Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

VOA video file

I need more comments on commons file:[1], which was removed here by user:Zlqq [2] and commented by user:Benlisquare:here that VOA is American propaganda and thus it is not reliable source. Arilang ^talk 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly VOA represents the view of the U.S. and is biased, but in that sense, all of the mainstream media in the U.S. have the same bias. Since it's been posted on the VOA Channel in YouTube, I believe we generally view such videos from mainstream media as being reliable sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the question is whether inclusion of a video file on the Wikipedia project is encyclopedic. If you take a look at my original argument, my main concern was not POV or reliability, but rather the file's inclusion being pointless. If Fox News was public domain, would we have video clips of Fox News reports on every single politics-related page? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss reliability of particular sources. I don't know that we can make any broad statement about the use of video news reports. That might be a discussion appropriate to the Talk page of WP:RS. TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for you comment, TimidGuy. Arilang ^talk 12:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this article a worthwhile source?

On Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, I have added a citation from an essay by Matthew Feldman.[3] He is a professor of 20th century history, and the editor of the academic journal Political religions.

The text added to the article reads:

In 1978, LaRouche's newspaper the Campaigner carried the editorial Zionism is not Judaism:

"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today.

Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax:

These may not seem, at first glance, to be egregiously anti-Semitic remarks, but they are part of a consistent – if systematically veiled – pattern of anti-Semitic conspiricism espoused by the LaRouche Organization. It is frequently mixed with a coded form of Holocaust denial, which is itself a microcosm of the sanitized language which is deliberately employed across the gamut of LaRouche publications[...] LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’.

Feldman also said that the notes which Jeremiah Duggan made at a 2003 Schiller Institute conference were evidence of the LaRouche movement's antisemitism.

There is a pernicious group—the evil oligarchs (the Jews)—who are attempting to impose fascist imperialism and world domination through nuclear war.

This evil group is fomenting nuclear world war and bringing the world to the brink of destruction.

Below this, Jeremiah’s chart features Leo Strauss in the centre of a circle and an arrow with the words ‘Jewish’ pointing to Strauss’ name. It is annotated: ‘Jewish leads to Fascism—leads to Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld’.

The essay can be found here[4]. It's presence in the article was objected to by a user who was later found to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor.[5]

I was hoping other editors could offer there thoughts as to whether the above text is acceptable. BillMasen (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Only a partially relevant comment but isn't holocaustresearchproject.net blacklisted ? I remember tripping a filter just a few weeks ago when I tried to link to an essay on their site and being completely baffled as to why. I found a discussion but I forget where...hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there might be an issue with the website that hosts the essay, but the author and the essay itself seem reliable. Was it ever published in another venue? Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha...discussed here although that still left me somewhat baffled. I recall I was looking at something by Matthew Feldman too. Seemed perfectly fine to me as a source but I couldn't find it elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The site is no longer on the blacklist. I understand it was added back in 2006, because some accounts were spamming it (NB this was before the essay concerned was written or published, and the disputes had nothing to do with LaRouche). [Edit] Yes, I have also been unable to find this essay anywhere else. If anyone does find it I have no problem with citing it at some other location.BillMasen (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and potentially good news. I tripped the filter on Feb 5th just over a month ago at Talk:Chetniks with this link. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No filter tripped this time. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my doubts about this site remain. It may not be blacklisted anymore, but that does not mean it can be used: So far, it seems that the site is nothing more than a blog and thus the article itself remains selfpublished under WP:SPS. If evidence is presented that the site provides any kind of editorial oversight, I'd gladly revise my doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk • contribs)

The claim is not being made by the site, but by Feldman. Surely it is him who should be considered the source. BillMasen (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Feldman has previously published articles in academic journals about LaRouche. BillMasen (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've sent an email to the "Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team" asking about their editorial practices.

As i still have grave doubts about the merits,reliability and publishing practice of this source, i would love to hear their response. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BillMasen that Feldman would qualify as an expert, however we can't use the self-published sources of experts for comments about living people. WP:BLPSPS. If it turns out to be self-published, then we could use it as a source for the movement, but not for LaRouche himself, if I understand correctly.  Will Beback  talk  23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, thanks Will. Feldman cites the Campaigner, and I've verified the quote; it is accurate. If there are other sources from within the movement writing about the Holocaust that accept the generally agreed figure of 6 million, then that might affect my views on how to handle this, but as it stands, Feldman's criticism seems fair to me. --JN466 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

JN, the "Views" article had, as a quick review of its history from 2005-2010 proves,always some paragraphs about different assessments of the Holocaust and featured LaRouches condemnation of Antisemitism. Those different views were deleted in 2010. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that worries me about the text that has been introduced is that Feldman is reported as saying, "Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax." That's a subtle misquote of Feldman, and a misrepresentation of what the Campaigner argues. The Campaigner doesn't argue that the Holocaust didn't happen. What the Campaigner describes as a hoax is the notion that Zionism is a justified and necessary response to the Holocaust. It argues, essentially, that Zionists have used the holocaust to their own nefarious ends. I would delete the reference to "Holocaust denial" from the section's heading, drop the sentence ""Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax," and instead just use the actual quote of what Feldman said (including, if you will, his reference to a "coded form of holocaust denial"). Just stick close to the source. --JN466 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the campaigner quote does say that only 1.5 million Jews did die, through 'labour policies' which weren't directed at them. This is very common holocaust denial, and Feldman calls it so. See [6] Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition,

