Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 78

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80→Archive 85

CAMERA / Alex Safian

A few editors at the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 article insist on the inclusion of arguments, unattributed editorials, and inaccurate quotes (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242/Archive_3#Misuse_of_Quotes) sourced to the CAMERA website and/or Alex Safian. Here are the CAMERA webpages [1] [2] Here is an example edit:

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America argues the practice at the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon. In the case of 242 that version was in English, so they assert the English version [is] the only binding one. (diff [3])

CAMERA is a self-styled media monitoring watchdog and research organization. Critics say that it is a special interest or political action group that routinely distorts and manipulates events in order to present critics of Israel in the worst possible light. Its publications consist of paid advertisements, Op-Eds, letters written by members of its e-mail team, and its own website. There is no evidence that any of its materials are fact-checked or peer-reviewed.

Alex Safian appears to hold a PhD in the field of physics. [4] [5] There is no evidence that he has any particular qualifications to offer an expert opinion about the rules or practices of the United Nations. The English-speaking Cabinet Secretaries responsible for negotiating and drafting the resolution, Dean Rusk and George Brown, both stated that the French version of resolution 242 was equally legitimate and authentic. Brown's remarks are available in "Palestine and the law: guidelines for the resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict", by Musa E. Mazzawi, page 209 [6]:

It would have been impossible to get the Resolution through if the words "all" or "the" were included. But the English text is clear. Withdrawal from territories means just that, nothing more, nothing less. The French text is equally legitimate. In the French translation the word "des" is used before territories, meaning "from the", implying all the territories seized in the '67 war. The Israelis knew this. They understood that it called for withdrawal with only minor border changes from the old frontiers - just to straighten the lines. I told the Israelis they had better accept it, because if they didn't they could be left with something worse, and with our version there would be something to argue about later. ...

We arranged that the Indian delegate, who was leading the non-aligned block with their own version, should make a statement declaring that the reference to territories should mean all territories. We arranged with them beforehand that we would not respond to the statement and therefore this interpretation would remain on the record. And the Indian delegate did, obligingly and in cohorts with the United Kingdom delegate, make that statement as we have seen.

Secretary Rusk previously served as Under Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs during the Truman Administration. His remarks are available in Rusk "As I Saw It", Dean and Richard Rusk, W.W. Norton, 1990, ISBN 0393026507, page 389.

There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.

The Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council [7] and the Security Council rules actually contradict the unsourced CAMERA arguments about "the practice at the UN." The deliberations of the Security Council in 1967 were conducted in both French and English. Under the terms of the 4th revision of the Security Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure those were both official languages and the working languages of the Council. See Rules 41, 42, and 46 [8] Those rules were in force until the 5th revision entered into effect in 1969. Several of the members, including the President of the Council, used French throughout the deliberations. The validity of the French text of the draft resolution was also the subject of discussions during the 1382nd sessions of the Council. See para 111 [9] harlan (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I am gathering, the CAMERA view is one shared by the Israeli government, if I gather Rusk's views correctly. Is there any controversy that this is the view of the Israeli government?--[[User:|Wehwalt]] (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Wehwalt, the information is being presented in the article as a CAMERA argument. The question here is whether or not the CAMERA website or Alex Safian are reliable, expert, fact-checked, or peer-reviewed sources of information about UN Security Council rules and practices or resolution 242.
Rest assured that the views of the Israeli government are already adequately covered in the article by Shabtai Rosenne, Dore Gold, Ruth Lapidoth, & etc. Israel has been involved in a decades-long dispute with the Security Council, the US government, and the UK government over the scope and applicability of resolution 242. The Israeli government is a primary source that can certainly be considered reliable for information about its own views and policies, but a number of published secondary sources cited in the article say that it is not a very reliable source of information about Security Council, US, or UK policies and views. harlan (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
CAMERA is a propaganda organization that disseminates extremist pro-Zionist propaganda (see their article for sources that say this). Per WP:V such sources can only be used as sources of information about themselves (and mainly in articles about themselves), and then only if none of the five explicitly listed exceptions apply. In this case exceptions 1 and 2 do apply, so CAMERA cannot as far as I can see be used at all for this. The material is unduly self-serving, as it advances the position that Israel would have title to some part of the occupied territories, and certainly because this is a claim about a third party, namely UN procedures. In fact also exception 4 can be argued to apply, since there are more authoritative sources saying that the version voted on doesn't become more authoritative. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

strike sockpuppet comments  This is case of people trying to silence facts they WP:DONTLIKE to push WP:POV on wikipedia. The edit we question appropriately attribute CAMERA opinion to CAMERA, saying "according to CAMERA..." so of course CAMERA website is WP:RS for cameRA viewpoint. Anyone ranting about CAMERA being "too Zionist" is just proof of agenda to push anti-Israel WP:POV here. Yes of course many people have anti-Israel opinion and they are represented in this article. So to be WP:NPOV other opinion should be included too, the one of CAMERA and Israeli government, two proudly Zionist bodies. An argument here that tries to use "Zionist" as pejorative term to give reason why not to include some information is epitome of problem of this complaint. If we can put info by group Btselem as WP:RS on wikipedia freely, why not ok to do same for CAMERA? LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a frivolous exploitation of RSN since Camera is not RS. Given that, it does not mean that editors can remove any information/opinions that it holds. Info from an RS means we can use WP first-person. If properly sourced information is being included in an article from Camera, it needs to be attributed to that organization. Similarly, many articles include 'information' from extremist organzations like Peace Now and Btzelem. We include it, but attribute all claims. I am AGF here, but it seems that it's merely an attempt to remove perceived 'pro-Israel' information from the article. --Shuki (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree attribution is needed. I got a pretty hard time when I said some NGOs had an "agenda" (similar to the unduly self-serving train of thought) in the topic area. As long as their bias does not result in a significant amount of inaccuracies I don't see it being a larger problem than others. CAMERA has a professional structure and process. They could be considered authoritative or at least as having some expertise. They are related to both the media and dabble in academics. However, we could start a whole conversation on why all organizations and watchdog groups should not be used in the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
LibiBamizrach argued about CAMERA's reliability and WP:RSN with another editor on the article talk page. The discussion here is inline with Wikipedia policy on identifying Questionable sources and WP:SOURCES. A number of editors want this question addressed. In the original post I mentioned examples of the use of inaccurate quotes and unverifiable research. WP:ELNO recommends avoiding external links to any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. There is absolutely no reason to incorporate arguments from CAMERA that challenge reliable sources with inline citations if it does not qualify as a WP:RS in the first place. harlan (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:EL does not apply to inline citations or general references. With inline attribution, those arguments can be appropriate. Watch out for weight of course.Cptnono (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
So far, no one seems to be directly addressing the question of the reliability of CAMERA's research, fact-checking, editorial oversight, & etc. I addressed inline citations and weight when I said "There is absolutely no reason to incorporate arguments from CAMERA that challenge reliable sources with inline citations if it does not qualify as a WP:RS in the first place." WP:ELNO addresses the separate issue of external links. Obviously the issues of unverifiable research and misleading information has to be addressed in a centralized discussion here at WP:RSN. harlan (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you should attribute inline. But surely you can find a less controversial (on Wikipedia anyway) source for the same information?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If a source is not reliable for the content that is supposed to support, we should not use it, with or without inline attribution. The exception would be if the source is being referred to because the position of the source is relevant. But CAMERA's position on Resolution 242 is not relevant, and Israel's views on the resolution should preferably also be sourced to an independent reliable source, not to Israel itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
its reliability aside for a second, CAMERA is a notable organization whose position is noteworthy at the very least as a primary source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The reliability of CAMERA's research, editorial process, and fact-checking can't be ignored in articles where CAMERA is arguing that facts about UN standard procedures have been misrepresented by other published sources or that other published sources have "grossly misstated the terms of UN Resolution 242". Primary sources can only be used if they have been reliably published. See WP:PSTS, Questionable sources, and WP:SOURCES. harlan (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
CAMERA is no less of a RS than B'Tselem or any other Israeli organization that has a platform. In a democratic society, these organizations must be transparent, and so their research is credible both as a primary and secondary source. If this were a source in North Korea or whatever, we'd be having a different discussion. Naturally, though, a source like this should be named in-line, not just in citation. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
CAMERA is definitely less RS than actual human rights organizations since it has a reputation for distorting and misrepresenting facts to further Israel's agenda (source: "consistent misrepresentation of the facts"). Concerning it's citability here, with or without attribution, I'd like to invite editors to read WP:V which says that questionable sources (defined inter alia as "extremist or promotional") can only be used as sources on themselves. The UN is not part of CAMERA, therefore CAMERA can't be used for statements concerning the UN, even if worded as opinions of CAMERA. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
@DC: The fact that some website claims CAMERA has this reputation doesn't mean it's actually so.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You are overlooking the fact that the CAMERA pages cited above use obscure sources and deliberately make misleading or inaccurate use of that material to claim that other published sources are misrepresenting the facts.
For example, the anonymous author of "Security Council Resolution 242 According to its Drafters" claimed that President Carter's remarks about the resolution were a misrepresentation and that the President had not made a formal correction of the inaccurate characterization. In fact, Carter asked for a State Department report to determine if there was any justice to the Israeli position. He was eventually supplied with a combined report from the Middle East section and the Office of the Historian which said that there wasn't, i.e. "State Department Study of the Meaning of Resolution 242, by Nina J. Noring of the Office of the Historian, and Walter B. Smith II, Director of the Office of Israeli and Arab-Israeli Affairs, Department of State,The Withdrawal Clause in UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, Its Legislative History and the Attitudes of the United States and Israel since 1967", February 4, 1978.
Carter was simply reciting the official policies contained in the original Johnson administration documents on foreign policy that were declassified and published in the Foreign Relations of the United States series in 2000. Those documents are available online and have been cited extensively in the 242 article and talk page discussions.
The CAMERA author also trimmed-off George Brown's comments about illegal Israeli colonization of the occupied territories from the passage he/she quoted from Brown's autobiography "In My Way". The author ignored Brown's policy statements that were made on behalf of the UK in both the Security Council and the General Assembly which called for full withdrawal with only minor mutually agreed upon changes to the armistices lines. Similarly, the CAMERA authors misrepresent Caradon's remarks from both the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, "U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity" and the Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon”. In "Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity" Caradon said:
  • "At the same time scores of Israeli settlements have already been established on the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan. The process of colonisation of Arab lands goes rapidly ahead in disregard of objections from nearly every Government in the world, including' even the American Government. These actions of the Israeli Government are in clear defiance of the Resolution 242." p 12
  • "But it is very necessary to remember that when we drew up Resolution 242 we all took it for granted that the occupied territory would be restored to Jordan. I give my testimony that everyone, including the Arabs, so assumed." p 13
  • "We all assumed that withdrawal from occupied territories as provided in the Resolution was applicable to East Jerusalem. This was not questioned at the time and has only much more recently been raised in fierce discussion." p 14
  • "But, as I have said, when we passed the unanimous Resolution in 1967 we all assumed that East Jerusalem would revert to Jordan. East Jerusalem, as a matter of fact, had been occupied in the 1967 conflict and it therefore plainly under the terms of the Resolution came under the requirement for Israeli withdrawal." p 14
The portion of the "Interview with Lord Caradon" quoted by CAMERA is represented by the ellipses below:
Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from "occupied territories," but not from "the occupied territories"?
A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can't justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. ... ...So what we stated was the principle that you couldn't hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to let's read the words carefully "secure and recognized boundaries." They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it's only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind that security doesn't come from arms, it doesn't come from territory, it doesn't come from geography, it doesn't come from one side dominating the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.
Q. But how would one change the previous border without the acquisition of territory by war? Are you suggesting mutual concessions that is, that both Israel and the Arabs would rationalize the border by yielding up small parcels of territory?
A. Yes, I'm suggesting that.
Those sort of omissions and distortions of the material reflect an extreme and systematic bias that is promotional in nature. CAMERA favors the view that Israel can unilaterally retain some of the territory it occupied in 1967. Editors cannot justify the inclusion of unreliable sources by simply adding an inline citation. CAMERA cannot be used if its publications are not subject to editorial oversight or are not reliably published. In many cases the authors are unknown and its research is unverifiable or demonstrably misleading. harlan (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, IPS is WP:RS, not "some website". They're also not alone in their view of CAMERA's reputation, as can be seen from sources cited in the CAMERA article here on wikipedia. --Dailycare (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The editors who say that CAMERA should be cited inline have not addressed the basic question regarding the reliability of the legal research and fact checking done by anonymous CAMERA authors or Alex Safian, e.g. [10] or [11]
In the latter case, Safian ignores the findings of the UN treaty bodies, the EU, the ICRC and others who have determined that the blockade of Gaza constitutes collective punishment that violates the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. Safian offers an analysis of the non-binding San Remo Manual guidelines as if they constitute a permissive rule that would establish Israel's right to exercise its power on the territory of another State or to ignore the customary prohibitions contained in Article 54(1) and (2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. He offers the dangerous advice that Israel would be within its rights to attack merchant ships if they refused orders to change course away from Gaza.
The "Explanation" that accompanies the text of the San Remo Manual explains that violations of the customary prohibitions, for any reason, render a blockade illegal. See Doswald-Beck, Louise, San Remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea, 1995, Cambridge University Press, ISBN=0521558646, page 179, [12] In the S.S. Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice said that, "the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that - failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary - it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State." See Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10, at p. 18 (1927) [13].
Presumably the legal opinions of a particle physicist on maritime law are not inherently reliable nor notable enough to either be used as arguments that contradict legal publicists and legal scholars or to give legal advice in an encyclopedia. Is there any evidence of editorial oversight, or that a fact-checking process is employed by CAMERA which subjects its research to review by qualified experts or some sort of peer review? harlan (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that this is the standard that we hold for all NGOs' claims we source in WP? It is not about ignoring the findings, it's about adding a different view. The weight is certainly not UNDUE at all. --Shuki (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, if you want to discuss the qualifications of B'tselem's founders, directors, or staff open a thread. B'tselem was established by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and lawmakers from the Knesset. Many of them are university professors and recognized authorities in the fields of international law, political science, history, philosophy, and the sciences, e.g. [14] You on the other hand, are citing a CAMERA article authored by Alex Safian. You said CAMERA was not a reliable source in one of your own posts above. So far as I can see, Safian is not a recognized expert on the rules of international organization or the law. You keep trying to include his argument into the article which makes an unverified claim that only the English version of resolution 242 is considered binding according to UN standard practice. There has been a thread open here for several days requesting information about Safian's qualifications and the reliability of that claim. Particle physicists and media watchdog groups are not inherently reliable sources of information on the topic of the UN Charter or rules of procedure. harlan (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't this fail RS as a self-published/questionable source making claims about a third party? It's not their opinion, they are stating a fact on the practices of the UN. A fact that I can't find anywhere else. Sol (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, the operative point isn't that they're an NGO, but that (this is what the WP:V is the criterion) they're a questionable source, NGO or no. --Dailycare (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please address CAMERAs advocacy and its use of false or misleading information

So far, none of the posts above that recommend quoting CAMERA inline have addressed the fact that CAMERA has earned a poor reputation for presenting the relevant facts about UNSC resolution 242 and other issues related to Israel.

