh personalities like Hari Singh Nalwa and Bhai Mati Das belong to his community ("Mazhabi"). Simple searches on Google Books prove him wrong: Hari Singh Nalwa belonged to the Uppal Khatri community18, while Bhai Mati Das was a Mohyal (this is what the Wikipedia article originally stated). Besides these, the user has been adding a lot of propaganda-style material based on the scientific racism theories (e.g. "Those Mazbhis of lighter skin ranging from white to tan brown, with sharper facial features, tall in height and sometimes light eye colour are considered of Aryan blood. However the vast majority are off darker skin to black complexion with blunt facial features and tend to short in height. These mazbhis are considered to be the peoples from the Dravidan races captured in battle and enslaved by Aryan invaders on the Indian sub continent."19).

After I confronted him/her, the user has come up with two references, both of which seem highly dubious to me:

• "Bhai Gurdas warr 11 page 125" -- the user claims that "Bhai Gurdass has written Perra Chandalia", which proves his point. However, googling for Perra Chandlia returns no Google results, and none of the translations available on the net substantiate the user's claim.
• A book "Guru Ke Bette 1st edition 2000 by Jaswant Singh" -- the book doesn't seem to have any ISBN or OCLC entry, and Googling for the title "Guru Ke Bette" (Punjabi for "Guru's sons) doesn't return any relevant results. Googling for author's name will not be helpful, since Jaswant Singh is a very common Punjabi name. If this book indeed exists, it's probably a non-notable self-published book that doesn't classify as a reliable source.

Any pointers? utcursch | talk 16:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that Bhai Gurdass's works qualify as primary source, which is fine for quoting but not for interpretation, and we must use secondary sources. Try looking in google books and if you cannot find these books, take the necessary action. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

The article List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population is almost solely based on the World Gazetteer data. This source has been widely criticised on the Talk-page but I would like an independent view on its reliability.

Ghaag (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this is a WP:RS. The site seems to be maintained by a single user (For Ex: the faqs say "I") and we are not sure about the information available in the site 20. Does not seem like a WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine Almanac uses it.21 Good enough for Time is way good enough for wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know that weblogs in general are not a reliable source. But the Spirit of Mystery weblog is being written by the crew of a small boat that is sailing to Australia. It is a sort of online diary of events during the journey as experienced by the crew. I've not used it yet in the Spirit of Mystery article, but would like to pad out the details of Mark Maidment's accident with info from the weblog if it is considered to meet RS criteria. What do other editors think about the use of this particular blog? Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at self published source, it sounds like it would be reliable for info about the author, but maybe not about a crewmate. Not sure. Is the info going to be controversial? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Info is not going to be controversial, just exact dates/times. Of course, if these are reported elsewhere then that source will replace the blog. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Meets all the requirements of WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Celebrity Sleuth a reliable enough source? I know it's a magazine that publishes photos and screencaps of nude celebrities, but I came across an issue (Volume 11, #1; 1997) that was all heights and measurements of hundreds of female celebrities, and it even detailed its sources, explaining that it scoured through thousands of sources, and rejected all but the most reliable. It rejected, for example, press releases, tabloid articles and studio stats because those were sources for publicity and not authenticity, and listed the seven sources they judged to be most reliable. The following list is quoted verbatim from the issue:

1. Model agency books and rate cards {the measurements have to be accurate, or the client's clothes won't fit};
2. Dress designer/costumer records and recollections {essentially, they'd done the taping for us}, as well as celebrity brassieres personally inspected and photographed by the Sleuth {the best source for these informative items is NORMA'S JEANS, 3511 Turner Laner, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-3213; 301-652-4644; Fax 301-907-0216; send $2 for catalog}.
3. Beauty pageant entry forms {before the P.C. '90s, contest judges verified the forms};
4. Major Hollywood handouts and movie mags from teh 1930's through the 1960's, when virtually every article contained the star's vital statistics (but never her age);
5. A series of authorized actress publications of the Fifties, entitled Photoplay Pinups, Fabulous Females, etc., which were used to promote films and figures;
6. Model releases and data sheets that future celebs filled out for photographers and publications; and
7. Direct quotes from the woman herself {though these tended to be "idealized", so we always notate them as "in her own words" or "she says"}.