I have no objection to your suggestion of using a direct quote from Feldman. Thanks! BillMasen (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed it BillMasen (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The 1.5 million figure does not work in the Campaigner's favour. Other LaRouche publications are more mainstream, however; here is one clearly referring to "the murder of 6 million Jews", and here is an essay by LaRouche in which he says, "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews", extols Mendelssohn as the saviour of German classical music (of which he is definitely a fan) and argues that Jewish contributions made German culture and science what it is. I think it's possible that his beef is with Zionists and certain Jewish financiers rather than with Jews. --JN466 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I sent an email to the webmaster asking about their editorial practices and received an automatic reply saying they're too busy to answer emails.   Will Beback  talk  14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of DoD publications, in general

Yesterday I raised the issue of the reliability of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. I raised that issue because another contributor removed a reference where www.globalsecurity.org had republished an article from the American Forces Press Service.

The two respondents in the discussion above who objected to the use of practically all references from the US Department of Defense or the US Department of Justice, characterizing them as primary sources, and routinely making the mistake of asserting that primary sources are not allowed, when policy does allow them to be used, so long as they are used with appropriate care. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Academic journals published by DoD educational institutions and essays published by DoD employees

The DoD includes a number of colleges, universities, and other educational institutions. In addition to the service academies, the DoD runs the Navy Postgraduate School, the Navy War College, and other similar institutions. It also runs technical colleges, which teach skilled trades. If you counted them all up it wouldn't surprise me if there were over one hundred institutions where the staff and students were DoD employees.

Is there any reason to treat the journals published out of these institutions as any less reliable than any other academic journals? Do these journals have an inherent bias? Maybe. I don't know. I am not myself an expert in any of the fields these journals cover. It is my impression that the professors and instructors at these DoD institutions are proud of their qualifications and feel their scholarship, their reasoning, their arguments, can hold their own when compared with the work of civilian scholars.

Similarly, I think when a student or professor who is a DoD employee has a paper published in a civilian journal, or reasonable equivalent, it should, in general, be regarded as just as reliable as one published by a civilian.

Are there exceptions? I don't know. Maybe. But I don't believe there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

American Forces Press Service

I first raised the question on whether articles by reporters and journalists at the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. Some respondents offered their opinions there. I've read and used many articles by AFPS reporters and journalists, some of whom have worked there for years. As above, I think they write to inform, or to entertain, as some of their articles are lighter, human interest type articles. As above I do not think there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda.

The key passage from the AFPS article that triggered my question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org seems to have been: "In other news, Afghan and coalition forces have positively identified a Taliban leader detained during a Feb. 25 joint operation in Ghazni province as Mullah Shabir." The American Forces Press Service writer did what we would do -- they made clear who identified Shabir as a Taliban leader -- "Afghan and coalition forces". Sure, it is possible the individual was misidentified as a Taliban leader. And the American Forces Press Service writer used the same kind of careful wording as we would have used -- attributing the claim to "Afghan and coalition forces".

I do not believe there was a policy based reason to excise this reference as unreliable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Afghan Forces Inflict Losses, Detain Local Taliban Leader". American Forces Press Service. 2008-03-05.

Local DoD publications

In the discussions above I asked for input on whether we should regard articles written by reporters and journalists employed by the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable.

A couple of the contributors who have weighed in there routinely object to the use of any material written by employees of the DoD. Well, when I first started contributing here I didn't realize how many journalists and reporters the DoD employs.

In this diff you can see three references excised with the edit summary "Eliminated primary sources and self promotion. Use secondary sources. Thank you."

The third reference excised was:

• Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner (2006-06-23). "Osan's vulnerability assessed" (PDF). The MIG Alley Flyer. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-03-07. Many people think the bomb used by the Oklahoma City bombers was much larger than the car bomb used by the Khobar Towers bombers. Not so, according to Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, team chief of the Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability Assessment team that began their analysis of Osan this week.

I used this reference in an article about a USN Captain John F. Murphy (JAG). I used it to substantiate that, at one point in his career, he traveled as leader of a team that assessed the vulnerability of US bases to terrorist bomb threats. Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner, the author of the article, was not Murphy's subordinate. She had no reason to distort the truth in her coverage of Murphy. I don't see why her article should be considered any less reliable than if she was a civilian reporter.

Was Murphy's assessment of the Osan base's vulnerability reliable on some kind of deep level. I don't know. I don't care. As a wikipedia contributor who complies with WP:VER my opinion on the credibility of his team's assessment is irrelevant. And, in my use of this reference I am not concerned with the reliability of his team's conclusions -- only with the article's placement of Murphy on this team.