  • Here is a cable dated April 8, 1968 from Johnson administration Secretary of State, Dean Rusk. It was published in 2000 by the GPO as part of the US State Department FRUS series, Volume XX, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1967–68. It said that the US Government had explained its views to the Israeli Foreign Ministry that "the transfer of civilians to occupied areas, whether or not in settlements which are under military control, is contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention". The cable mentions resolution 242 in Rusk's concluding remarks: "Finally, you should emphasize that no matter what rationale or explanation is put forward by the GOI, the establishment of civilian settlements in the occupied areas creates the strong appearance that Israel, contrary to the principle set forth in the UNSC Resolution and to US policy expressed in the President's speech of June 19, does not intend to reach a settlement involving withdrawal from those areas." [15]
  • Here is an LA Times article in which Gershom Gorenberg cited the cable [16] and another article in which Gorenberg discussed CAMERA's attempts to have the LA Times article "corrected". He also mentions the declassified memo written in 1967 by the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s legal adviser, Theodor Meron which said that settling Israeli civilians in the territories "contravenes the explicit provisions of the Geneva Convention". Gorenberg says that CAMERA continues to claim that it was only the Carter administration that held that the settlements violated international law. [17]
  • Here is a link to a typical CAMERA webpage (in addition to the ones cited in the section above) which conveys the false or misleading impression that President Carter departed from the original Johnson administration policy on settlements or resolution 242 [18] [19]
  • CAMERA claims that President Carter engages in serious falsehood when he talks about withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines. The legal counsel to the Canadian UN delegation in 1967, Sidney A. Freifeld, responded to a similar claim in Commentary magazine. He said "Mr. Rostow describes as a “startling new proposition” a point that he discerns in Secretary Baker's speech to AIPAC, “namely, that Resolution 242 requires Israel to withdraw to the armistice demarcation lines as they stood in 1967. . . .” That was not a “startling new proposition” but the intent and the language of 242 which specified, inter alia, the application of the following principle: “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The word “territories” was deliberately not preceded by “the” or “all the,” thus leaving open the possibility of border rectifications. With that proviso, 242 indeed called for “Israel to withdraw to the armistice demarcation lines as they stood in 1967,” i.e., to relinquish (most of) the West Bank and Gaza." [20]
  • President Carter's statements about resolution 242 in Peace Not Apartheid agree with the statements above made by Dean Rusk, George Brown, and Sidney Freifeld, i.e. withdrawal to the pre-war armistice lines, unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps. [21]

The mainstream media, even in CAMERA's hometown of Boston, say that CAMERA "lobbies reporters, editors, and network officials" and that it is a "advocacy group trying to impose its pro-Israeli views on mainstream journalism", e.g. the Boston Globe [22] It is a questionable source because its website and publications express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, misleading, and promotional in nature or which rely heavily on personal opinions. harlan (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose that all citations to material, articles and so on in the website Electronic Intifada, which crop up frequently in Wikipedia articles on Israel and the Palestinians, be removed from Wikipedia on the grounds that the website is well-known to be a propaganda and political activist site that aims to present an extremist and often false and even what critics call a "mythological" view of events (e.g., see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html). CAMERA has strict editorial overview and is of a higher standard than the Electronic Intifada site, and many others used by pro-Palestinian advocates in Wikipedia articles. That CAMERA is criticised as being unreliable by pro-Palestinian sources should not surprise anyone, but neither should the claim be regarded as an established fact either. As for Resolution 242, Harlan is a less reliable source than CAMERA. On this Resolution and the American understanding of it, see the Wikipedia article on the subject, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_242, which canvasses all viewpoints, and demonstrates that Harlan has misrepresented Dean Rusk and other American authorities, for the Americans including Rusk have stressed from the start and during the original negotiations wording Resolution 242 itself, that some adjustment in borders will be needed to make them "secure and defensible." One U.S. president after another has reconfirmed this, only Jimmy Carter excepted. In fact, there is little difference between the stated position in Israel at Camp David in 2000 and repeatedly stated since then, and the official American view today. So Harlan also misrepresents the supposed contrast between the American and the Israeli view.Tempered (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper and magazine articles from the 1960s

John Birch Society

An editor proposes using contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles from the 1960s as sources for this article.[23] This appears perserse to me since countless peer-reviewed articles and books have been published in the academic press. Here are results for Google scholar (4,420 hits) and Google books (98,300 hits). Is there any policy about this? TFD (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, there is no proscription against using historical, primary sources. They must, however, be used carefully. So, for example, if a source from 1961 says that the JBS was involved in an anti-fluoridation campaign, and believed that proponents of fluoridation were guilty of "creeping socialism" which could lead to socialized medicine, we could represent those claims in an historical context from the 1960s. Ideally, we would also have reliable secondary sources supporting these claims to prevent anyone from misusing historical sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Adding to the above comment, essentially, it's always better to use modern sources when available, since they will have far more perspective on past events than sources that were made, say, the year after the event. SilverserenC 23:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
However, the opposite is true in this case. As it turns out, the JBS group received more coverage in the past than in the present, as their heyday was in the 1960s. Since that time, they have grown smaller, and are not covered as much by reliable sources. There is a great deal of information about the group between 1960-1980, and not so much about them today. Recent secondary sources on the same topic do not challenge or differ in their approach to the historical sources. While it is certainly true that current sources are always preferred, when working on articles about history, we often make use of historical sources to expand and illustrate issues and topics from the time that the subject was most notable. As long as the older sources are in parity with the newer ones, there isn't a problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) TFD's description of the dispute is rather misleading. The dispute on sourcing is largely over one particular statement in the article, (that the John Birch Society notably opposed fluoridation in the late 50s and 60s, on the grounds that it was part of a communist conspiracy). Secondly, no one on that talkpage has suggested using only contemporaneous news sources, or that they are preferable to academic sources. TFD has not tried to include any sourcing - and it would be great if he helped out one way or the other. Another user has been making a list of references, which I invite people to look at. We're dealing with a statement of fact, not with analyses, and the notability of it is clear.
TFD's argument on the talkpage has appeared to be that we cannot use contemporaneous RS news stories, or even good RS news sources from later years, and must (only?) use academic sources that focus on Right-wing groups. This rules out RS sources on the anti-fluoridation campaigns of the era. Is this view of sourcing correct?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact I supplied three books from academic publishers just below the suggested list refered to.[24] and nothing is stopping you from finding more. TFD (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
TFD, we're all in favor of using the best sources we can find, but again, there is no proscription against using older news sources. There is only a problem as to how the sources are used. It would help greatly if you could use one of the proposed sources as an example, and show how it could be problematic. That way, we will have something to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
@TFD - you've suggested that other people add these sources, and it appears you've read them. Why don't you add them? I cannot see what you're complaining about. No one has said these sources are bad. If you only have a problem with using news sources from the time, say that - but you're arguing as if all the RS sources people have cited from later years (into the last two decades) that repeat the same information are unreliable/undesirable for the same reason. At the moment, it's very difficult indeed to understand what your complaint is if you mix everything in together, and don't actually try to present alternatives, or indeed, any detailed sourcing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not you can, why would you want to? Are you aware that more is known today about events that occurred in the past than was known at the time? TFD (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You're avoiding again (it's about the fourth time I've raised this point) the fact that there are RS sources detailing the issue that go right up into the past couple of years. Could you address that? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well yes "there are RS sources detailing the issue that go right up into the past couple of years". What I do not understand is why you would ignore them. TFD (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
We are not ignoring anything. As I requested earlier, please show how information in the older, historical sources is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You have the cart before the horse. If a rational person wants to know what happened fifty years ago, they read current reliable literature. E.g., If I want to know about the Watergate break in, I do not look at the newspapers from June 1972. TFD (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel quite strongly about Wikipedia _not_ conducting original research in the field of history. As I understand the issue, there is a thing people believe to be a fact, "That the John Birch Society ran anti-flouridation campaigns in the ?1950s-?1960s". In history, even the straight forward interpretation of direct statements by documents claiming to be factual is original research in the sense of the discipline of history, and in the sense of the discipline of history any newspaper contemporaneous to the fact would be considered a primary source. However, I feel a certain sympathy over simple claims of fact (ie: publically avowed campaigns of organisations reported in mainstream commercial media sources of the day). And more sympathy when the use of the distant source is for the purpose of illustration of a narrative or theoretical concept originating in scholarly sources. Ideal: source the point against a modern scholarly source or historical scholarly source (a political science piece from the time) for notability of the point; and, source the point against a contemporaneous mainstream commercial newspaper article from the time for illustration. If the point is broader than the one I understand, including campaigns at times, places, or the composition of such campaigns including tactics size and effect, please let me know. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that there is no policy requiring the use of strictly contemporary sources for historical events. Primary sources, of course, come with their own special set of rules (per WP:PRIMARY), but sources from the time in question should certainly be allowed. Otherwise, how do we draw the line? What about, for instance, an article about World War I--can we use sources from 1918? What about from 1940, by which point there was already ample time to get some historical perspective? Or do we have to wait until the 1950s, when people could see more clearly how the manner of the ending of the war effected the course of the next several decades? Similarly, requiring only newer sources seems to imply that the encyclopedia would be required (rather than being allowed) to change over time. This simply doesn't make any sense to me, and it doesn't sound like anything in policy, either. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers from 1918 have been superceeded by scholarly investigation, the scholarly literature even has literature reviews which declare which scholarly sources have gone out of acceptable scholarly use and why. The encyclopedia _is_ required to change over time, through WP:V, because the object of study in the humanities and social sciences changes as scholarly knowledge changes over time. Where past reports outside of scholarly literature are significant in and of themselves, this will appear _in_ the scholarly literature anyway. We don't write the history of the Australian involvement in the First World War from C W Bean, but Bean's history is encyclopaedically significant in and of itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, it would be helpful if you address this example, not another one. In this case, we are referring to the sources listed at Talk:John_Birch_Society#References and Talk:John_Birch_Society#Essential_sources_for_addition, all of which are acceptable per standard Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from here, but in case you don't know, the current article on the John Birch Society is mostly a whitewash, and the group is currently trying to improve their image by rewriting their own history, which happens to be documented in the older sources. If you could find something wrong with these sources and criticize it, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I'm not sure how your comments are topical. Primary sources are used all the time on Wikipedia, and as long as they are in parity with current secondary sources and do not deviate from the known facts, we are allowed to use them, and in fact, encouraged to do so. As a good example of such use, please see the featured article, Grace Sherwood, where sources from 1894, 1895, 1914, 1934, 1941, and 1985, are used extensively. The sources from the 1960s-1980s under discussion here, are all reliable, and perfectly acceptable for use. Many, if not most of them, are also used as the basis for current publications. I don't see anything in the older sources that has been "superseded", and these older articles document the heyday of the JBS. I'm still not following an objection to using these sources, nor do I see one. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have answered the concerns with the sources currently given at RS/N in relation to the point requiring substantiation. If you would like to bring additional sources you or other editors believe may be unreliable for points they purport to support to RS/N, please feel free to do so. I prefer specific quotes and full citations when being asked to evaluate sources for reliability. Editors requested that I elucidate my reasons for my judgement in relation to the sources required to support the conclusion that a particular organisation engaged in particular campaigns in the 1960s. Grace Sherwood, if you'd care to examine, is discussing events from a number of hundred years prior to the publication of sources in 1894. And the sources from 1894 have not been superceeded by higher quality scholarly research. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to address the topic generally, often more modern sources are based on someone else's telling of someone else's telling of an event, missing important facts or changing the meaning, as happens as info is passed from person to person. Sometimes going back to "just the facts" contemporaneous reporting is greatly enlightening. Of course, the big problem is it is harder to verify them, even if people quote them in the footnote, and there will be suspicions about them unless there is an online version. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I suppose it's possible that the JBS claiming that flouridation was a Communist conspiracy might be an urban myth, but at the time, I was fairly certain that their public literature pushed exactly that claim quite vigorously. If that's correct (and I certainly could be wrong) then a search through archives of right-wing literature for the JBS pamphlets and so on would be a good idea; even though they are primary sources, they would be ideal for putting this debate to rest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going from memory here, but I believe the term used by the JBS was "creeping socialism". Today, the JBS maintain this position, arguing that they were against fluoridation in the past for the same reasons they are against socialized medicine. Beyond that, it is possible, as you say, to imagine that some sources exaggerated this claim, however, I believe there is additional evidence supporting the "communist plot" claims in the FBI reports. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The primary research has effectively been done by MSNBC, which was challenged by JBS in 2009 over its characterisation of their opposition to fluoridation (and a number of other allegations), and so produced documents with the help of the FOIA and a library card. Scientific American also mentions JBS and the communist conspiracy at the very beginning of its 2008 article on fluoridation, and it is given prominence in the Dictionary of American History's account of anti-fluoridation. I entirely agree with Fifelfoo that the best combination are modern sources for authority and context, contemporaneous sources for illustration. There is no OR going on - it is variations on the same simple statement in RS after RS, and is also mentioned in books on the fluoridation argument right up until the present day. No one has written a long in-depth study of JBS's linkage of fluoridation to communism and had it published by OUP, but that's true of many individual items in wikipedia. WP:RS isn't limited to books like that, andwe're not trying to prove a grand theory here, only a statement of fact. I have to be honest and say I find TFD's position increasingly incoherent. His presentation of the dispute was highly misleading, and his suggestion that I or any other editor has been ignoring modern sources is simply false. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In other words, you believe that modern authors, like Sara Diamond and Chip Berlet and many others who have written extensively about the JBS and whose works were published by the academic press, did not do their research properly, and have for some reason "whitewashed" the JBS history, and it is therefore up to us to correct the record by performing their extensive research over again. Do you have any suggestions why they would do this, other than the water they were drinking? Reading through reliable sources, three things appear evident: writers about the JBS treat the anti-fluoridation campaign as just a part of their overall belief-system and activities, writers of the flouridation controversy give very little coverage to their role, e.g., The fluoride wars (2009),[25] and the connection was popularized by Dr. Strangelove.[26] TFD (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
TFD, how do Diamond and Bertlet contradict the other sources that are mentioned here? If they do, we would normally present both sides in a dispute where reliable sources differ about facts or interpretations. If they do not. why are you mentioning them? Paul B (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not know how they contradict the other sources. The point is we should rely on scholarly sources rather than articles written decades ago. TFD (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You are not making any sense, TFD. If they do not contradict the other sources then your rant above is utterly meaningless. There is nothing wrong with using sources from decades ago. Paul B (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please show civility. If magazines from the 60s do not contradict modern scholarship then why would we use them? TFD (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not distort facts. They should be used if they provide extra useful information, that's why. More to the point is the question why you want to suppress them? Paul B (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All sides are making good points and I would like to respond to all of them. That would however amount to writing an essay, something I may have to do in the end anyway. There are multiple issues here that would need to be discussed in a general context.

On the specific issue of the John Birch Society I have to agree 100% with Viriditas. When a historical event becomes the focus of an organized campaign to tweak, rewrite or even falsify history, contemporary sources rule prime. The same applies to all issues where modern narratives diverge into opposing camps, instead of converging.