So what do you think? Would this be reliable? Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're wanting to use the statistics? If they provided sources for their collation, why not use those sources instead?--Insider201283 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder about the encyclopedic value of including such measurments. Seems like WP:TRIVIA to me. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reliable and trivial. I woulnd't go add 100s of measurments to actress pages without reaching some sort of consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention that this magazine issue exists could be added to an article about dress sizes or female body shape. But not for individual actresses, unless theyre famous for having certain measurements, i.e. Marilyn Monroe. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are GAO reports generally seen as Reliable Sources ? Specifically would GAO87 be an acceptable source for the results of a questionnaire they circulated among the research community? I ask this because its inclusion seems to have stirred a bit of controversy.

I should probably add that there is a related section on another noticeboard. On that board it was mentioned that it was not the proper place to ask about these matters. I suspect this notice board is the proper place to ask regarding RS. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

They are a reliable source. How to use them is an editorial decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of this source has never been questioned; in fact, it was already a source for Aspartame controversy. The issue here is that Unomi wishes to create a new section in the article devoted to his/her distinctively slanted interpretation of this primary source, complete with data-mined tables and carefully-selected quotes, which I and other editors have opposed as a matter of original research and weight. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what this noticeboard deals with. There are other noticeboards at the top of this page. NPOV might help. Mostly you have to deal with it on the articles talk page, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering how reliable we should consider reports from Committee to Protect Journalists. Any thoughts appreciated; I'll comment with more details as I look around and based on feedback. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think material from here can be expressed as opinions instead of facts. (Ex : "Mr.Journalist writing on behalf of the Committee to Protect Journalists argues that so and so is wrong"). Also, if this Committee is supporting a opinion, then when need to keep in mind ( Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations ) : Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Schizophrenia#loss_of_brain_tissue, which has spilled over to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#NPOV. Editors have tried to explain it fails WP:V never mind WP:MEDRS. The problem is that members of the MED wikiproject are now regarded as "pov pushers with a conflict of interest" by the person arguing for the use of this source. So the opinions of neutral editors would be welcome. Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but you can see that the MED forum wouldn't be appropriate. Colin°^Talk

A newspaper article about an unreleased study should not be used for something so controversial as saying the drugs cause brain tissue loss. That is a very strong statement that would require, IMHO, several peer reviewed sources backing it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in views about how suitable this document is as a reference (with the author cited as Vickrey) for the assertion: "Nobel-laureate William Vickrey is considered one of the fathers of congestion pricing, as he first proposed it for the New York City Subway system in 1952". The document header suggests that it was written by Vickrey in June 1992. The document does contain some of Vickrey's "thoughts", however, it is not clear that the information in it supporting the assertion of his being "considered one of the fathers of congestion pricing" was written by him. Indeed the biography information in there, including details of his death in 1996 can obviously not have been written by him. -- de Facto (talk). 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• The document cited does not say "by William Vickrey", but is about him & his theories, as is apparent when you read it. The web site is not anonymous but is put up by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, which is a group of transport planners and economists who should know the topic and be a RS. In fact, Vickrey won a Nobel prize on his work for auction theory and congestion pricing. There are plenty of other web sources that attribute the principle of congestion pricing to Vickrey and his seminal work22. If we AGF, the problem you have highlighted seems to be around the description of the author in the article, which can be easily modified. Ephebi (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The site seems to be Todd Alexander Litman's. He looks like an expert, but a self published one (in the case of the website). I would look for a better source for anything controversial. Not sure if what's in disputer here is really that controversial, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In some of our articles, we're using Pakistan Daily as a reliable source on statements of fact, and I have some serious concerns about its reliability. First, many of their articles read like editorials (but aren't marked as editorials) and contain very questionable material. Second, they seem to have an anti-Israeli, if not anti-Semitic bias. Third, they allow anyone to upload submit articles to their web site 23. They state that "hate related articles will not be accepted" but it's not clear as to how to tell whether an article is written by their staff or by the public. Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_30
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.