It turns out that lots of US bases, lots of US commands, have publications, generally published weekly, generally containing relatively light and uncontroversial material. Occasionally they will publish material that addresses a larger issue, that touches on that base, or command, and when those articles back up what is in the civilian media I think they can and should be regarded as just as reliable as civilian articles. Sometimes those occasional articles that address a broader issue covered in the civilian media will quote what is for them local officials, not quoted by the distant civilian media. And when they do so I think they should still generally be regarded as just as reliable as those by civilian reporters. Like any other reference information from them should be properly attributed to the source, not stated as a fact with no attribution. As with any other reference they could be misleading, if not used carefully. Well, when I use them, I will use them carefully.

I don't think they should be excised, as "primary sources", just because the writers work for the DoD. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Geo_Swan

- IQinn (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

THanks for important hint.

@Geo Swan: There is no blanket answer. In some contexts scholarly DoD-Publications can be considered relatively reliable, but in other they might not be. To the latter scenario belong in particular cases, where the DoD is an involved party in a current/ongoing event. If we are considering an ongoing case in which he DoD as an involved party, the reliability of DoD publication regarding it cannot be treated as realiable 3rd party sources, but they are in doubt not much different from lawyer statement regarding his client, a party spokesman regarding his party, etc.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo, for your sincere efforts to clarify this. I believe that the above comment is a good way to look at it. In one sense, you're right: a primary source shouldn't be deleted just because it's a primary source. But on the other hand, primary sources must be used with caution, and in this case especially so, since there have been instances in the past where press statements by the military have turned out to be self-serving fabrications. (As the saying goes, "Truth is always the first casualty in war.") And as the poster above says, in some cases scholarly publications by the military can be considered reliable. In the particular instance above, have you searched resources such as Lexis/Nexis and Google News Archive to see if other media picked up the report about Shabir? If they did, then I'd say this information could be added to Wikipedia. If they didn't, and if there's some question about the information, then because it's a primary source (per the strong consensus at the earlier RSN), one must be cautious about using it as a source. Hope that helps. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Economist and Hindus victims in Gujarat and Kashmir, India

Hi, It has been an accepted behavior to pass off The Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" from many sides as I have been reading. Though I would like to point out a few things, that seems to form a little pattern of bias against people of a particular religion viz. Hinduism.

I would like to point this our with hard facts. As it is, uncivilized barbaric events are difficult to describe in civil forms. Let me start by saying plainly therefore that ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits out of Kashmir region, J&K state, India, was a barbarian torturous "act" for all the Hindus. Same goes for burning of Hindu pilgrims of Godhra region in Gujarat state, India. These two are inhuman events of the lowest order, considering how ethnic natives residing in Kashmir since time immemorial have been brutalized and made to flee or how women and children pilgrims were burnt alive. These are rare 'acts' in deed, as no region ever tortures pilgrims and indulges in ethnic cleansing of whole set of religious hardworking people.

The Economist has hardly any words reserved, from its "reliable sources of the highest order", for these "acts". The Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own countries, or those pilgrims who were burnt alive, can hardly stand up and get counted against this unfair treatment by silence of "the reliable source of the highest order".

On the other hand, the Economist has passed off troubles in Kashmir as a result of mistreatment and a little by Pakistani militants, without exhaustive consideration of all sides viz. Indian State, Kashmiri Pandits, all other minorities in J&K state like Budhdhists, Sikhs other than Hindus, and so on. Same goes for demeaning elected Govt. in Gujarat state of India.

My point is therefore simple, do what you want to but don't call the Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" as far as anything related to Hinduism is considered. The question here is of balanced views, though an indication may come from its funding from people who have no interest in upholding human rights of Hindus, as per Universal declaration of Human Rights by U.N.

I would like to ask, if I should as a Hindu, if is it not inhuman to ignore human rights of Hindus.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 (talk • contribs)

I know of no reason to believe that The Economist has any bias against Hindus. If there is specific disputed text on a specifiic article please say what it is. Otherwise this is just pointless "venting". Paul B (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is silence over ethnic cleansing and massacre of pilgrims any good for "a reliable source of the highest order"? I don't think so. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." — Desmond Tutu Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 (talk • contribs)

Can you just say what this is about? Is there an article in The Economist that has been quoted somewhere on Wikipedia? You keep repeating this phrase "a reliable source of the highest order". Did someone say that to you? If so where? About what? There is no point is criticising The Economist for being silent on a topic, since it couldn't be used as a source for something it did not say. So what is it that this journal says that you are objecting to? Paul B (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see this related to this exchange User_talk:Eraserhead1#Changes_reverted_in_article_on_Narendra_Modi regarding the article Narendra Modi. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This link may help. http://www.economist.com/node/16213932. Though, questioning silence of those who should not be silent, is not too contradictory is it? http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html

The source should be the book itself, not the Economist's review. And the book clearly has a point of view (a memoir of someone directly involved in events). Because it's from a major publisher, it's a reliable source for that point of view. I agree that just because something is in the Economist doesn't mean it's sacrosanct; we always take various factors into account. In this case, it seems like information from this book, if expressing a strong point of view, should be attributed. If you feel that the information from this source is skewing the point of view of an article, you can take that to WP:NPOVN. TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the strong point of view is from a source and link to WP:NPOVN.