Most Wikipedia disputes that end up in long arbitration cases – starting from Cold fusion – do not originate from bad-faith misuse of sources, but competing narratives, both reliably published in their corresponding "academic" or "scientific" disciplines, both claiming to reliably cover the same topic but fundamentally disagreeing on the interpretation. Such cases are intractable from the point of view of Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. In the case of history, – i.e. competing historical narratives – contemporary reliable secondary sources or even primary sources become the ultimate arbitrator. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

But to show that there is "an organized campaign to tweak, rewrite, or even falsify history," would you first need an RS saying that such a campaign is taking place? And then, in the absence of one, wouldn't the appropriate approach be to invoke WP:DUE, balancing out the competing views based on their prevalence (not just their prevalence now, or their prevalence at the time, but the overall prevalence historically)? If we have a case where contemporary scholars (ideally, academic or similar quality sources) have soundly rejected or at least seriously questioned prior reporting, then we are under no obligation to include the older sources. But in cases where it is not clear who is "right" or "reliable," I would think we need to include both. Sorting out these distinctions will of course require editorial judgement, but that's true almost any time we have a subject with multiple POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
@Petri, I really appreciate the attempt to bring peace. However, in this case the biggest problem is that the dispute has not been represented properly by the user bringing the issue here. No one is claiming that JBS' views on fluoridation defined their world view. No one has said that we should rely wholly on contemporaneous reports. No one has suggested that we don't mention other activities of JBS at the time with the same due weight (please, go ahead and add them!). No one has said academic sources should be ignored. If it were not for one editor, there would be no need for this section on this noticeboard. The original dispute on the talkpage was reaching a resolution (as more sources got produced), with fears on one side about misrepresenting JBS as it is today being accepted and dealt with by the other to what looked like everyone's satisfaction. This is not really about two sides.
@Qwyrxian - your point about conflicting sources illustrates the confusion being sown. There is no conflict between RS now and then in terms of the bare information that we want to include. I think TFD's current argument is that RS books and journals don't use enough ink over the issue, but the thing is, they frequently do use at least some, and, as I'll repeat, JBS has been in an argument with a major news organisation over it very recently.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If we want to use contemporaneous sources, then I suggest using the source I presented, Westin's "The John Birch Society" in Daniel Bell's The Radical Right. (republished 2002)[27] Other contributors included Richard Hofstadter, Nathan Glazer, Peter Viereck, Talcott Parsons and Seymour Martin Lipset. Unless there is some argument that they were pro-JBS writers. If we want to cover the current dispute with MSNBC then let us use current sources. TFD (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
We can use that source as well. According to Westin fluoridation was viewed as communist by JBS. We would need to back it up with the more modern references we have. There's actually a nice long list of things that JBS viewed as communist. I'd prefer to focus on the ones that get attention in later RS - which seem to be in no particular order, fluoridation, civil rights, the UN and Eisenhower, although if there's more coverage of other stuff it would probably help to overcome any undue concerns. The most important aspect seems to be how broad they believed the communist conspiracy to be.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are saying. We need to back up Westin's views with more modern sources but there is no requirement to do this when we use magazine articles written at the time. Do you believe that magazine articles are more reliable than scholarly writing? TFD (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Magazine articles may in some cases be more reliable than scholarly writing. It depends on the 'magazine' and the scholarship, but of course generally scholarly literature is to be preferred. However, you keep referring to scholarly literature as though it contradicts these earlier sources, but in your previous comment you say you have no reason to believe it does. It's difficult to make any sense at all of your argument. You just suggested using Westin as a source. Now you say "We need to back up Westin's views with more modern sources but there is no requirement to do this when we use magazine articles written at the time." Are you accepting that magazine articles can be used? Paul B (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
TFD - you're embarrassing yourself now. The view you again ascribe to me is not one I have held or stated, as I have now explained several times. You appear to be carrying on this discussion out of a need for WP:DRAMA.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
V, please avoid personal attacks. The discussion was about using magazine articles from the 1960s. Your comment was "The sourcing looks absolutely fine".[28] When I mention that a highly regarded scholarly paper was written at the same time you say, "We would need to back it up with the more modern references we have". Could you please explain why we need modern scholarship to back up earlier scholarship but none to support earlier magazine articles. Are you aware that contemporaneous magazine writers relied on these types of sources to help them interpret the JBS, adopting terms like "right-wing" and "extremist" from scholarly writing? If you have changed your view on the reliablity of 1960s magazine articles though we would have made some progress. TFD (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Paul B, my argument has been that we should use the best most recent sources available and I supplied examples on the talk page. If you do not understand why I would prefer a recent book from an academic publishing house over a magazine article from the 1960s, then you should read WP:RS. I only mentioned Westin as a better source than magazine articles written at the time.
TFD (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not need to read WP:RS thak you. But you need to stop misrepresenting what people say, and evading the real issues. Basic honesty is required here. No-one is denying that academic sources can and should be used. But 'academic' is not some mystical absolute. Academics vary in expertise, competence and bias. Newer sources do not automatically cancel older ones, and the existence of academic sources does not magically negate non-academic ones. For reasons that are not clear here (but presumably derive from your POV), you seem to want to exclude sources from the 1960s. I see no support from anyone here for any such exclusion. Paul B (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
TFD, you're quoting, to put it politely, "very selectively". It's true I said "The sourcing looks absolutely fine." You omitted the following sentences: "We have Time, Scientific American, Dictionary of American history, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and so on and so forth. Several books also mention JBS' opposition to fluoridation on the grounds it was a communist plot." So clearly "sourcing" refers to the totality of sourcing. The title of the section was "Comments on sources", for Pete's sake. With regard to the 1961 Time article, I said "The original complaint was that we can't trust Time because of Castro and Kennedy - whatever that's supposed to mean. Yet so many other separate sources repeat the information that we can take at least this from the Time article - that we have no reason to mistrust the source, and it is not a lone voice in the dark stating that JBS opposed fluoridation as a communist plot, and that they achieved notoriety for doing so." That is, that the Time article was supported by modern sources, and, as Fifelfoo put it, could serve as an illustration. (By the way, the Berlet and Diamond books you insistently recommend are published by a specialist in mental health and education, not political science. That doesn't make them bad, but it does make them a little less special, doesn't it?) Now, given that I'm clearly not saying what you've accused me of saying, and given that nobody on that page is anything like it, why don't you give it a rest?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The books written by Diamond and Berlet are accepted academic sources and as you see from this 2004 book published by Routledge they are considered scholars of the radical right.[29] In fact scholarship about the radical right is often covered by sociologists like Diamond. The original complaint I made was based on the fact that Viriditas wished to rely on 1960s magazine articles. Anyway if you agree that we should rely on modern scholarship and not re-invent the wheel by conducting our own original research using 1960s magazines, we have made progress. TFD (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
A single passing, non-praising (technical) mention (in a list of several "scholars") on one page, and you missed the footnote where the same books admits their approach can be criticised. Heh. Anyway, that's beside the point - I have nothing against Berlet and Diamond as RS. One of your arguments appears to be that only "academic" material that is fully focussed on the radical right or on the John Birch society should be used. This is getting onto rather problematic ground. There hasn't been a definitive academic history of the John Birch Society, nor is there a coherent field of "John Birch Society studies". Every account will have omissions where many others do not. Editorial judgement and consensus have to operate; Wikipedia is not and never will be an automated algorithm for plugging in RS at one end and producing articles at the other. One can compare the situation to BLPs where there haven't been decent biographies written yet - but the topic and aspects of it can be handled by consensus that invokes policies on notability, due weight, verifiability and so on. There clearly is a John Birch Society, and several RS, decades after the fact, refer to certain aspects of their past without contradicting each other. As an example, you agree on the talkpage that "of course the anti-flouridation campaign was one of the major activities of the JBS" - yet Berlet and Diamond don't mention it. If there were great academic sources to replace all the other modern RS, we'd rather have those, but we do not live in an ideal world, and there is no reason to believe we are performing OR by virtue of using non-academic RS as well as academic RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that in some cases old publications (and in other cases primary sources) really are better than other sources. In some cases they are the only sources. Such cases require discussion of the specific content, and this commonly works well on WP. But on the other hand, I am not sure if there is really any concrete claim here that the old sources are in conflict with better sources? If it is just a theoretical problem it seems odd to spend so much time on it? For some RS questions, discussion can be stretched to infinity, but that does not mean we should. On the other hand, would the problem be resolved if the citations were attributed to "contemporary press reports" or something like that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary "popular" journals (Time etc.) show what contemporary journalists thought, and no more. Dates, etc. from them are pretty clearly acceptable - it is the "opinion" bit which is the bone of contention as far as I can figure. Modern "experts" (who may have their own biases, depending on who funds them, and on which side their own bread is buttered) are presumed on WP to be "better" in some respects. "Peer review" is a straw argument - the real problem is whether we want sources which were distorted by the feelings of popular journalists at the time, or sources which are distorted (at times) by "expert opinions" which may be equally wrong. Best practice as far as I can tell (and absolutely needed in any article which has living people mentioned in them) is to cover all "opinions" and make sure readers know that they are "opinions" and not "simple statements of fact." Collect (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We must distinguish between facts and opinions in academic writing. The facts are considered reliable, but how we report the opinions depends on how well they have been received. Typically academic books, while they may argue opinions, will explain what the mainstream view is. But I have difficulty with VsevolodKrolikov's view. Basically he is saying that he does not like how academics have treated the JBS and thinks it is our role to correct it. The main issue is fluoridation. Reliable sources show that the anti-fluoridation campaign was a minor part of their activities and that they did not play a major role in the campaign. Sources for example give more emphasis to their campaigns to impeach Earl Warren, their involvement in local PTAs and their support of conservative candidates. Reliable sources also show that their role assumed legendary proportions in popular culture. The article already reflects this and the article should not present any other view. TFD (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
TFD, you claim that I am saying that I do "not like how academics have treated the JBS and thinks it is our role to correct it." Provide a quote to support this claim. Also, provide a source that says the fluoridation campaign was "minor". Maybe there is one, but you would have been withholding it from us all until now for reasons unknown. (That a couple of non-exhaustive sources on a much broader topic don't mention it is not evidence - to argue it is, is clearly OR). Explain at what point you changed your opinion that (and here I provide a direct quote from you) "of course the anti-flouridation campaign was one of the major activities of the JBS", and why until now you haven't bothered furnishing editors trying to improve Wikipedia with sources to the contrary. It's clear you enjoy talkpage and noticeboard arguments, but it does get in the way of people improving the encyclopedia when you drag them on here and (to be civil) "misrepresent" them to the wider community.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You might want to discuss the issues and avoid personal attacks. You wrote, "There hasn't been a definitive academic history of the John Birch Society, nor is there a coherent field of "John Birch Society studies". Every account will have omissions where many others do not." IOW you "not like how academics have treated the JBS and thinks it is our role to correct it." Well that is not our role. And while I believed that the anti-fluoridation campaign was a major activity, having been influenced like you by popular culture, my reading of reliable sources shows little mention of it. When you write articles you should read the literature and represent what it says rather than decide a priori what is important and search for sources that support your POV, in this case finding magazine articles from almost fifty years ago. TFD (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the last time I will bother responding to you on this topic as you are simply being disruptive. (For reference, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TEDIOUS). Given that my constant objections have been very clear, your countless and continuing attempts to describe my point of view can only be taken as mendacious. How can you say I'm relying on 50 year old sources when I've been advocating sources from 2009, 2008, 2003? (or is it Viriditas doing that? - you appear to be confused) How can you imply that a book on the radical right in general, that contains half a chapter on the JBS (and barely more than two pages on the 1960s, just under half of which is taken up with the issue of membership numbers), that doesn't even appear to mention JBS attacks on Eisenhower (10,000 google books hits for <"John Birch" Eisenhower>, to mirror your initial complaint), is "a definitive history" of the John Birch Society? Where did I ever say the book was "wrong", rather than not exhaustive? (they're two different things, by the way.) Your repeated uncivil non-AGF attacks on other people's use of sources are demonstrably baseless, as is your constant reference to personal attacks on you (personal attacks are criticisms without evidence, not legitimate objections). Stop wasting everyone's time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
TFD, just in terms of logic maybe it helps for someone outside the discussion to point out that the equation you make between the following two wordings clearly can not be made:-
  • X thinks that "[t]here hasn't been a definitive academic history of the John Birch Society, nor is there a coherent field of "John Birch Society studies". Every account will have omissions where many others do not."
  • X does "not like how academics have treated the JBS and thinks it is our role to correct it."
Just in case it helps. Cheers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
What they do not like about how "academics have treated the JBS" is the "omissions". I do not think that it is our role to "correct" the omissions. Sorry if I was not clear. As you can see although there have been no recent books about the JBS it has received considerable study.[30] The issue of how much weight to apply to different aspects of the JBS is however one of neutrality> TFD (talk)
Omissions are not mistakes, so "correct" is an inappropriate word choice. It is normal that not all sources cover all aspects of a subject. In other words, most sources have "omissions". In such cases there is absolutely nothing wrong with using other sources to fill the gaps as long as those other sources are also reliable sources according to WP norms. Your argument seems to be that a subject, or aspects of subjects, can only be covered by WP if there are sources of the very highest quality? I do not believe that is correct.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be that if something you believe should be included in sources is omitted that it is a mistake that we must correct. My view is that if the experts ignore something it is because they believe it is unimportant. Of course we may be smarter than the experts, but until they come to their senses and give proper weight to what we consider to be important, I think we should go with what they say. TFD (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not my argument. But I would argue that it is clearly illogical to argue that "if the experts ignore something it is because they believe it is unimportant". Each source we use covers some range of aspects which its authors chose. There is no exact overlap necessary or even common between the topic of a WP article and the topic of any particular source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
It is possible that if no scholars have written about a subject it is not because they consider it unimportant. But we cannot conclude that they consider it important either. I do not believe that we should be writing about things that experts have ignored. However, experts have written about the JBS and fluoridation, they just have not given it the weight that some editors believe it should have. But that is not an RS issue. TFD (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
A basic thing to be careful of in any complicated logical or rhetorical analysis is a sentence with lots of negatives, trying to be a syllogism. For example: It is possible that if no scholars have written about a subject it is not because they consider it unimportant. Rewrite avoiding negatives: It is possible that if scholars have written about other subjects it is because they consider those other subjects important". And the obvious answer is that it is not only possible but indeed so highly likely as to be an almost meaningless statement. In other words, there is a logic problem here, because your reasoning does not lead us where you say it leads us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rate the strength of these refs

@ Talk:Tree_shaping/List_of_potential_title_names A long running debate is still in progrees about the title of the page and the weight that should be given to any one name. Are the references listed in the tables reliable and do they support the current weight and use of "Tree shaping" or "Tree training" or "Arborsculpture" in the article [body], as the title or in the body of related articles ? Please help, there are 3 main contenders... [Tree shaping ] (the contested current title) [Tree Training] and [Arborsculpture] I'm requesting feedback or ratings for these references, thank you, Slowart (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems such a minor issue to outsiders. Perhaps the simple fact is that all three terms are in use. Then so long as there are redirects for each then you just have to judge which is the most common name. It's not really a reliable source thing. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Pick a name any name. To make WP good it will be more important to then make the disambiguations and redirects work well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Film Stage

Is The Film Stage considered a reliable and notable source? BLGM5 has been removing these reviews from numerous articles with the edit summary "college kid reviews are not notable." It seems to me that the site has passed the threshold from a hobby by some college students to a reputable source for film information, interviews, reviews, etc. But, I would like the opinion of some other editors. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." Checking the website's footer, it does not appear to operate under a reliable publisher. The "About" page here does not indicate that the people who run the website, Jordan Raup and Daniel Mecca, are authoritative figures in film. The website is a good effort, but I do not think it meets the standard. A similar website is filmsite, which we can see has a reliable publisher in AMC. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Your comments make perfect sense. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FA Review, British Empire and whether James S. Olson is a reliable source

British Empire has been submitted for a re-review of its FA status [31]. User:YellowMonkey (aka User:YellowAssessmentMonkey) posted the following comment "Olson an unreliable source", describing the co-editor as a "clown" and a "joke", which I'm finding hard to reconcile with the fact that User:YellowMonkey is also the Featured Articles Director's (User:Raul654) assistant. Editors in this role should be taking the subject of the reliability of sources far more seriously than this. (For starters, he seems unaware that Olson is one of 9 co-editors and not actually the author).

The source in question is The Historical Dictionary of the British Empire. The way I see it, this is a clearly reliable source, Olson [32] is clearly not a "clown" or a "joke", and neither are the authors who contributed to the entries. While there are many reasonable arguments for using a different source, getting rid of it as User:YellowAssessmentMonkey suggests simply because he thinks there are errors in a completely unrelated publication which the same individual was involved with is so far removed from how we should be operating at any article talk page, let alone featured article reviews, that it's verging on being a joke.