Vigile.net

A previous discussion about Vigile.net declared that it was not to be used as a source of archived newspaper articles. In a contemporaneous AfD, one editor also said "I stand firm on my opinion concerning the use of Vigile.net and await an argument as to why a biased third-party, apparently unlawfully archiving the writings of others, should be considered an appropriate reference source". French-language writings on Vigile.net, which are not copied from newspaper sites, are being used by a small group of editors on articles relating to the Canadian province of Quebec. My specific concern relates to the use of pseudonymous writings used to support statements in Vladimir De Thézier. Should Vigile.net be considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Vigile.net may have been hastily judged not to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but it's a French-Canadian political news and opinion website similar to the Huffington Post (which has been indirectly criticized as the “professional left” by a White House press secretary) that was made more than notable when it was mentioned by Jean Charest, the current Premier of Quebec during a parliamentary session of the National Assembly of Quebec, which caused a controversy discussed in some editorials in mainstream Quebec newspapers, such as La Presse, and in mainstream Canadian TV news outlets, such as Radio-Canada. Several political figures and organizations publicly declared their support for Vigile.net when it faced criticism.
2. Several prominent Quebec politicians, intellectuals and activists have published articles on Vigile.net, which indicates that it isn't a fringe website regardless of whether or not it is “biased”.
3. I would therefore argue that Vigile.net is an appropriate reference source for brief statements of minor facts that are neither controversial nor disputed in the article in question.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping to hear comments from other editors, but it seems only fair to point out that sentences like "In March 2010, De Thézier began advocating for the convergence of the Quebec sovereignty movement with bright green environmentalism into a “sovereign green movement” dedicated to the creation of a “green republic of Quebec”, a constitutional republican state organized according to the principles of deliberative democracy, green politics and co-operative economics" is not a "minor fact". That particular statement is sourced to a blog post from a free small-market news weekly and four French-language articles from Vigile.net all written by the same single-named pseudonymous author (it seems unlikely that this is in each of them). Unless Vigile.net is a reliable source and, in particular, a source which is qualified to recognize De Thezier as an important thinker on such matters, what he advocates is no more relevant here than what he eats for breakfast. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. By “minor fact”, I meant to say that we are not using this source to support a claim about a major fact of history in an article about an event (such the identity of the perpertrators of the 9/11 atttacks). It is simply being used to support a claim about a minor fact of history in an article about a living person (such as a retired hockey player joining the Green Party of Canada and working for the inclusion of an innovative proposal in the party's platform).
2. The issue of whether or not he is an important thinker is irrelevant since no one claimed he was an important thinker on such matters and we aren't debating on this noticeboard whether or not he should be mentioned in the Green politics article as an important thinker on the subject. Ultimately, according to a growing consensus, the notability of this individual as an activist has been established for him to deserve a Wikipedia article. The fact that he has received some press for his advocacy of an original idea should be mentioned in any biographical article about him for the sake of comprehensiveness. It therefore makes no sense to oppose the inclusion of this information.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't get into a debate here, but the source is not being used to confirm facts (such as birthplace), but to justify the inclusion of De Thezier's opinions. If De Thezier isn't an important thinker in this area, there is no reason to include their opinions in an encyclopedia. This is why I am asking for input on this use of the source. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make sense since the goal of a Wikipedia biographical article of a notable person is reporting significant facts in his or her life and career. If he has gotten press because of his advocacy of an opinion, it is a fact that should be mentioned in any biographical article about him. Reporting this fact doesn't mean that the Wikipedia article on him is claiming that he is an important thinker on the matter unless a sentence in the article explicitly stated that he was, which it doesn't. That being said, whether or not Vigile.net is judged to be a reliable source, the Vigile.net articles are being used as secondary sources to 1) support the primary reliable source, which is an article published in the printed version of Voir (as well as on one of its blogs), and 2) expand our understanding of the concept discussed in the primary source. --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster where you write "a fact that should be mentioned" I would tweak that we do not need to mention every notable and verifiable "fact". So should->could? Whether a fact should be included on WP is normally something there should be a certain level of consensus on, although WP editing policy is clearly written with a bias against deletion of anything properly sourced and notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. You are correct that we do not need to mention every notable and verifiable fact. However, I would argue that this particular notable and verifiable fact deserves to be mentioned in this article because it seems to indicate a decisive change in this notable person's worldview and career. --Loremaster (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

2 refs from Misogyny

The following was recently added to Misogyny:

Critics claim Islam as a misogynistic religion where women are captives, "honor killing" exists for even rape and women are considered inferior in every way: physically, intellectually and morally..

Those refs need to be filled out, of course, but I'm not sure that they actually are reliable. Both are reprints hosted by the "Council for Secular Humanism" website. The first, by Judith Hayes, originally appears in the Secular Humanist Bulletin. As the internal newsletter for an explicitly POV organization, this seems to definitely fail WP:RS to me for claims of facts about a religion. The second, by Ibn Warraq, originally appeared in Free Inquiry, which is also a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, although apparently in a more academic format. Our article on Warraq describes him as a "an anti-Islam polemicist of Pakistani origin who founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS). He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry." This seems a little more reliable than the first, but I'm still a bit skeptical. My personal inclination is to remove the first citation entirely, and to keep the second but attribute it more explicitly to Warraq with a shortened description of who he is. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree, that seems sensible. While you're at it, the phrase "Critics claim Islam as a..." doesn't seem quite the correct English. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree also, that's a reasonable approach. That said, I would imagine there are various reliable books or scholarly sources that discuss the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Magyar Katolikus Lexikon (the article about John Hunyadi)

The source is the single one that supports the Cuman origin. To compare, for the Vlach (Romanian) origin there are many sources. Leaving aside the fact that it may be a fringe theory, the source itself is questionable. I don't see anything about its authors (Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I think your list of sources should be preferred over this website. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My sources support the theory of the Vlach (Romanian) origin. The (fringe?)theory of the Cuman origin is an alternative theory supported by a single questionable source. I was asking if the respective source is valid. (Iaaasi (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

This appears to be an online version of a published work. I remember, Iaaasi, that you suggested (somewhere above) removing the other source that was cited for this scrap of information about John Hunyadi. I'm surprised that you've forgotten to mention that fact!

I agreed with you there; I don't agree here. The reader may as well know that this theory of John Hunyadi's origin exists, and this is a useful source for it. Andrew Dalby 14:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My comment above didn't take into account the particular article that this information was being used in. Agree with Andrew. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans-Ake Lilja and AsiaCarrera.com

Hi. Is Hans-Ake Lilja, and his site, Lilja's Library, a reliable source for material on Stephen King? The site identifies itself as a fan site, however, Lilja has written a book, Lilja's Library: The World of Stephen King, which was published by Cemetery Dance Publications, which is not indicated in the Cemetary Dance Wikipedia article to be a vanity press or self-publishing company. The publication info for that book on Amazon indicates that the book includes over 40 of Lilja's interviews with King. Can Lilja's website be used as a source for articles on King and his works? Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. There must be a huge scholarly literature on Stephen King. What sorts of things is this website being used for? Wouldn't the scholarly literature be a better source? It's not clear that this book from a small press qualifies him as an expert. I think we need to know particulars here — how the website is being used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The website was used for the material supported by footnotes #4 and 5 in this version of the article on The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole.

As for "scholarly literature", the problem with this is that editors don't necessarily the perfect source that you would prescribe on hand. They are often limited by the sources that are available to them, which is why online sources may be favored in some cases. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Nightscream (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there are WP:BLP implications here, I think we need to do better in this case. It's not an article on a videogame. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who relied upon that site and wishes to continue using it, Jmj713, has explained that most of the info on that site is derived from King's official site, stephenking.com, and that the reason he uses Lilja's Library is because the bulletins on stephenking.com are not placed in discrete posts with individualized or archived permalinks, but scroll off the page as it is gradually updated. This is also a problem with the Bulletins page of Asia Carrera's official site, which is also something I've been wanting to address, as Ms. Carrera or her webmaster have not responded to my email queries about whether her site has the bulletins archived, and some of the material in her article is supported by past bulletins. What do we do when material comes from a subject's official site, but it is removed when the page is updated? Nightscream (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the specific example you give, the information that was added to WP doesn't really seem encyclopedic. It makes the article itself sound like a fan site. I guess I agree with Jayjg that we can do better. We don't usually use fan sites as sources. Also, I question whether there should be an article on this book even before it's out. I'm' not sure how to deal with the issue of material disappearing from King's site, other than to suggest that we use third-party sources. Any book that comes out is going to get covered in the media, and eventually in the academic literature. Note that Google Books can give convenient access to some of the academic literature. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinion piece about Iran protests

I've been the main editor working on keeping the 2011 Iranian protests page updated. There was a large protest on March 8 to commemorate International Women's Day, but the amount of information that has been reported on by news media has been extremely thin because of the journalist crackdown that the Iranian government has implemented. While searching for information in reliable sources, I found this, which is an opinion piece about what happened in terms of the protests on March 8, published by PBS' Tehran Bureau, having been written by a staff writer of said group. While it is stated to be an opinion piece, since it is written by a reliable reporter, can I use it for information about what happened on March 8? Silverseren^C 20:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes. Apart from the "opinion" disclaimer, everything about it looks like serious reportage, including the "Tehran" byline. It definitely needs to be attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing better is available imho you can use it with caution but you need to attribute it explicitly ("according to ...").--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can be used with attribution. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lowculture

Is http://lowculture.co.uk/ a reliable source in the context it being used for reception/critical analysis? Lowculture has a wiki page. On there there are three refs provided, BFI - Independent and The Guardian three reputable sources mentioned it in good faith. Think there is more on the net. Like I said, in the context it's used in fictional character's reception info as a source.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