What are others' thoughts on this? Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just want to make sure that readers get the full and balanced perspective on this dispute. There are other high quality secondary or tertiary sources that conflict directly with that Olson says. These are more recent and are obviously based on new, highly credible research which was done in field and reported upon by BBC and Telegraph as shown below. Olson's work is from 1996 where are these newer sources are from the new century. Olson's claim is that the Indian war of independence was over "Westernization" which has been contested.
  • BBC - Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' "In the rebels' own papers, they refer over and again to their uprising being a war of religion. There were no doubt a multitude of private grievances, but it is now unambiguously clear that the rebels saw themselves as fighting a war to preserve their religion, and articulated it as such."
  • BBC - This Sceptred Isle: EMPIRE "The reasons for the rebellion were long standing and included: attempts by British missionaries to convert all India to Christianity; ineffectual command of the army in Bengal; insensitive recruiting policy and "Europeanization" of the sepoy regiments and sepoy objections to serving outside their homeland and traditional areas."
  • Telegraph - Causes of the Indian Mutiny "More sophisticated historical readings find a range of causes for the bubbling discontent that led to open rebellion - the punitive tax collection system, a succession of British territorial seizures and the rise of aggressive Christian evangelism among them." Zuggernaut (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
All those links are 404s...and technically, claims from news sources are not exactly a good counter against academic sources. If Olson is a bad source, then there ought to be other scholars, not news reports, to counter him. Jim101 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed the links, sorry about that. The media is simply reporting work of the reputed historian William Dalrymple (historian) . Zuggernaut (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this subject, but from what I can see this is a conflict between old vs. new scholar opinions, therefore it is more of a NPOV problem than RS problem. From the lack of evidence that demonstrates Olson is a fringe author, I believe Olson represented a somewhat outdated understanding of the topic, therefore we need to put it into context by presenting it side by side with newer research on the topic. Removing a high quality source because it is outdated is overkill, and somewhat not neutral. Jim101 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that much of a conflict. All these sources list several reasons, though Zuggernaut just seems to want to pick out one. However the word "westernise" seems to cover all the main reasons given, including religion - sice Christian evangelism is part of a process of westernisation, as are attempts to professionalise the army on western models. One of the sources quoted by Zuggernaut even uses the word "europeanisation", which is a synonym for Westernisation. So if many reliable sources seem to be consistent, where is the problem? Paul B (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You can also find many, many books via a search on this in Google Books which use the term "westernize" in this context. Indeed, the Enyclopaedia Britannica article also uses it. When I raised this on the talk page [33] and quoted some of them, they were all dismissed by Zuggernaut as "dated", on the basis of these three newspaper websites he had Googled, which he presented as "the latest research". I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is no conflict. Quoting from the source, with my comments in italics: "There is no single explanation for the rebellion" (seems fair enough, agrees with the Telegraph article that there was a "range of causes") "The upheavals reflected cumulative tensions that had built up during nearly a century of interaction between western influences and Indian society. This tension developed during a period of British political consolidation in the first half of the 19th century. India was also subjected to an ideological onslaught in the period between 1800 and 1850, which had profound effects on relations between the British Raj and Indian society. Finally, urbanization and modernization played key roles in precipitating the violence...." (a couple of paragraphs later the author - not Olson, by the way - goes on to discuss three "Western ideologies", the first of which is "evangelicalism" - is that the same word the Telegraph article uses? - oh yes it is!) "Evangelicalism spurred an active intrusion in socio-religious spheres, particularly among Hindus, and legislative acts directed at Hindu social practices (such as sati and thugee) upset many orthodox Hindus." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Japan is a non-Chrisitian country and fully Westernized. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
An utterly irrelevant remark. I doubt the Japanese see themselves as "fuly Westernised". Paul B (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant and ignorant. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
On a topic like this, articles in the popular press, even quoting learned scholars, have no weight. Wait for these scholars to publish their opinions in the academic press and see whether or not their theories are accepted. (n the meantime, Olson's book is reliable. TFD (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's already a published and very well received work as Jamesinderbyshire pointed out. [34] The Guardian calls it brilliant - Zafar the ditherer Geoffrey Moorhouse applauds William Dalrymple's brilliantly nuanced account of the Indian mutiny of 1857, The Last Mughal Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Please read the top of this page and supply:
    1. A full citation for the material used: Entry Author (year), "Entry" in Title Editors, Place: Publisher, page range
    2. Please supply the text supported by the citations
  • Provisionally, a Tertiary source should not be used here. Seek monographs. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This FA has more than 25% reliance on tertiary sources. 2) An editor is responsible for his subordinates 3) This guy somehow assumed that anyone Nguyen is a descendant of the Nguyen Dynasty and then claimed that a large part of South Vietnam's leadership are members of the Nguyen Dynasty, and gets people's job titles back to front a lot, and so forth. FA should not accept a lax guy like this YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If the contained articles aren't signed (individually, or collectively authored), then they shouldn't be used at all; it would put this work into the non-scholarly tertiary category for the individual entries. As far as the embarrassing assumption that all Nguyens are related goes, it is the job of other scholars to tear him a hole, though if other scholars have already done so, it would be worth indicating here. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
...which is really a polite way of saying we just have YellowMonkey's word for it that the Vietnam publication he refers to is unreliable and - assumption upon assumption - therefore so too is any publication ever touched by him is unreliable. If all it takes is one Wikipedia editor to denounce an author to make his publications unreliable, Wikipedia would fall apart and POV warriors would have a field day. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
They are individually signed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Zuggernaut, the The last mughal has not been "very well received". The author, William Dalrymple, who popularizes history, published the book with Bloomsbury Publishing, which is not an academic publisher. If Dalrymple has written anything published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then we could use that, but would have to determine the weight his ideas received. TFD (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Source & Article Details

Sorry for not adding the details as the top of this page requests. Here they are:

As for putting in the individual statements in the article that this is being used to support, that's not the point. According to YellowMonkey, it is an unreliable source, period, without having looked at which statements it is being used for. The Westernization/Christianization choice of word is a side issue, which I'd appreciate Zuggernaut not bringing up in this thread (he's welcome to start a different thread). The point of this thread is: is this a WP:RS or not for the British Empire article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the encyclopaedia as a whole isn't: it isn't supporting any statement on Wikipedia. Individual articles may or may not be reliable sources. Please read the top of this page, and provide which items within the encyclopaedia, authored by whom, are used to support which claims in the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason I posted here was because YellowMonkey's argument at the FA review was not even that the encyclopaedia is unreliable, it was that one of the co-editors (James S. Olson) is unreliable, with the unreliability cascading down a priori to this particular publication, the individual entries in that publication and their authors, making them all unusable. If you are of the view that the reliability or unreliability is not a property of the containing encyclopaedia (actually a historical dictionary), I'm presuming you agree that the same must be said of the set of publications ever touched by Olson. That is all I wanted to get a view on, because such an ad hominem attack on the reliability ("Olson had something to do with it") is what YellowMonkey was arguing. The question of whether this particular entry is a reliable source for this particular claim is not a question I'm asking, though it's valid, and others are welcome to ask such questions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
A bad element in a source (publisher, authorial authority (including editors), nature of the work), can taint an item. Which is why I'm still asking after which article in Historical Dictionary of the British Empire by which authors is supporting which statement in wikipedia? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
A "bad element" on whose say so? YellowMonkey's? Who is YellowMonkey? Anyway, the references can be found here British_Empire#References. Just click on an Olson link and it will take you to the sentence referenced. There are a lot of Olson references there (perhaps a problem in itself, though that in itself does not impact the reliability of the source) so I'm not going to list them all. If you want to pick one I can go into it in detail, listing the author and the author's details from the Contributor section at the back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It is impossible to do so, as the article has attributed all works to the containing work, not to the entry, for instance "Olson, p. 533.". This is as useful as "OED p. 300". Additionally the article uses Olson 1991 and Olson 1996 and does not internally differentiate between them. Unresolvable as the article fails to cite adequately to allow verification of reliability. Also footnote 186 has the name misspelt. Given the natural suspicion against the use of tertiary sources, treat as unreliable until article authors can actually bother to cite correctly including differentiating different sources by the same author, and giving the actual work cited, not the containing work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"Computer says no"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
James Olsen may or may not have made some silly slip ups in one of his books. So what? That does not make him and unreiable source for everything he he wrote or even edited. That would make nonsense of WP:RS. Any historian who covers a wide range of topics is liable to make mistakes in details. No-one can be an all-knowing expert on everything. What matters is that he is a distinguished figure. The book is appropriately published and edited. I see no reason why it ahould not be used. If there is doubt about its value, look up reviews in the academic press. Paul B (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously "Historical dictionary of the British empire" is generally a reliable source, as the term is used on wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be pointed out that while it is probably a RS according to general Wikipedia standards, FAs have to conform to WP:FACR which requires "high-quality" reliable sources. The discussion so far is using a lower threshold of reliability. Lambanog (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
So just to clarify, is this question about whether the sourcing should be removed or tagged as unreliable, or just about whether it can be improved in order to achieve FA status? If it is just about the latter, then is this even the correct place to be discussing it? BTW, putting everything else aside Fifelfoo's last post contains some good practical suggestions which might help the article and the discussion anyway?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup - I opened this thread to discuss the general notion of whether it is OK to throw an entire source out of the window because an editor says he saw mistakes in a different publication by the same individual. Forget that it's Olson. Forget that it's a tertiary source. Is it OK in principle and according to our policies? The answer is binary, and some editors have responded to it. Normally I wouldn't even have bothered opening this discussion to ask that, the answer is so obvious to me, the only reason I did was because the editor making this argument is one of the three editors involved in administering the FA review process. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
At first sight you and Lambanog are saying the opposite thing. Anyway, as this is an RS board I would assume that the question is about "throwing out" a source (deleting or tagging let's say) and not just about whether it can be improved as per Lambanog, and indeed the advice of Fifelfoo.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Not opposite, I'd say, just answering different questions. The question of how we can improve the article, including the specifics of this source, is going on at the FA review here [35]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources

I have been editing a few sitcom articles I have notice these websites are often used as sources are they considered reliable [36][37].Dwanyewest (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They are probably not reliable, although I have not looked at them closely. Are either part of a big media company, or have editorial oversight? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The first gives no indication of its editorial oversight or policies, nor any indication of reliability or fact-checking. The second is the personal website of a "Todd Fuller". No indication that either meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Five Gateways genealogy site

This URL and some variations have been added to many of the Roosevelt family articles, as an external link:

To me, it looks like a self-published source, with fair scholarship but no author named, and all the cites piled up at the bottom. The person who publishes says "This site is new, and is being worked on currently. Over the next few months and hopefully many years, it will grow to encompass summary genealogies from my, now rather large, collection. ... I have no intention to charge for access to this site, either now or in the future." I'd like to believe that this source is good, but it does not have inline citations. Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the personal website of a Swedish genealogy hobbyist, Mattias Engdahl, who has compiled the information on the site from secondary sources. Most of the sources he has used are very dated, and do not adhere to current genealogical standards. The site is a tertiary source, at best, using original research. Does that meet WP:RS? ProGene (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have identified one of the sources used by Five Gateways as The Scots Peerage edited by Sir James Balfour Paul published in 1910. My personal research has shown that this book contains at least one substantial error which the website has repeated. I am not treating this book as reliable.Writer42 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to say this is an argument for the source, it should be judged here based on apparent verifiability, not apparent truth. I think all large genealogical sources contain many mistakes, as indeed do most large works full stop (dictionaries, encyclopedias etc) but of course they are often reliable for the purposes of WP. It is not generally up to Wikipedians to judge sources based on their own checking of how good they are or else we would have endless circular arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether the 1910 book has an error an whether it is repeated on the web site has no relevance to the reliability of the site. WP:RS is not about the truth but about basing statements on sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Five Gateways" genealogical site

Originally added as a new section at the bottom, and then combined with the existing section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some discussion about whether this site can be considered a reliable source. An editor had been adding it to articles as an EL, which I thought was OK (although at least one editor objected to it), but the editor has now started using it as a ref, so it would be helpful to know its status. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...just from the look of it, I was going to say unreliable, but it does state on the specific pages the book source from where the information was retrieved. Because of that...I might say that it is reliable, though with a grain of salt. SilverserenC 21:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that there already was a query about "Five Gateways" on this board? You might want to look further up the page and read the query and response there. (My take: It would not be considered reliable by any responsible genealogist.) ProGene (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice that. I'm going to combine the two sections together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Except that the sources for each name are reliable. Of course, it would be better to directly have those sources, but this, as a tertiary source, still works. SilverserenC 23:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
How do you know they're reliable? Most of the sources are over 100 years old. Genealogical research from that time period did not adhere to any standards, with the result that much of the work from that time IS unreliable. ProGene (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
How do we know anything is reliable? On WP we just aim to report what the outside world says, and that means that the answer is that we check whether the source is treated as reliable by people who should know. (That is of course not always an easy thing to discuss either.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
And, as I've already said, professional genealogists do not consider "Five Gateways" or any other personal website reliable. ProGene (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I must have missed it when you gave any explanation about that? The only similar comment I see is where you said that this was your "take". That's my point. Is this source used outside of WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
See my comment from 23 September in the original thread above, where I elaborated a bit more. I don't know whether other sites use the "Five Gateways" site as a source, but it does not meet current genealogical standards[38], which require that information from compilations (all the sources used by the site are compilations) be verified with original records. Among reputable genealogists, compilations are considered clues only, not reliable sources. ProGene (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I may have missed your earlier posting but I am still not entirely clear on how your argument works. As a genealogical researcher doing original work, it is of course important to eventually look at primary documents. Here on WP we are not conducting original research, and to some extent we even try to avoid being over-reliance on primary sources (because it is not the aim that WP becomes the place for cutting edge debate). We try to report what others say, so compiled sources are pretty good for us as long as they are good ones. (For example, Burkes is full of problems too, and I've argued that it should be used very carefully here, but realistically I know people will not accept much criticism of it here because it is so respected.) So the question about a secondary source would not be whether it is a good primary source like a good genealogist would want when doing their own original work, but rather whether good genealogists might consider it a reliable compilation. I think another important point will be whether it explains its primary sources fairly well also (unlike Burkes and similar works) because this allows verification. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Andrew Lancaster, I could not have said it any better. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe to respond to myself though, after reading back over it, perhaps the concern here can be expressed as being that this source is a compilation based on secondary sources, and old ones which did not cite their primary sources (such as perhaps Burkes-style ones). In practice though, if the old secondary sources are widely cited and used, and this tertiary source seems a verifiable summary of those, we can not really delete material sourced from it without expecting occasional arguments. I think we would certainly be justified to claim in some cases that such a source might not be the strongest one, but it does not sound like a source bad enough to say that editors should never be able to use it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I was not saying that WP should use original sources. I was saying that WP should use sources that are considered reliable within their field. The "Five Gateways" site is not considered reliable within the field of genealogy. There are several reasons for that. One is that the site is derivative - it is a homemade copy derived from information contained in other derivative sources. We have no way to know what errors, omissions, or misinterpretations crept in when the website was being created. Second is that the compilations being used by the site are themselves not considered reliable by genealogists. Most were compiled over 100 years ago. The state of genealogy research and genealogy standards at that time was primitive. Genealogists relied on hand-me down information, rumor, scribblings on the back of envelopes, and other highly questionable sources for the compilations that were created. These "old secondary sources" are not "widely cited and used" by reputable American genealogists. (Genealogists in other countries may have other standards.) A third reason WP should not consider the "Five Gateways" site reliable is that it's simply a personal website. The creator is just a hobbyist genealogist who has no known credentials in the field of genealogy. Does this make my reasoning clearer? ProGene (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I understood you are not arguing for use of original sources only. It is a little more subtle than that. First let me say I am not taking a "pro" position as such. My point above was purely addressing weak points in your presentation of the case against the source. You seem to argue that the reason this source fails as a source is only because it does NOT use sources of the type a professional researcher would use during their research. As pointed out above, your position is understandable, but in reality it means people can't use Burkes Peerage for example, and in reality that won't fly because is notable, has a reputation, and all that. In practice in a case like this on WP I think it will come down to whether people wanting to use this source can show that it is taken seriously by serious people outside WP. If they can do that then the objections you have raised are not necessarily valid for WP. You are saying that they can't do that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to locate a single online site outside WP that uses "Five Gateways" as a source. Have you? If the Roosevelt genealogy books cited by "Five Gateways" are online (and some are on GoogleBooks), why not just cite them instead? ProGene (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I did some research while filling out Roosevelt family and creating bios for a lot of the minor notables in the family, and as a result have PDFs for probably most of the secondary sources cited by this website:
There are also a couple full-view Google Book links in the further reading section of Roosevelt family.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a certified, professional genealogist, I concur with observations presented by User:ProGene. This website is improperly cited according to standards of the NGS. I am a member of the NGS, as well as the Association of Professional Genealogists. I have provided consulting services, presented workshops and served as a conference speaker for over ten years. My background of knowledge includes historical research, including addressing and developing proper sourcing and citation skills. The information on this website is highly dubious. While some of the pages provide an attribution to Burke's or other peerage or lineage publications, appropriate citations would be individually attributed, rather than attached to a family line. This website does not comply with professional standards for a genealogical database. The website provides no contact information or presentation of collection methodology. There is a lack of credibility or assurance that the information from Burke's (for example) was compiled or transposed accurately. Information from this website would be better used as a guideline or "clue" in family research. An appropriate source for Wikipedia would be Burke's, rather than a book or website based off of the same. That said, serious researchers often find discrepancies from Domesday to Burke's to various genealogical surveys. It was common for families to want to show a royal lineage or a link to a well-known peer, philosopher, merchant, or whatnot. This was the way to improve your social standing and lot in life. While commoners wanted to show a link to royalty, royal families desired to show a link to God, and would either pay or demand writers of the day to create a genealogy according to the dictates of the king. Much of this mentality is reflected in peerage studies that remain in existence today. When possible, it is preferable to support genealogical claims of peers with at least two corresponding sources for each life event (born, married, death, buried). "Five Gateways" doesn't come close. Cindamuse (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You too are describing how to do original research in genealogy. Your guideline is little different from good laboratory practice. If your criteria if followed, we still have little more than a primary source, unusable for Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a perfectly reliable source. It may (or may not) have errors here and there, but I find it reliable. Dispute my views if desired, but just thought I should leave this comment. Thesomeone987 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987

Given that you also think that Find-a-Grave is more reliable than The New York Times for biographical data, I think your opinion here lacks weight. Rklawton (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

TRIZ journal - what can it be used for?