At Lowculture the site is listed under "external links" -- naturally enough. I gather you're not talking about that, but about some other page. Which page? Please provide a link. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to know if you would use Lowculture as a source anywhere on wikipedia.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Coconut oil

I added these two sources to the article:

• Norton, D.; Angerman, S.; Istfan, N.; Lopes, S.M.; Babayan, V.K.; Putz, M.C.; Steen, S.N.; Blackburn, G.L. (2004). Comparative Study of Coconut Oil, Soybean Oil, and Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies 29 (1–2): 76–89.
• Kabara, Jon J. (1978). The Pharmacological Effect of Lipids. Champaign IL: American Oil Chemist's Society. pp. 1-95. ISBN 9991817697.

and they were removed. I do not see why they cannot stay. The Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies is a journal that turns up in the UN FAO's AGRIS International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology Database. The second is an expert writing a book for a professional level audience. Are they improper? Also in general I must ask is it proper to remove sources? Isn't that vandalism? Even a source that isn't of the most preferred kind imparts information. Removing sources unless they are terribly shoddy ones would seem to be inferior practice in comparison to supplying more sources representing the other side (if there is another side—something that is proved by supplying sources). Lambanog (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussed on the article talk page here and here. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The first study appears to be a primary study, which should be avoided per WP:MEDRS for sourcing health claims. I also note that the journal does not appear to be indexed in MEDLINE, which is a red flag when discussing biomedical journals.

The second is over 30 years old and would be only useful for medical information from a historical perspective (i.e. what was thought mainstream in 1978) - it would be inappropriate to be used for medical claims now (see again WP:MEDRS).

Removal of inappropriate sources and information from inappropriate sources is certainly not vandalism, it is an integral part of building a respectable encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog, Ronz, please accept my apology for being slow to expound in Talk. Lambanog, if you had bothered to look at the history, you would have seen that there was a reason given (although brief) for each removal. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Kabara, I noted "Remove statement not supported by the claimed reference." Perhaps I should have left the footnote alone as its own paragraph? Apart from the extremely novel claim in the removed statement that atherosclerotic plaques are caused by infection (microorganisms), a search of the book did not disclose any use of the term "atherosclerotic plaque." I did not look at the referenced page because you referenced pages 1-95 of a 199 page book. It appeared to me that the reference (and the statement it was alleged to support) were nothing more than vandalism. However, rather than drop a "V-bomb" in my summary, I gave a very brief reason. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

After removing the suggestion that only pp. 1-95 should be read, I have now restored the Kabara reference and moved it to "Further reading." — Jay L09 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Norton & al., I noted "Remove statement supported by advertising circular claiming to be a scientific journal." Ronz has already provided a link to my discussion in Talk of why I consider Norton & al. to be an "advertising circular claiming to be a scientific journal." Again, I apologize for taking so long to add the expanded discussion to Talk. In any case, the summary of Norton & al. and the reference appeared to me, after careful examination, to be nothing more nor less than vandalism. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a citation of a scientific paper. I do not see how adding it could be construed as vandalism—unlike its removal. I am troubled with the seeing ease with which editors remove sources which appear to me to be valid pointing vaguely at WP:MEDRS. In any event I have provided an update. Aside from the sources already in the article could you please give an example of three high quality sources about coconut oil that are in your view acceptable, so that I can have an idea of what will go unobstructed? For example would you oppose the other Kabara source that I have provided under Further reading if I was to use it in the article? Lambanog (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Norton 2004 is pretty preliminary, as was noted on the talk page. They mention that they'll do a final paper - better to look for that. It should be noted, however, that I think it should be cited when that final paper is found. I am not aware of any other RCTs on coconut oil, and Wikipedia would not be satisfying the level of detail that its readers expect if it did not mention the only RCT that has been done. It shouldn't be cited in therapeutic or disease articles, obviously, but a different standard exists when we're talking about the page of substance. As far as Kabara, I don't see why it was removed. People who actually read medical literature know that sources from 1978 are cited often, and scientists do not often repeat the basic research establishing certain findings. There's no evidence that it is incorrect. II | (t - c) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, do not believe that Kabara even mentions the claim that any component of coconut oil kills microorganisms that cause atherosclerotic plaques. I would certainly remove my objection if a clear, short quote from Kabara (together with the page number), were included, which quote made it clear that Kabara was talking about coconut oil preventing atherosclerosis. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, the reliability of a source is dependent on what facts it is supposed to be sourcing. The sentence that it is being used as a source for states matter-of-factly that microorganisms cause atherosclerotic plaques - this of course, is not widely accepted in the medical community (although there has been interesting but inconclusive research into Chlamydia pneumoniae as a possible factor in atherosclerosis). As someone who reads the medical literature on a regular basis, I know that citing a 1978 book for controversial (and largely incorrect) statements probably isn't the best idea. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, yeah, I didn't read the diff carefully. There are two claims: medium-chain fatty acids have some antimicrobial properties, and microbes cause heart disease. I was talking about the former - the antimicrobial thing is something that I've heard a few times and is easy to study scientifically. I don't know much about it or whether there's evidence that it is antimicrobial in vivo or anything. The latter statement about microbes and heart disease, I agree, is dubious. Certainly the source can't be used without a specific page number. II | (t - c) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Norton is, aside from it's other flaws, a primary source and shouldn't be used for any medical claims. Kabara is from 1978. That's 31 years old. If this information has merit, surely it has been extended and reported in more recent sources? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem a good idea to have a higher standard for sourcing when it comes to medical claims and to heed WP:MEDRS. Primary sources aren't completely disallowed under the guideline, though. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some new questions then in light of some of the statements made here. Would this source be acceptable?