Hello - I'm interested in improving the articles on TRIZ. At the moment they are poorly sourced, with very little independent RS. There is a lot of reference to the online TRIZ journal. It does not appear to be peer reviewed, but is clearly an important source/discussion centre for TRIZ practitioners. I should note that the subject appears to attract quite passionate devotees, and there appears to be a schism as well. The subject in general does appear to be notable (although many of the related pages detailing specific concepts are not, and should be merged back.) The page is currently fully protected after some IPs edit warred against a clean-up. I've appealed to the particular admin to get that taken down to semi-protect. Any ideas? I don't know the area well, and am interested in editing as a way of learning about TRIZ.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I'm partly raising it here as the IPs in question have been rather aggressive and dismissive of RS and OR issues, and I feel that people's input here might illustrate for them Wikipedia views on the use of sources. They know about the subject, but do not appear interested in understanding how to write articles. I've also never had to deal with a sourcing issue quite like this before.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The journal itself is a primary source in relation to these articles. Assuming that you have sufficient independent sources to establish notability, then you should write the article up mainly from those independent sources. You can use the journal for basic factual information if it is uncontroversial - for example you can use it to establish how often it is published, and who the editors are. But content in the independent sources always takes precedence. Include the journal homepage as an external link at the end of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks itsmejudith. It's a good way of looking at it. I was in a quandary, because it's not the same as a foundational or canonical text. Viewing it as movement literature makes a lot of sense. The IP(s) in question is actually not looking like a decent prospect as an editor (all POV and personal attacks), but your input helps me anyway.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's just the general approach with periodicals of all kinds, really. You might want to look at some FA on magazines and newspapers of all kinds to see what sources they use. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The difficulty with this particular topic seems to be that despite its apparent and increasing popularity there hasn't been a great deal of engagement by TRIZ advocates with RS scholars and publications, and the TRIZ journal does seem to be a place where concepts are explained and explored (RS writing on TRIZ uses it a lot). In addition, the article as it stood was very much written from inside the tent without a care what outsiders thought, and so I was starting from scratch. However, I keep finding more and more RS material on TRIZ, so everything should be OK. Except I would love to find some critiques...VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

JISCMail - English Place Name List (EPNL) forum

Hi. In this diff to Ely, Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) has added some very useful prose to a poorly referenced article. I am not sure how to classify the additions; perhaps WP:OR? Is JISCMail a reliable source? Here are the references for information, though they can be accessed via the diff I guess

See also User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Ely etymology

--Senra (Talk) 10:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

""He seems to know his business"? - what on earth are you talking about? What does that have to done with WP:RS? I think I've encountered you before and you seemed to be equally baffled then about WP:RS and how we add and use references (we don't use bare links in articles as you have just tried to do). How is that you have been here six years and are an admin and seem to be ignorant of basis policy? Your example of Einstein's theory indicates that you don't understand WP:OR either. It just doesn't add up, I can't make any sense of your length of service against your lack of understanding. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, OK, sorry. Anyway, someone has deleted it and I will accept that. OK, OK, I realize that I must wait for time to pass and other people's opinions to be heard about the matter first. I did write that it was one man's opinion and not general knowledge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Which is what I find so baffling about this, aren't you aware that we can't and don't accept original research? (just so you are aware Einstein's theory is *not* original research because it is covered in multiple reliable sources and we can use them to talk about it - we aren't simply relying on Einstein's unpublished or self-published thoughts)--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that this can perhaps be treated as a self-published source by an expert. I would give the etymology in the dictionaries first, and then say "An alternative explanation is that it comes from..." (source to JISC forum). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
He's a mathematics expert who tinkers in etymology - why does this make him an expert? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Anthony, maybe this sentence shows the misunderstanding. What you say you now realize is not strictly correct. WP does of course use the original research of people outside WP, and even sometimes original research by people also write on WP. But the key points are (a) where the research was published and who might have checked it and (b) how easy it is to cross check the information. For example if a source is something on a blog or intenet forum, then people say all kinds of things on forums and sometimes are not even who they seem to be. If it is something in a well known newspaper or scientific journal then you can assume there has been some type of cross checking. And so on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Why he would be an expert - I'm not certain at all, but it seems to me that someone with a reputation in mathematics to uphold would be unlikely to be on the wild side of place-name etymology. And it is a field where guesswork and speculation still operate, and amateurs can help progress to be made. And a JISC forum is established for scholarly discussion. Having said all that, perhaps we should err on the safe side and leave it out completely. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Any academic can get on the JISC forum and talk about pretty much anything (and the frequent comments to please get back on topic evidences this). I could go and post something about Nuclear Physics if I liked (which I have no expertise in). The fact that it is established for scholarly discussion means absolutely nothing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna Di Lellio on Miloš Obilić

Can Anna Di Lellio, sociologist and journalist, be used as reliable source on Miloš Obilić article? She is not historian, and some of hers statements cannot be find anywhere else, and she is the author of the openly pro-Albanian book The Case for Kosova: Passage to Independence. I am afraid that she is all other, then neutral and reliable source. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Lellio, Anna Di (2009), The Battle of Kosovo 1389: An Albanian Epic, I. B. Tauris, ISBN 9781848850941
I was the one to enter the edit as the Albanian tradition would sustain that he was of Albanian origin. I would like to clarify that it is not true that she is the only one to mention the Albanian origin of Obilic and that he is from Drenica. She qualifies as a rs. Btw Albanian historian Myslim Islami also disagrees that he was of Serbian origin [39]--Sulmues (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Why would that be RS? You are welcome to bring some more sources that Miloš Obilić was from Drenica. But reliable, international, undisputed ones, not Albanian historians. I can list tens of Serbian historians that claim same as we have in article now. --WhiteWriter speaks 22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of arguments over which scholars dispute. This doesn't mean that they don't qualify as RS. Di Lellio is international, not Albanian, and qualifies as RS IMO, but that's not up to us to decide, that's why you brought us here, correct? In addition, the fact that you can bring more scholars than I can, refers to the fact that Vuk Stefanović Karadžić has institutionalized the myth of Obilic as a Serbian 250 years ago, way before the Albanian scholars started to do the same thing. As a matter of fact the Albanian language didn't even have a well established tradition in writing at Vuk's times.--Sulmues (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, DiLellio is not a historian, and clearly partisan. Athenean (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(unindent): And that's why I brought her down in the article [40]. Besides di Lellio, the only non slav, international author here, is Emmert, whose book is called Milos Obilic and the Hero Myth. Di Lellio is also an international scholar, but haven't we gone through how we are still using Stephanie Schwinders although she is not a historian? What made you change your mind on di Lellio? --Sulmues (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't investigated the issue, but on the face of it: If two published sources disagree, the neutral approach is to add both statements rather than select one based upon an editor's preference, which graduate degrees the source has, or whether the source is "clearly partisan" (which is clearly subjective). According to her page, De Lellio has a PhD from Columbia University. Let's not be silly. II | (t - c) 01:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Lack of expertise in historical matters does seem to make her work less reliable for the early history side of things, but I haven't investigated the issue either. It would be helpful to see if her book has garnered any reviews in peer-reviewed journals (especially ones specialised in late medieval and early modern history), although some allowance has to be made for the fact that one of the books in question came out in 2009 and so further reviews may still be rolling out. That might also help to get a general impression of the reception of some of her hypotheses. Cavila (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Cavila and II are right, but you don't really need to worry about these things yet. The Miloš Obilić article isn't at a stage where you need to agonise over how to include multiple opinions. That's for a long way down the road. Just follow the editor of the Historia Brittonum and make a great big heap of all the opinions you can find in maybe-reliable sources. Some day you'll be ready to start worrying about undue weight, and which sources are reliable, and whether there isare consensus/are consensuses among experts. Then you'll want to follow II and Cavila's advice, but not yet. With diligent research and open minded editors, NPOV and RS issues should solve themselves most of the time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Political Graveyard?

I can't find any prior discussion on whether this is considered a reliable source. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • "Information on this page — and on all other pages of this site — is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. Users are advised to check with other sources before relying on any information here." The tertiary source itself strongly suggests that it be used as a tool for identifying further research avenues, and not as an authorative source. As it disclaims authorativeness, and admits that its fact checking cannot be relied upon, treat as an Unreliable Source (but raid their database and find further materials). Should be fine as an External Link as long as you don't write based on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

140th Year Anniversary Celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation

Hello,

I submitted a request for a new article to be created on Wikipedia. My subject matter the 140th Year Anniversary Celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation was declined stating unverifiable. I can verify everything where do I send the verification documents or how do I do it after login?

Enclosed is the information from the Certificate of Registration from the Library of Congress of for this project using the exact same name Cassandra Mokhtar West, I created the project using. The FORM TX, TXu1-143-230 is above the bar code. Effective date October 24, 2002. It was also registered at the Commonwealth of Virginia, State Corporation Commission, Office of the Clerk, October 24, 2002, RESACPT CIS0368. Telephone number (804)371-9733. Another reference is the New Journal and Guide newspaper article on November 13, 2002--A Special Celebration--By Rev. Marcellus Harris. If you should require the hard copy of any of the documents I can submit them, including the official logo.

My Copyright at the Library of Congress: 140th Year Anniversary Celebration of the Emancipation Proclamation Copyright

Thank you, for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.

-Cassandra West

Cwestllc (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we haven't clearly explained to you what we mean by verifiability. All the information added to the encyclopedia must be derived from a reliable source, for example a mainstream newspaper, or a book written by an expert. The New Journal and Guide might be a reliable source - I don't know unless I do some more research. But what I suggest happens next is that you edit the article Emancipation Proclamation and add a bit of information about the 140th anniversary celebrations. Include the source of your information using <ref></ref> reference tags. Ask at the WP:HELPDESK if you need help doing that. Best of luck and thanks for your contributions. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps better to discuss adding the information and source at the Emancipation Proclamation talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good idea. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

UNHCR and PEW Research Center

Would like to appreciate discussion on this thread, can UNHCR and PEW Research Center estimates be treated as reliable and authentic. And if yes then what if they majorly or slightly clash with other sources in terms of demographic figure. This has happened in case of Lebanon. As discussed about Library of Congress here, I was advised to cite all sources specifically like source A says this and source B says this and here on. Please advice. Humaliwalay (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Please read the top of this page and provide:
  • A full citation for each work (including page reference is available) whose reliability is in question, if you have links, attach links _as well_
  • A link to the article where the reliability dispute is occurring, or may occur
  • A copy of the quotes supported by the works whose reliability is in question
We need a little bit more to go on that what you have provided. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
To give the specific documents being discussed, which Humaliwalay conveniently forgot to link to, the questions are:
  1. Should this document, published by Minority Rights Group International (MRG), be used for the statement Humaliwalay added to the Lebanon article that "As per UN estimates also supplemented by other sources, Shi'a Community is largest Muslim sect and also the largest of all 18 sects..."? Please note that the UNHCR hosted document is published by MRG.
  2. Whether that source should supersede a report put out by the same group (MRG) a year later. Specifically, Humaliwalay is citing the March 2007 MRG report that lists the population breakdown as 32% Shi'a, 18% Sunni, and 16% Maronite. That very same group's June 2008 report, which the article already cites, lists the population breakdown as 28% Shi'a, 28% Sunni, and 22% Maronite - the exact same breakdown as the U.S. State Department. Again, he's trying to cite an older figure published by the same source instead of the more recent one.
  3. Humaliwalay also added that "Also as per Pew estimates in year 2009 Shia community in numbers is between 1-2 million of entire Lebanese population", citing this document. This document does list that range, but the figure is needlessly vague for a country of 4 million people (other sources provide much more detailed estimates). The Pew report is discussing the breakdown of the entire world's Muslim population (i.e., 1-2 million of the billion Muslims on Earth live in Lebanon), not the Muslim population of Lebanon specifically, and it states that their figures are rough estimates. It appears that it is only being cited as a way to inflate Shi'a population estimates. ← George talk 09:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, since we're here, this is the primary sentence Humaliwalay is pushing, and the citation spam he's trying to use to support it: "As per UN estimates also supplemented by other sources, Shi'a Community is largest Muslim sect and also the largest of all 18 sects accounting between 32% to over 40% and Sunnis between 18%-25%, Maronites around 16% of the population of Lebanon." [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] ← George talk 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. MRG is a partisan NGO, though in this case its partisan nature has no impact on its capacity to report. The document in question is Minority Rights Group International, State of the World's Minorities 2007 - Lebanon, 4 March 2007, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48a9713987.html [accessed 2 October 2010]. It is mirrored but not published by UNHCR / Refworld: The Leader in Refugee Decision Support. The 2007 document is reliable for 2007 population figures according to MRGI. MRGI is an NGO with an academic component.
However, the 2007 figures of MRGI have been superceeded by later reporting. If the issue is the population proportion in 2007, use the 2007 figures. If the issue is the current figures, use the most recent source.
However, this isn't a very good source. MRGI's ambit is to protect minority rights, not to conduct ethnographic religious surveys. The identity of their 2008 figures with the US State Department's figures isn't a great sign. Treat as opinion from MRGI; and, it leaves me to wonder why MRGI's opinion would be sufficiently notable to mention.
To produce a population proportion estimate from the Pew Report, regardless of the Pew Report's quality, is OR. Don't do that.
Does Lebanon do a whole-of-population census, on what schedule, when are the results published? Is Lebanon's census authority considered to be neutral (as with Australia's) or is it considered to be partisan? Why are we relying on an NGO's figures for ethno-religious identity? [Probably because it supports one or another POV.] Fifelfoo (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lebanon has not had an official census since 1932 because the government is based on a power-sharing scheme between the three or four largest religions, making the issue quite contentious. Most reliable sources give estimates that are within a few percentage points of each other (similar to the State Department's cited figures), but Humaliwalay is citing weaker sources (you can review all the sources he is citation spamming above) that give markedly higher Shi'a figures and lower Sunni figures - the two main branches of Islam, who hate each other pretty fervently. I'm all for assuming good faith, but given the editor's edit history and predilection for bolstering things related to the Shi'a faith, while at the same time lessening things related to the Sunni faith, it's pretty clear that they are POV-pushing. ← George talk 10:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I suspected as much regarding the availability of official figures. As I noted using Pew is OR, due to a calculation with a one million adherent margin of error in a population of four million. Use the most recent NGO figures if you don't have anything better (but US State Department is a fairly good source), using outdated statistics isn't as reliable as using in date statistics. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Many sources support the claim of Shia branch being the largest of Muslim sect at some places single largest sect of Lebanon like here [41] here [42] here [43] here [44] here [45] and here [46] and here [47], even Charles Winslow in his work Lebanon: War in the fragmented society supports this claim on page 289 that Shiites are the largest community with Maronites and Sunnis occupying 2nd and 3 rd spot respectively this is also supported by William Harris in his work of Faces of Lebanon. Princeton page 59-80. You may notice that sources like Library of Congress and Globalsecurity.org support this. Pew Research center is an authentic and Reliable think tank and it's latest study of 2009 has been used as a source at many places. User George has to admit to the fact that if there is clash of sources then rather then claiming another as vague should accommodate all by specifying sources.

Whether you take into consideration the latest findings or the older ones every study says that Shia community is the largest sect in Lebanon. Are all the sources providing vague findings in this regard?? How many of them can be denied?? - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouting as Reliable Sources/Notice board volunteers and not providing full citations is rude. Can you please provide full citations for items you wish us to review. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Posses some etiquette please, I am not shouting, have already provided links of all citations. - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

A link is not a citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress states here[48] - Shia(s) The largest Muslim sect in Lebanon. The word Shia comes from Shiat Ali, or party of Ali. Those who believed that Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, should have succeeded the Prophet have come to be known as Shias. Those who thought that the successor should have been chosen by the community came to be known as Sunnis (q.v.). This dispute created the first great division in Islam. Most Lebanese Shias are Twelver Shias (also known as Imami Shias), believing that the twelfth imam (divinely appointed religious leader) is in hiding and will reappear. Shias live in West Beirut and its southern suburbs, southern Lebanon, and in parts of the Biqa Valley. Shias have tended to have less education and to be poorer than most other segments of society.

Globalsecurity.org states here [49] as - Shias emigrated to West Africa in search of better opportunities. As of 1987, the Shias constituted the single most numerous sect in the country, estimated at 919,000, or 41 percent of the population.

World Health Organisation's Regional Middle East body EMRO states here [50] as - The population of Lebanon belongs to the two religions, Christianity and Islam. No official census has been taken since 1932, reflecting the political sensitivity in Lebanon over confessional (religious) balance. The estimate is that more than two-thirds of the resident population is Muslim (Shi'a, Sunni or Druze), and the rest is Christian (predominantly Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, and Armenian). Shi'a Muslims make up the single largest sect.

Graham fuller and Rahim Franke in their work Arab Shia: The Forgotten Muslim page 203 state that Shias make up the modest only 1.3 million of Lebanese population mentioning their percentage between 30-40% they further state that though figure differ there is no doubt Shiites are he single largest sectarian group in Lebanon.

The above ones are for your perusal, I shall provide more if you require, there is absolutely no doubt about Shiites being the largest community of Lebanon. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

  1. Library of congress states _nothing_ the work you refer to as an LOC work is actually "the online versions of books previously published (1988-98) in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress under the Country Studies/Area Handbook Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army." The "Federal Research Division" A Country Study: Lebanon 1989. And you're relying on the _glossary_. The glossary is unreliable. The _body_ of the country study may be reliable, but it is out of date (1989). Reliable for 1989 figures. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. Globalsecurity.org is a non-expert tertiary source, "Like a library or most large databases, this website contains information of variable quality from quite diverse sources. In compiling this website, mistakes were found in peer reviewed journal articles, as well as in databases with relatively elaborate quality control mechanisms. A few of these were caught and corrected on this website, but undoubtedly others slipped through. Most likely additional transcription errors and typos have been added in some of our efforts. Furthermore, with such complex subject matter, it is not always easy to determine what is correct and what is incorrect, especially with the "experts" often disagreeing. It is not uncommon in research for two different researchers to come up with different results which lead them to different conclusions. In compiling this website, we have not tried to resolve such conflicts, but rather simply reported it all." Unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Graham E. Fuller and Rend Rahim Francke. The Arab Shia: The Forgotten Muslims. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999. Is a reliable work. Your Original Research by Synthesis is isn't. Use their numbers and state that it is their opinion, don't draw conclusions from them. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. The WHO .pdf you linked to is incorrectly cited, please provide a full citation. Author Title Place Year. If possible a link to the entire document's title page and front matter. Showing me section 3 of an unverifiable report doesn't let me determine reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall accordingly delete the unreliable ones and post the findings of the Graham Fuller's work specifying the source, also as asked please find the complete link of EMRO's study here [51] and provide me with your feedback. Also i would appreciate your opinion about Pew Research Center's findings as very often Pew Research Center's findings with regards to demography are considered authentic. Please provide your feedback on this as well. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC) and reliable.

You added 11 sources in your citation spamming of the article. How about you just link to all 11 and stop playing the strawman argument? The issue isn't whether or not Shi'a constitute the largest religious group in Lebanon. The issue is the specific percentages for each group you gave, citing a dozen sources that don't give those figures. ← George talk 07:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in arguing with you, I am waiting for Fifelfoo's advice and we are on the verge of reaching consensus now. About the Percentage factor, I would not like to post same thing again and again. the statement was inclusive of two claims one of single largest group and another percentage ranging between 25 - 49 %. All sources were clubbed together at the end of that statement. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also please pay heed that I noticed after the User George accused me of being biased is that his citations are based on the findings of Youssef Chahid done in year 2005 and not 2007 which were reprinted by NOWLEBANON.COM here [52] in which it states that Shias are around 29% even less than the Sunnis. Where as the same source NOWLEBANON.COM in its latest release by its MD Hanin Ghaddar on April, 25 2010 states that Shias are demographically the largest sect of Lebanon here [53]. Nowlebanon.com does not prove to be as authentic and reliable as Pew Research Center and others which are as latest as in between 2007-2009. - Humaliwalay (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no choice now but to identify your allegation as a complete lie. I have never cited nowlebanon.com, nor have I cited Youssef Chahid - any claim to the contrary should include a diff of where I cited them. I cited the U.S. State Department, which gives a figure of 28%, not 29%, and which Fifelfoo described in this very discussion as "a fairly good source". And I don't know what kind of delusion you're under that "we are on the verge of reaching consensus now", when editors at the article talk page, this noticeboard, as well as the NOR noticeboard have told you that your usage of sources constitutes original research and synthesis. ← George talk 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Regional Health Systems Observatory- EMRO, Health Systems Profile- Lebanon [report]. Nasr City, Egypt: WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, [Undated]. Is not published, it lacks a year of issue. Moreover, it would not be reliable for ethno-religious demography, as it is a TERTIARY source, and non-expert in the field of ethno-religious demography.
  • MAPPING THE GLOBAL MUSLIM POPULATION: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population October 2009 [report]. Washington DC, USA: Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009. Is reliable as an tertiary for ethno-religious demography, though the lack of a signed name and the status of Pew Forum as a think tank on policy, not as a demographic body, indicates it should be treated as non-expert. However, it is only reliable for the fact, "Lebanon's Muslim population was estimated in 2005 as 2,504,000 persons, comprising an estimated 59.3% of Lebanon's population." This estimate is sourced from "2005 World Religion Database" which ought to be consulted with preference, and may in itself be unreliable. The estimate of Shia muslims in Mapping the Global Muslim Population [report]. is "1-2 million", and lists the estimated percentage of Shia Muslims as a proportion of all Muslims as "45-55%". Producing a calculation based on comparing these numbers to other estimates of Muslim population, or to the estimated population of Lebanon would be original research. A non expert tertiary with large range figures, seek a better source than this regardless of the claim being made. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment.. I'm getting to this a few days after, but this seems like something that should be well-covered by top-tier sources. Reports from sources such as the CIA World Factbook, US State Department, BBC, and the Economist should be adequate. Sources may vary, you should include a range of several examples, but there is no need to include every possible report.
Also, about Globalsecurity.org, the mission statement does imply that it is to some extent a tertiary source, but it does not make it an unreliable source. They have an editorial office and some reputation. But they write about sensitive military and international relations topics, and by necessity they have to rely on estimates and incomplete information. A simple "errors and omissions" disclaimer is very common in the United States and doesn't disqualify something as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to credit them with appropriate expertise if the article cited had been signed, and if it was in the area of their special interest. Ethnic demography does not seem to be within their scope. I agree about your suggestions of higher quality statistics manuals to rely upon, but would suggest strongly your exemplars are US centric, which may be problematic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be more inclined to use Globalsecurity.org for something like what kind of tanks the Lebanese army uses. That list of mine is what I'd personally look at if asked to find a figure; that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list. I know the Economist often runs country profiles where they'll either perform such an estimate or find a good UN report or NGO to cite. If Al-Jazeera or Agence France-Presse do similar profiles, those would be important sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sitting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's speech at Oxford University - RS?

I'm attempting to add the following content (or something very close) to the British Empire article:


This addition was based on the following sources:

An argument against the sources is that these sources are not "substantial enough" as compared to the ones used in the article. Are the sources good enough for the article?

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Political speeches are not historical researches, therefore not RS. Jim101 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The shares of global income come from Angus Maddison's book, and that probably is RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, political speeches are basically personal opinion, and almost always self-serving and biased. They can only be considered reliable sources for the opinions/statements of the politicians, and even then, should not be used except from secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Itsmejudith is right - it should be easy to re-source it to the original Angus Maddison publication. But it's good to know political speeches cannot be RS. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
They can be sometimes, not for this kind of history though. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
In my view the speech might be valid if it is expressed as an opinion held by the Indian public in a more specific article but that would seem inappropriate for the overview article you wish to use it in and insisting on it would come across to me as pointy. Regarding Maddison: from my understanding, while he exerted considerable efforts to come up with his numbers there is inherent uncertainty to many of his estimates. Still it probably does represent a scholarly approach. Lambanog (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The speech could be a source on the speech, meaning that attribution to the speaker could be used. However I understand that this doesn't seem to make sense here. The global income shares are hugely interesting, and if true, should be sourceable to WP:RS and definitely belong to the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This is RS notice board, not the NPOV notice board. We are not here to judge the validity of that viewpoint, we are here to determine whether the speech is suitable to support that viewpoint. Jim101 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"India's share of global income was more or less equal to that of Europe at about 23% in 1700 but it declined to 3.8% under British rule" We have to be careful aboout the context. It seems to imply that India's actual income declined, which maybe it did. But maybe it didn't, since the 'decline' is relative (a percentage). The most important thing that happened from 1700-1948 was that European and US income expanded hugely due to the industrial revolution. In other words "British rule" of India may or may not be a significant factor in India's relative decline. Indeed Britain's industrial wealth was what gave it the power to rule in the first place. One would have to compare India's share to those of similar countries that were not under British rule to make a meaningful point about the specific impact of British rule. Paul B (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the Fed a reliable source

There is a dispute here:

The fed is a semi-private company. Private companies generally produce a very wide variety of text. For example a car maker may have one document that says "this car will make you a hit with the girls" this would obviously not be a reliable source for a psychology page about sexual attraction. But the car maker may also produce a technical document which says "the piston rings are made of titanium alloy" - this kind of document could be a reliable source in a page about piston rings... With regard the fed the situation is similar. They say things which are "technical details" and they say things which are "self-promotion". There are also a huge amount of peer-reviewed papers discussing the workings of the fed. So if there is a statement that is in dispute there should be a paper somewhere that would settle the issue.

As states at WP:RS, "Proper sourcing always depends on context". I imagine that's true for the Fed as well. As a practical matter, I think they should default to being considered a reliable source unless there is another reliable source which conflicts. The original discussion was pretty abstract, so it may well be that Reissgo and I are in agreement and we just don't realize it yet. I'd say that facts and figures which come from the Fed should be treated as reliable. In fact, news sources and academics generally accept these numbers at face value. If we can agree on that point, then we can move on to discussing whether the Fed should be considered a reliable source of analysis or not. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I do agree that most facts and figures published by the fed should be assumed to be reliable. But it should be noted that not everything they produce will be produced to the same degree of accuracy. For example they produce educational material for children. I don't think those kinds of publications should be regarded as reliable - they may be making some simplifications for the sake of clarity. They may also produce documents for self promotion - the claims made in them which are not simply "facts and figures" may not be so reliable. Reissgo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The link to the claim that "If banks did not lend out their available funds..." does not work. It also seems that the document was produced for educational purposes - I assume that it was aimed at children. I do not believe that such a document can be considered a reliable source.
The Fed is the official central bank of the US, and should be treated as any other government agency per the reliability of its publications. Note that it is incorrect to say that the Fed is a semi-private company. The controlling parts of the Fed are pure government, specifically, the Board of Governors and the presidents of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks are all government appointees. (See Structure of the Federal Reserve System.) LK (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
What age group of children is the document aimed at? Have any peer reviewed papers ever quoted from this document? I thought the whole purpose of this page was for people who are not regular editors of the page in dispute to make comments. Can we have some comments from some other editors please? Reissgo (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If the question is whether official documents of the Federal Reserve System are reliable sources, the answer is, in most cases yes. They are reliable sources for their organisation's own operations (although discount anything that appears to be self-promotion), for the economy of the USA, and probably also for a number of issues. Beyond that, their opinion is likely to be notable and may be quoted with attribution. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Itsmejudith (I presume you are a neutral, I haven't noticed you on the FRB page). Have you read the argument going on ->here? What would you say about that particular case? Reissgo (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this dispute. So the issue is about use of the lesson notes published by Philadelphia Fed. They are marginally reliable, because they appear to be designed for high school students, and are likely to simplify, perhaps oversimplify. On the other hand they are very likely to represent a mainstream economic view. I would think that a better source could be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I would agree... its allowable, but not the best source possible... look for a better source. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I would say that any page the contents of which are intended for children should be ruled out, just like high school textbooks, there may be great simplifications.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That depends on the source and the material you wish to take from it. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between a high school text book, and an official publication of the government agency targeted towards students. There is no guarantee that the former has undergone any fact checking or represents any viewpoint except those of the authors; the latter represents the official position of a government body, albeit for a more general audience. LK (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Off-topic, but I think some high school textbooks are very thoroughly fact-checked. This can often be ascertained by looking at the publishers, and at the credentials of the authors (in the UK they might be GCE chief examiners, for example). Anyway, as Blueboar says, try and find a better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks Homeland Security Memo

I ( 7 ) am posting this here from a discussion on the original user's talk page.

Forgery?:

Hi, It's #28 here Clicking #28 PDF link downloads it to your computer. You'll need to print, I think, to see all 9 or so unnumbered pages. I brought it to someone to look at and they confirmed. They said anyone with knowledge/experience with PDFs should probably be able to tell it's a forgery, also.
1) These federal documents are typically published in PDF format. This document appears typed up first in Word and pasted in the HTML. 2) Banner at the top is incorrect font. Symbols have been copied. 3) They don't do conjecture, just facts. Also, if this was a real report, this would be classified information and not available to the public. And so on.
This was also written on the talk page, btw, but no one has responded yet. (Another wikipedian suggested that I should bring this to the "reliable source" page. (?) If more information is needed for confirmation, please let me know and I'll be happy to do what I can. Thanks --Westcoastkitty77 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have searched around and I find the same PDF on a few dozen different sites. It appears it may have originated on wikileaks. I didn't any notice any mention of the document being suspect, but of course none of these things mean that it is actually valid. Would appreciate it if a govnt doc expert could take a look. Direct link to questioned PDF [http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf here].  7  01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The WND link works, the Washington Times copy did not. There's also a copy at fas.org ( Federation of Atomic Scientists ) which may be a more neutral place to use for the document, and this is what CBS linked to.[54] A quick search through news archives shows commentary on this from a few different sources: CBS, Fox News, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicle, SPLC. This is the sort of thing where you'd primarily rely on the secondary sources, but you can also include a footnote to the primary report itself. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinkprogress.org

I'd just like to record here my determination that thinkprogress.org is an RS for questions of fact, but not for the notability of any opinion or anything which could be ruled as WP:SYNTH. As you can see from their about page, they are a partisan blog, but they have a paid editor and staff. While other sources would be preferable, for simple questions of fact they can be used.