• Kabara, Jon J. (2008). Fats Are Good for You and Other Secrets – How Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Actually Benefit the Body. North Atlantic Books. ISBN 1556436904.

Also would it be okay to start a new section about coconut oil/tropical oil controversy using the following as a source?

• McNamara, Donald J. (2010). Palm Oil and Health: A Case of Manipulated Perception and Misuse of Science Journal of the American College of Nutrition 29 (3) Supplement 1: 240S-244S

Lambanog (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yobol and WLU are removing the following source for no valid that I can understand except that it is old. But then it is also argued on the talk page there aren't many sources on the topic. I think it inappropriate to remove the source as removing it serves no purpose. It supports a statement by The New York Times on a non-medical claim although even alone on a medical claim it cannot be just removed.

• Kintanar, Quintin L. (1988). Is coconut oil hypercholesterolemic and atherogenic? A focused review of the literature. Transactions of the National Academy of Science and Technology (Phil.) 10: 371–414.

Yobol and WLU also prefer the statement

Due to its high content of lauric acid, coconut oil significantly raises blood cholesterol primarily through its impact on high-density lipoprotein ("good" cholesterol), though the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known.

Which does not address what the exact "impact" on HDL cholesterol really is. Is it a favorable or unfavorable impact? Is HDL lowered or raised? Is the total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio improved or not? The wording is needlessly vague on a critical point. In my preferred version that uses a direct quote from the meta-analysis source shows what the impact on HDL-C is:

It has been found that while lauric acid the primary fatty acid found in coconut oil raises total cholesterol—the most of all fatty acids—most of the increase is attributable to an increase in HDL "good" cholesterol. As a result, lauric acid has "a more favorable effect on total:HDL cholesterol than any other fatty acid, either saturated or unsaturated".

For easier evaluation the source is Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials.

Diff

Opinion on the appropriateness of the changes is sought. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reputable music review?

User:Siberiankiss1989 has been adding more than a few reviews to music article infoboxes. The site linked to is DEAD PRESS. User also tried to create a page for DEAD PRESS, but was A7'ed. I'd like to remove these reviews as non-notable/unreliable, but will wait for a second opinion before doing so. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Chrome gives me the following warning: "Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer! The website at www.deadpress.co.uk contains elements from the site adarchitect.net, which appears to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent." I don't know if we have a policy about linking to web sites which contain malware, but on the basis alone, I would say to remove these links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry to expose you! Firefox didn't do me the courtesy of a warning. I'm going to start yanking these. The Interior (Talk) 21:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its just the banner ads. Chrome isn't giving me a warning though. I guess it must not care as much about me as it does you, AQFK. I don't think it is an RS for reviews, though, unless someone can demonstrate that it has some sort of standing in the field - the fact that it was A7ed suggests probably not. --FormerIP (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For me, it redirects to another site which gives me a fake JavaScript dialog claiming, "AVG has found suspicious activity on your pc and will perform some action on your pc." It then loads up a realistic looking but fake Windows XP Explorer-style screen which performs a fake scan of your system. When the 'scan' is complete, it displays a fake Windows Security Alert which claims to have found numerous viruses. Clicking anywhere on the page gives you a download dialog for "setup.exe". That's about as far as I went. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of all the articles where it's being used.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, there are more than I thought. Most look to be the work of the account above. I've started, but many hands make for light work hint hint. The Interior (Talk) 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed these links to DEAD PRESS. It very much appears to be a spamming effort on behalf of an amateur music site. If other editors feel strongly that this site is RS, I will take responsibility for rolling these removals back. Thanks AQFK for the list, much more efficient than my approach. I have notified Siberiankiss1989 of this discussion. The Interior (Talk) 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have redacted the link in my original post because of bad juju issues at the DEAD PRESS site, see Google warning here: [8] The Interior (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter John Raymond / The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms

Is Walter John Raymond's The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms a reliable source? It was published by Brunswick Publishing, a company apparently created by Raymond specifically to publish The Dictionary of Politics, which leads me to think no established publishers were interested in it. It's difficult to get any other information about Brunswick; Amazon carries no books by it, and it has no website (Google books has it as http://www.brunswickbooks.com/ , but that domain is for sale). Google books lists 8 books it published in the early 1990s, but the books have no other information about them, and appear to be short books of poetry, or short story collections. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One-off publications like this are the hallmark of a self-published book. I'd say not RS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Nuclear accidents

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nuclear power accidents by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles make heavy use of the following source:

Sovacool, Benjamin K. 'A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia', Journal of Contemporary Asia, 40:3, 369 - 400

Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a923050767

This is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Nevertheless, i question its reliability and would like to hear a broader opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:#top|talk]] • contribs)

The article is a high quality reliable source. The author is employed as an expert at a world University (Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore). The journal is refereed. The article is recent, and contained in the refereed section of the journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fifelfoo, it appears to meet all the requirements of WP:RS. Do you have any reason to think it doesn't? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Poynder blog

Two editors with short edit histories are tag-teaming inserting a reference to a blog (see here) into PLoS ONE. I have removed this several times as blogs generally are not considered reliable sources, but despite all appearances, I don't want to call this vandalism (yet..), so I am hesitating to cross 3RR here. Perhaps some other editors can have a look whether this is an RS and whether its insertion into this article is justified. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem RS to me.Richard Poynder does appear to be an information and internet joouno. He has writen two books and for a number of publications. As such his views and blog may well be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps Poynder is notable, but does that mean that his blog is an RS? After all, it remains an unreviewed thing, basically just the opinion of one single person. --Crusio (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SPS which says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care 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 an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Poynder has previously been published on related matters by third party publishers such as Derwent and O'Reilly and so his information, though expressed on a blog, would be reliable subject to the living persons limitation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for that SPS link. One more question, though: in the current case, the blog is not used to source anything, it is given as an "external link". Is that acceptable? --Crusio (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EL which allows, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". There is also a long list of external links to be avoided. There is something about self published external links that is somewhat differently phrased than the material from WP:SPS I quoted above. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I read that, this seems to mean that the external link in the PLoS ONE article is inappropriate (not neutral; self-published, but not by the subject of the article), am I correct? --Crusio (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I read it, the relevant section would be "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Since Poynder is probably notable by our standards, and has been published by independent third party sources, he may squeak by--but I say that very tentatively because I haven't been much involved in external links issues and haven't made a close analysis either of the PLoS ONE article or Poynder's article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Haczyk

One editor recently claimed that the sources used in Bryan Haczyk (which I wrote) are are not reliable sources. The four sources used in the article are USCHO.com:[9], The Star-Ledger:[10], Collegehockeynews.com:[11], and The Nutley (NJ) Sun:[12]. These all look to me like reliable sources, but I'd like to get some feedback on this issue. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that it's been nominated for deletion. Newspapers can indeed be reliable sources, but the issue seems to be notability. Perhaps post here again if the article is retained. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the nominator's rationale in the AFD was that the sources used in the article were unreliable. I didn't mention that it was at AFD since I didn't want to come across as canvassing. I've used USCHO and Collegehockeynews.com on a few articles so I was curious whether I should remove them from others or not. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

I was wondering whether this self-published website is a suitable reliable source for the article Line of succession to the British throne? The website was made by (the late) William Addams Reitwiesner, and is the primary source for the Wikipedia article, which attempts to list all living members of the British line of succession.

If you have noticed that Reitwiesner's list (which is over ten years old), differs from the Wikipedia article, that is because several Wikipedia editors have updated the list themselves, based on new births and deaths which come to their attention. The Wikipedia article also differs from Reitwiesner because he included Roman Catholics in his numbering, while the Wikipedia article does not. Mlm42 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not reliable. It might have been a reasonably well regarded effort when initially compiled but it has gone out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, given how out of date it is, it can't be considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 1 January 2001? Yes I don’t see why not. Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 15 March 2011? No of course not. - dwc lr (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bleacher Report

http://bleacherreport.com/ From what I understand it is user submitted articles which makes me think it it inappropriate. However it does have some attachment with CBS Sports. There are around 750+ links on Wikipedia with it.

Could I get a ruling? Crunk Cup (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know too much about BR but our page on Bleacher Report says that "The purpose of the website was to provide a platform for bloggers and amateur sports writers to publish their work where visitors could find their articles easily". That doesn't seem to square with WP:RS, which says that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking". After writing this I just realized I had linked to BR in an article a few months back. Down to 749 now. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rootsweb

Can someone tell me what the final result was regarding whether rootsweb.ancestry.com is considered a reliable source? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ICorrect

ICorrect.com is a website where individuals pay an annual membership fee of US $1,000 for individuals and US $5,000 for companies to publically challenge posts on the Internet. ICorrect's http://www.icorrect.com/about_us describes itself as,

"ICorrect is the website to set the record straight. So far, the likes of Wikipedia and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays. ICorrect uniquely provides “words from the horses mouth”."

As detailed in the March 14, 2011 Wikipedia Signpost article

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Wikipedia error; brief news

User:Whitepaw corrected the article on Sir John Bond on March 10, 2011 after seeing a December 7, 2010 request at ICorrect.com. ICorrect.com has other requests to correct Wikipedia.[13] A. Is ICorrect.com as used by Whitepaw a reliable source? B. Is ICorrect.com a reliable source in general? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)