I'm posting this because, looking at the archives here, I see only two mentions of this source. In both cases, an editor involved in a conflict over the verifiability and/or notability of a specific fact disparaged thinkprogress as a non-RS; but in both cases, it seems that the specific matter was resolved on other grounds, and so thinkprogress was not further mentioned or discussed. 187.143.151.46 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, of course, their actual investigative reporting, not anything in the "wonk room" or individual blogs. 187.143.151.46 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Offord

[This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Offord&diff=389083081&oldid=372468763] looks like too weak a source (though entertaining) for such a scurrilous insertion to a BLP. Grateful if you guys could look into it. --Dweller (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That does look like a useless source (it describes itself as "plots, rumours and conspiracy") and the event itself isn't even interesting. If the BBC reported on a pattern of violent behaviour, then that could be something but not this. --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Guido Fawkes' website is not a reliable source at all. The material should be deleted, and if it isn't removed yet, I will do it. --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The Guido Fawkes blog has some reputation for publishing things too sensitive for most other sources, and might be usable under some limited circumstances. But not as the sole source for anything in a biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thrud the Barbarian at FAC

A couple of weeks back, I nominated Thrud the Barbarian for FA. It has passed GA without comments on sources and a previous FA did not comment on sources, but one reviewer said the sources weren't clearly reliable and SandyGeorgia closed the FA without giving me a chance to respond. Now nobody is paying any attention.

Few of the sources are mainstream, which is to be expected given the non-mainstream nature of the topic. However, as far as I can tell they all reliably verify the information in the article, particularly in the context in which they are being used. I have made my comments about the sources at the end of the archived FAC and am copying the key comments here for feedback before I renominate for FAC.

TRS2 - online version of a long running small publication review magazine (TRS, The Review Sheet) and part of the bugpowder network, formerly a comics distributor (see British_small_press_comics#The_1990s). Although in blog format, it has a long term editor in the form of Jez Higgins who commissions reviews. Indeed, the particular review being linked to was written by Jez Higgins himself. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Bulletproof Comics - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic book resource under the auspices of editor Matt Yeo who commissioned reviews. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

The Ninth Art - website has had a significant overhaul, but at the time was a comic art resource with regular contributors and editorial oversight. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

2000AD Review - website is now shut down but for many years posted reviews of every 2000AD issue commissioned by editor Gavin Hanly. Although independent of 2000AD is appears it was supported by Rebellion Developments, the publishers of 2000AD. This official support combined with the editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

3dtotal - the source is an interview with Carl Critchlow and is being used to confirm facts about Carl Critchlow's inspiration, so must be a reliable source in that context.

Strike to Stun - another defunct website, but at the time provided reviews written by regular commentators under the auspices of editor Natascha Chrobok. This editorial oversight makes it a reliable source particularly in the context that the source is being used for personal opinions about the Thrud comics.

Collecting Citadel Miniatures wiki - the link is to a collection of photos of Thrud miniatures, and is therefore easily confirmed as providing reliable information. In particular, the wiki is only being used to provide a date of production of an early thrud miniature and the wiki gives its source for that piece of information: it is written on the bottom of the miniature itself.

Heresy Miniatures - the source is being used for information about their own production line and must be a reliable source in that context.

Thanks for your time. GDallimore (Talk) 10:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Glancing at the sources, they appear reliable and appropriate for the subject matter. However, I can't comment on the FA nomination. FA may have a higher standard than 'appropriate for the subject matter'. LK (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! The FA requirement is "high quality sources". I think there's an easy argument to make that these are high quality in the context of the subject matter. GDallimore (Talk) 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then they sound generally reliable. High quality is up to FAC. The wiki one should probably be replaced with a cite to the actual miniature, with maybe a convienience link to the wiki. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Forensic Examiner reliable?

I'm working on Rape#False_accusation, trying to figure out what info to add about what statistics. I found an interesting article which confirms my suspicions that none of the statistics we get are particularly accurate or meaningful: theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/ . But if I add that link to an article or talk page, I get a warning saying it's been blacklisted for spam? Does anyone know what's up with this? Their "about" page says that they're peer reviewed, experts, etc. So I don't know why it wouldn't be a WP:RS... AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with this and this. You might ask User:Hu12 - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I sent him a message on this talk page, thanks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not commenting on the suitability of the material, but since Hu12 is not currently active you may not get a reply. The procedure is to ask for a whitelisting at WP:WHITELIST. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

blog.rhapsody.com

Is the blog at Rhapsody.com considered a reliable source? Rmarques has been adding links to the Essential '80s Alternative Albums list as references on numerous articles. As Rhapsody.com is a pay service, is it appropriate to use them as a source? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could technically be considered reliable, as it appears to be the consensus list built by a variety of editors and writers for the website. As such, it does appear to be a legitimate opinion, and it seems more comprehensive and reliable than a standard, self-published blog. Having said that, I do believe that there is a relevant debate to be had at the articles about WP:DUE--that is, while it does appear to be a reliable source, the question is whether or not the opinion of Rhapsody editors is sufficiently important to deserve even a one sentence mention in these articles. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's something this board can determine.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Nick Dedina, "Essential '80s Alternative Albums" Rhapsody soundboard (blog.rhapsody.com) 24 August 2010. According to their about us, "Nick Dedina" is "Jazz Editor". The piece is essentially an Op Ed. It is unreliable for declaring what the "Essential '80s Alternative Albums". It is reliable for the opinion of Nick Dedina on this, but is Nick Dedina's opinion on 80s Alternative Albums relevant? He is an online music journalist with no greater call on the public's interest in his opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the issues of WP:DUE and whether these opinions are of any particular notability, in this case, Rmarques seems to be a dedicated spammer, Richard Iwanik-Marques, working for Rhapsody. The purpose of the content on the site is to encourage one to buy music from them, which puts them in a different class from, say, Allmusic.com. Their editorial opinion is suspect. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with RJ here. --John (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Digital Dream Door

I've noticed a few articles, including Steve Hunt and Ani DiFranco have begun linking to the website www.digitaldreamdoor.com, a website which compiles Top 100 lists, mostly on music with other topics like films also covered to a lesser extent. If I remember the disclaimer on the website, it's says that the lists are compiled by the website staff with input from website readers taken into consideration. Would this be considered a reliable source? IHeardFromBob (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivia list at Murder of Kitty Genovese

Please take a look at this article; an editor has defended having a list of unverifiable trivia there, of which the best is a mention of a book which mentions the case, the reference being the book itself. I am of the view that trivia sections shouldn't exist long term and that anything worth keeping can be integrated into a properly written section of the article, so long as it can be properly referenced to valid third-party sources. What do others think? --John (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there is any consensus on it, but I know a lot of people agree with you. I take no position on it, but personally I sometimes find it over-serious to be over-worried about these things. I recently saw a reference to Battlestar Galactica deleted from the article about Mitochondrial Eve. Such left field "fun" cross referencing is not like reading Encyclopedia Brittanica, sure, but is that necessarily the aim? Is it enough to try to make sure the articles are readable and verifiable, or do we also need to exude dignity, and make articles a little dry in order to recreate the superficial signs which traditionally were a sign of quality in printed books? Anyway, I did not question the deletion, nor was I ever involved in editing that section. It just made me think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Pop culture sections are kind of standard. Personally, I could see keeping the Acts of Violence book, the Death Scream movie and the Law and Order TV show references, as those are apparently fairly directly related to the subject. However, the material does appear to be all unsourced. That being the case, I can't think of any reason not to remove all of it until reliable sources as per WP:RS are found to keep them. Even then, though, I would object to any of the extant except, maybe, the three I mentioned above. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Trivia sections in general should not be included except in exceptional circumstances. Looking at that specific list, there's a chance that a section based on various inspirations could be included, especially those directly based on it, rather than a casual mention. Granted, it would still need reliable sources for everything to be included, but that's just my take on it. --132 20:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Call the section something else like "cultural references". Write it as prose, not a list. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed as unsourced and poorly sourced and WP:NOR. Not even worth discussing if not backed up to reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The list trivialized a brutal murder. Figureofnine (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of that might not actually not be OR; if the reference is literal, then the work itself would be a primary source for it being a reference. But the issue is relevance. It's one thing to show a reference from something less famous to something more famous, but not the other way around. For instance, if an episode of Spongebob had an obvious Hamlet reference, that might belong in an article about the Spongebob episode but certainly not in the article on Hamlet. Perhaps the "in popular culture" list could be moved to a page on TV Tropes, and our article could have an external link to that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is not "a list of unverifiable trivia". The data is easy to verify with googlebooks, for example. --Michael C. Price talk 01:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the references to popular culture are trivial. They show that this murder has not been forgotten, and is still notable today. It would be possible to make the bullet points into two paragraphs: one relating to Malcolm Gladwell's work and the other to the film, TV programmes, Jahn's book and the comic.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be a mixture of questions being handled together. I understood the original question to be a sourcing question, but also specifically one concerning whether trivia sections should exist at all. (I could see a potential link because trivia sections often use different types of sources from the articles they are part of and this often leads to an impression that they are worse sourced.) It is perhaps not really the right place here to be asking whether a particular trivia section can be improved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Knight Templars Scotland

Possible that Knight Templars were at one time situated at Ardchattan Priory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.72.26 (talk • contribs)

Cowan's authoritative list of Scottish religious houses has only three certain Templar houses in Scotland (Ian Cowan and David Easson, Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland, 2nd ed. (London, 1976): Balantrodoch, Carnbee and Maryculter. He lists 8 other places once argued to have Templar houses (which he rejects), none of them including Ardchattan. There was of course a Valliscaulian house there. Any attempt to claim that Ardchattan had a Templar house would need a strong post-1976 article to support this. Anyway, I think the fringe theory just has a meeting take place there, rather than a Templar house (e.g. [55]). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Paul Watson

Paul Watson is the founder and leader of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. He was interviewed by a film director who has worked with Sea Shepherd since 1982. This was posted on the official Sea Shepherd website.[56] The line in question is the inclusion of his response to be called a terrorist "Calling me a terrorist may be cute but it has no foundation in reality. I've never injured anyone, been convicted of a crime, nor am I under investigation for any crime." Watson has been convicted of crimes.[57][58][59][60] I therefore feel that inclusion is unduly self serving. Wikipedia should not participate in spreading false information and his agenda. However, an easy fix is to use this secondary source which states something similar "Watson is adamant that he is no terrorist. 'In 31 years harassing and confronting whalers, sealers and illegal fishers, we have never injured a single person, never been convicted of a felony, or been sued.' " Using this source clarifies the conviction issue with "felony". We could also not use any quote and simply say "Watson is adamant that he is not a terrorist." I don't think it is necessary to reduce it that much, though. I think putting effort towards limiting how often we point to the SSCS page is essential to the quality of the topic area. We should not be basing articles off of primary sources and it has taken work to replace so many with secondary sources. Furthermore, Watson has advised people to make up facts and figures when they need to.[61] A former member even recently resigned since he thinks Watson is "dishonest".[62] We should not be facilitating their soapbox. And in this instance, we don't even need to since we have a proper secondary source.Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the RSN question here? If this person is notable, then his potentially self-serving statements can potentially be cited, if editors here choose to do so, at least as his own statements. You do not appear to be questioning that this is a reliable statement about what this person claims, or that he is notable? Your question seems to be more about how to balance the presentation of this person's own claims, and perhaps some counter claims. That is not strictly what this board is for, but it sounds like your approach might be OK. Your idea is apparently to get balance by reducing the use of one source, but I would point out that the logical alternative, which might also be possible (depends on the case) is to leave the present information, and just cite more sources. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Should have made it clearer: [63] No. My idea is to use the secondary source instead of the primary source since the primary source is not a reliable source and it is violation of SELFPUB.. The wording will be slightly different but not by much.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Why do you say it is a violation of SELFPUB given that you are looking for a source of this person's own claims?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew Lancaster. That the founder of the Sea Shepherds denies being a terrorist seems important enough that in this case his own words are preferable. You can certainly cite the secondary source as well, but it should not be preferred. "I am not a terrorist" is not "unduly self-serving". "Unduly self-serving" refers to claims like "I am the greatest violinist in the world", not defending himself against pretty damaging accusations. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Theory

I would like to see discussion about the reliability of Seventeen September Days and Webster's Quotations Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases The sources are being used by an editor to push a Fringe Theory, which is hardly found on net except on jingoistic Pakistani forums, about a possible Naval action and sinking of 2 Indian ships by a submarine named PNS Ghazi in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. There are multiple Pakistani Naval, government and mainstream media sources as well as neutral and Indian sources which state the first and only ship sunk by Pakistan was in 1971 named INS Khukri but these two state otherwise.

  • The author of the book Seventeen September Days, Mr M. Aziz Beg seems to be writing books on everything from war to politics, religion and history but it seems he is neither a defense analyst, politician, religious leader or historian. Moreover the publisher of the book does not have a site and cannot be traced on net to check his reliability. Also it seems the publisher only writes books by Aziz Beg. I think it may be safe to assume that Aziz Beg does desktop publishing of the books he writes, thus making it self published and unreliable.
  • Webster's Quotations Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases is actually automatically-generated with little or no manual research and thus could carry inaccuracies like the rest of Automatically-generated books of same publication. Moreover it relies heavily on wikipedia which cannot be cited.
  • Finally none of them carries any official statement or is stated to be referenced from any official source nor do they carry the name of ships sunk.

More information and opinions are invited regarding these points, however should these sources be considered reliable.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

  • As you indicate, the Webster's Quotations book cited has "[WP]" at the end of the entry on PNS Ghazi to indicate that the information came from Wikipedia (as explained on the copyright page of the book [64]). In fact, Icon Group, publisher of this Webster's Quotations, has published numerous books in which they reprint material from Wikipedia. Obviously, none of those books can be considered reliable sources for use in Wikipedia articles, and they should never be cited as such in Wikipedia. I have not looked into the reliability of the book by Aziz Beg and thus I have no opinion either way about that one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well here are the books by Aziz Beg and here is the search result for the publisher without Aziz Beg.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

He was writing from 1957 into the 1970s. I don't know how much we can deduce from the fact the publisher is associated only with his books. I can't see that he was an established writer though. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The second book is just an automated Wikipedia ripoff, so it's not reliable. The first is old and obscure; I wouldn't consider it a reliable source at this point if the material in it is not supported by any other sources. It seems an obvious case of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
As others have already indicated, Websters Quotations is not a reliable source. To eliminate concerns about a fringe theory, you can ask the editor to provide additional well-known and reliable sources supporting Aziz Beg. Another alternative is to take it to WP:FTN. From past experience, if the editor can provide 4-5 well-known sources corroborating Beg's claims then the content is deemed admissible. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of letter to fans as source in Matthew Werkmeister

I question whether use of alleged scanned letters to fans used in in this article as a reliable source. they could be fake for all we know. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My proposed solution: just delete the article. The only coverage he appears to have received has been over his leaving Neighbours, and none of that is extensive. He even had to write his own IMDB profile from the looks of it! GDallimore (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit severe! Actor in national TV program seems notable enough. But the scanned letters are not Wikipedia:Verifiable, they need to be published by the person himself or some kind of reputable source. If the channel would put them up on the Web, that would work. Here's a better source for the year of birth at least, a TV station. [65] --GRuban (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that having a small, even if recurring part in an extremely long running soap opera granted someone notability, especially when there's a distinct lack of reliable sources that provide significant coverage. GDallimore (Talk) 22:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

United Nations summaries of peacekeeping missions

The UN has online summaries of each of the peacekeeping missions it has organised in the past [66]. These are accounts of how the mission was organised and what it did. How reliable do we regard these for historical narrative? I am fairly well disposed towards them but I know that some editors are more dismissive of official documents than I am. The specific case is Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, where the report on UNEF is referred to several times. Perhaps, coming from one actor in the events, it should be regarded as primary?

I've asked for more eyes on that article, which did yield helpful comment, and once again some help would be very welcome. I have a quite different interpretation of sourcing policy from one editor and I am being accused of bias. The article as it stands is quite difficult to make sense of. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally yes, but sometimes no. What's the specific edit in question? Some qualitative assessments (say, the UN assessing what a great job the UN did) should be flagged as a UN assessment in the text. Most quantative stuff should be fine.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I brought verbatim text in from Suez Crisis so that that asphect could be covered. Now I want to check that it is adequately referenced. I've argued on the talk page that the article is currently poorly referenced. This is part of what I brought in.

On 30 October, the Security Council held a meeting, at the request of the United States, when it submitted a draft resolution calling upon Israel immediately to withdraw its armed forces behind the established armistice lines. It was not adopted because of British and French vetoes. A similar draft resolution sponsored by the Soviet Union was also rejected.<ref name="UNEFbkgr">[http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unef1backgr2.html Establishment of [[UNEF]], Background] at UN.org</ref> On 31 October, also [[Protocol of Sèvres|as planned]], France and the UK launched an air attack against targets in Egypt, which was followed shortly by a landing of their troops at the northern end of the canal. Later that day, considering the grave situation created by the actions against Egypt, and with lack of unanimity among the permanent members preventing it from exercising its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council passed [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 119|Resolution 119]]; it decided to call an [[emergency special session]] of the [[United Nations General Assembly|General Assembly]] for the [[First emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly|first time]], as provided in the 1950 "Uniting for Peace" [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377|resolution]], in order to make appropriate recommendations to end the fighting.<ref name="UNEFbkgr"/>

So it's a bit of an unusual case. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's getting late, maybe i've missed something. But that seems fine. The UN is impeccably reliable for such things as votes taken at the security council (and how they broke down) and a vote scheduled at the general assembly. The only fragment of a sentence that i could imagine someone arguing with is "Later that day, considering the grave situation created by the actions against Egypt, and with lack of unanimity among the permanent members preventing it from exercising its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council passed Resolution 119." Is there some "other" argument as to why Resolution 119 was passed?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Subscription databases as reliable sources

Pursuant to the possible use of these databases as sources at the article The Jesus Dynasty, do we count NewsBank here, Gale here, ProQuest here, and/or Ebsco's NoveList here as reliable sources? John Carter (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that a databank isn't a source for anything. It's a place to find a source. The source or sources coming from the databank needs to be asserted. I suppose i'm missing something here.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I probably forgot to say something. So far as I understand, these places have some sort of relationship with standard publications, such that they can host the old material of those publications. I guess a clearer question would be do we consider articles and other material hosted on these databanks which are indicated on the databanks as being originally from newspapers and other generally reliable sources as being sourced well enough to be used in articles? So, if one of these sources contains a reproduction of an article from, for instance, Library Journal or The Charlotte Observer, can the individual pages of these articles on the databank be used and indicated as the sources for the content used? John Carter (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they can generally be assumed to be accurately reflecting the content they're hosting. Certainly in the case of newsbank and proquest. I don't know the other two, but i seriously doubt they're hosting doctored articles. They're the digital versions of a periodicals library. This says nothing, of course, about whether the hosted articles are reliable. For that, you need to examine the actual source.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In sourcing the lead for the Popular Front of India article, an IP editor is using these three references: 1 2 3. One concern I have is that they are almost identical, which suggests that they come from a common source, perhaps something similar to the AP. The DNA article I would think to be a reliable source, but I thought it worth asking here for the opinions of others.

A related question is whether these articles can all be used as sources for a claim that the PFI is linked to Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e Taiba, and al-Qaeda. The Express India article clearly makes that connection, but the DNA and Financial Express seem vague enough on the issue to give me pause: "The Kerala Government today informed the state high court that investigators have obtained evidence regarding the connection of radical outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), which allegedly launched a brutal attack on a college lecturer in July, with Hizbul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e Taiba (Let) and al-Qaeda." There is an implication of a connection there, but is it sufficient to justify the claim of a link? To make matters more confusing, there is also an article that claims no evidence of a connection has yet been found here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

For DNA see: [[67]] as it is part of a group of media outlets. Hcobb (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you regard it as reliable? My concern is that they are essentially taking whatever they find and reprinting it without editorial review. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Can fansite news archives be used to cite reviews in articles?

I recently updated the page for Just Whitney.... I got the news articles related to the reviews and development of the album fan websites. These are the archived information of articles of many magazines and critics. The websites are ClassicWhitney.com and Whitney-Fan.com. Can I use these archives for updating the pages? Seeking your help. Novice7 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Such "archives" are not always reliable. The reviews and articles must be found in the original publications. I believe we've had incidences where material on such sites has been found to be fake, Photoshopped or just edited to be more favorable than the actual article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Crushable.com

Would articles on here be considered reliable? It is a very opinion based type of reporting, although I don't know if that has anything to do with its reliability. Devourer09 (t·c) 02:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper article about overturn of a conviction

Related to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman_request_for_comment and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction

A man named Lester Coleman entered a guilty plea in a perjury trial and received a sentence and a fine.

A British newspaper reported that his conviction had been overturned: "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent, Marcello Mega, The Sunday Times, 13 June 1999, Scotland News 6" It stated:

"A FORMER American intelligence officer convicted of perjury after
alleging United States complicity in the Lockerbie bombing has been
cleared by a court of appeal.
Lester Coleman, who was convicted of perjury last year, had the verdict
overturned last month. He is living with his wife and three children in
Kentucky and in the past few days has launched an action for $10m
against the American government.
Three judges issued a sealed ruling, an unusual step which means that
not even Coleman and his lawyers can read why they quashed his
conviction. Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little
attention in the United States."

I cannot find any other newspapers, American or British, that talk about his conviction being overturned.

In another thread another user said "A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story."

The article does exist, because http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp is the database, and the article can be found if you input the following:

I set the search times from 1 May 1999 to 1 August 1999.
"Lockerbie" is the search term

If I do not find any other sources about this, what should I do? I want to find a database I can use to check to see if Marcello Mega is telling the truth about the overturn of Coleman's conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a glitch in the search page, you cannot go back with the "Back" button if your search fails (damned Javascript). You first have to refresh the search page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The conviction is a fact about a BLP subject that has very strong negative implications. The article from 1999 strongly undermines this, but is questionable in itself. If this is really the full information, then it is probably best to just state without any comment that the Sunday Times reported in 1999 that the conviction had been overturned. It would be totally unacceptable to leave such information out of the article, but on the other hand if it was not widely reported that's suspicious. Without further research we can't do more than alert readers to the problem. Hans Adler 10:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
In this case I put on User:WhisperToMe/Coleman that the newspaper reported that this was the case.
Without any other articles saying that his conviction was overturned, I feel suspicious about the article.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.
"EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see more sources on this. But, as the Times article states, the court imposed reporting restrictions on the case. It is therefore to be expected that US newspapers would not cover the story. Reporting restrictions do exist in the real world. Believe or not, I have even had my blog censored because of restrictions imposed by a Finnish court. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if every single US newspaper could not cover the story or decided not to cover the story, there are also Canadian, British, Australian, etc. etc. newspapers.
Remember that Verifiability, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion. If it cannot be verified for certain that the ruling was sealed, then we cannot say with certainty that the ruling was sealed.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Petri, we don't have that in the United States. Here, a judge will sometimes seal records or issue a gag order on persons involved in a court case. But that doesn't prevent the press from doing their own research. It's more likely the British press was simply more interested in the issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Squid: that particular Marcello Mega article said "Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little attention in the United States." - So if reporting restrictions like that do not happen in the United States, then the article is not stating the truth. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, that could be just a little hyperbole resulting from viewing the American gag order through a British lens, or it could be a generalization of if something was said to one or two media outlets, or if the media had trouble getting access. I wouldn't toss out the "overturned" based on this, as that may still be accurate so we'd still be remiss to leave it out of the biography. Just attribute as "London's Sunday Times reported...." and leave out the "reporting restrictions" language. I would also suggest not using this as an example in the reporting restrictions article as this is just a passing mention in an article about something else. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In my draft at User:WhisperToMe/Coleman I'll take out the "reporting restrictions" bit but I will keep in the bit about overturned. I'm waiting for some resource requests from a Kentucky newspaper (Lexington Herald-Leader) to be fulfilled. Maybe this will help determine or clarify things, because the newspaper articles discuss the state charges, Coleman serving time in the federal prison system, and a few other legal issues involving the State of Kentucky's justice system. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I searched a pretty large commercial news database (Factiva) without finding any mention of Coleman's perjury conviction being overturned. Actually, isn't it a bit peculiar that someone would plead guilty (as Coleman did) and then appeal against the resulting conviction? He would have to somehow prove that his plea was coerced, or something like that, wouldn't he? Zerotalk 06:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I find that peculiar too. In the USA usually people who plead guilty to a non-death penalty case do not appeal.
And in order for a conviction to be overturned, one has to appeal first. Where are the news articles saying he appealed?
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In fact he makes a case that he was coerced. Many reliable (per WP:RS) sources believe in his version of events. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
What does "many" mean? I know Lester Coleman says to media sources and/or writes in his book "I was coerced" but in order for it to matter legally, he has to file an appeal. Without an appeal, he gets no possibility of an overturning.
In addition:
A user who writes at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_October_10#How_to_find_a_record_of_a_sealed_conviction points out:
"I just want to note that there is, from a legal perspective, a HUGE difference between enjoining publication of the press (very hard to do under US law because of the First Amendment) vs. the release of court documents (something that is more common, though it is usually not the ruling that is sealed, but evidence and depositions often are). In general the US government (especially the courts and Congress, less so the Executive Branch) has lots of methods and legal recourse to keep internal secrets, but very limited powers to regulate information outside of the government. These are legally very different scenarios and should not be confused. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)"
WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources: Daily Mail and Fox News

Neither the Daily Mail nor Fox News have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and therefore, I propose that they do no meet the criteria for a reliable source at this time. For the most recent example, please see Niall Firth's October 1 article in the Daily Mail.[68] This article appears to be a complete distortion of a news article that appeared over a year ago in The Australian on May 9, 20009.[69] At the time, Gliese 581 e had just been discovered and announced on April 21, 2009. The May 9 article in The Australian covered this announcement and mentioned Ragbir Bhathal, an astrophysicist at the University of Western Sydney who detected a putative signal while performing a SETI search. Although the story doesn't go into specifics as to where Bhathal's signal came from, a quick bit of fact checking shows that Bhathal reported in April 2009 that previously, in December 2008, he found a signal from the direction of 47 Tucanae.[70] Although there was no relation between Gliese 581 e and Bhathal's signal, The Australian mentions him in a discussion of SETI astronomers and the hunt for Earth-like exoplanets. Firth of the Daily Mail decided to recycle this story when the discovery of Gliese 581 g was announced, but instead of paying attention to the facts laid out by The Australian, Firth claimed Bhathal's signal came from Gliese 581, even though the original article in The Australian never said this. As I said above, a quick fact check shows that Bhathal's signal came from Tucana, not from Libra, where Gliese 581 is located. However, this didn't stop Fox News from repeating the same false claims a week later.[71] If these two media outlets cannot be bothered to check their facts for accuracy, how can we consider them reliable, especially for claims about Ragbir Bhathal, a living person? Looking at this objectively, we see that Bhathal never made the claims the Daily Mail says he did, and that the most recent Fox News article not only repeats the same claims, but appears to engage in character assassination. Why these two news outlets have chosen to spread false rumors about Ragbir Bhathal is anyone's guess, but because these sources cannot be trusted, Wikipedia should not use them. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about the Daily Mail, but the Fox News source came from space.com, I seen New York Times and history books from highly respectable publishers with inaccurate information. It doesn't means it's not a reliable source. Secret account 02:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It's now a wire story being repeated by media outlets all over the world.[72] This is the same thing they did with the Climatic Research Unit controversy. One media source releases bogus information, and the others join in and reprint it. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It took me approximately one minute to discover that Bhathal never claimed to detect a signal from Gliese 581.[73] But the media isn't letting a little thing like facts get in the way. That's not right. Reliable sources do not report made up stories invented from the imagination of a journalist. If these sources can't be relied upon to report the facts, then we can't be expected to call them reliable. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Love to know how Fox gets the feed from space.com, which is the source of the article. Fox may just have a reprint agreement with Space.com where their articles get added automatically. Ravensfire (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't space.com fact checking their sources? They even say, "there are some scientists who are skeptical of Bhathal's assertion." That's interesting, since Bhathal never said or asserted it. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Even "reliable" sources do get fooled by urban legends and hoaxes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp from Snopes says "Nonetheless, a number of news publications (including the staid Economist) were taken in by the hoax — some mistakenly citing the information as having come from the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, or even IQ and the Wealth of States — and published portions of the chart, and discussed it as if it were valid. (A similar hoax about presidential IQs produced similar media-fooling results back in 2001.)." Yes, even the Economist can get fooled into publishing a hoax. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps what I wrote wasn't clear. Nobody was fooled. The journalist for the Daily Mail made the story up. And other sources, without doing any fact checking, repeated the same made up story. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to how other sources were reprinting the hoax without checking. That scenario has happened many times. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In 2010, I'm having trouble envisioning how it could happen. A journalist working for a middle market tabloid newspaper made up stuff about Ragbir Bhathal. Why would any reliable source reprint it without first asking Bhathal for his opinion? No, I can't see any reason for this kind of shoddy reporting. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The full story: Ragbir Bhathal did not find a pulse laser Gliese 581 g - the media mess up again. original article:

October 4, 2010 23:26. Yes, we discovered a laser look

alike signal but not from Gliese. It was from the region of Tucanae. Despite searching for it for quite sometime we have not seen it again. We have placed a BIG QUESTION mark against it.

The search for laser signals from outer space continues. Cheers. Ragbir

Now the media will correct their mistakes, right? Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TL,DR. I don't know who this person you're referring to is, but bringing up one story out of the millions that Fox has run to make a case as to why we should never use it at all doesn't fly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
What other reliable sources do this? Does Fox have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Not according to academic studies on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
While I'm not at all fond of Fox News, keep in mind that pretty much all newspapers and non-specialist TV channels are woeful when it comes to scientific stories. When I read a scientific article in the paper I usually find it safe to start by assuming that it contains at least one major error of fact. (There are some exceptions to this - long articles are more likely to have been written by somebody with a clue.) This is why our guidelines on RSs already deprecate the use of popular-press sources for scientific claims. If you want to argue that Fox News should be considered unreliable in general, probably best to look for examples outside science to make your point. --GenericBob (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, both are WP:RS. Every source may be "wrong" but that is not what WP:RS refers to - it refers principally to the ability of anyone to verify that what is in a claim is what is in the reference given for the claim and that the source is recognized as being under editorial controls, and is not "self-published" stuff. This has nothing to do with the side issue about "scientific issues" where even science journals make it very difficult to figure out precisely what is being claimed. Errors have been found in the New York Times, The Times, and every single newspaper or radio/tv source that exists. That has nothing to do with WP:RS however. As for the conspiracy theorists "that is the same thing they did" - that sort of argument has naught to do with WP:RS either. This noticeboard is not for cavils about "errors" or "conspiracies" or "them" -- it is for determining whether a given source is RS under the WP definition of RS. Collect (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. The core of the RS policy is that reliable sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Editorial control can be one method for fact-checking and ensuring accuracy, but it is neither sufficient nor necessary. 21st Century Science and Technology no doubt has strict editorial control, as does the Korean Central News Agency, but that does not make either of them remotely reliable. Alternatively, experts can have a good track record for fact-checking and accuracy, even if they self-publish their results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
And both indeed have fact checking and accuracy, roughly the same as other news media. The silly comparison to the DPRK is inanae, and does not help WP in any way. Meanwhile "self published sources" are strongly discouraged in any field on WP. Vide :

All users are reminded that as stated in the verifiability policy and reliable source guideline, blogs and self-published sources in any media may be used as references only in very limited circumstances, typically articles about the blog or source itself. Neither blogs nor self-published sources may be used as sources of material about living people unless the material has been published by the article's subject (in which case special rules apply).

Collect (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Daily Mail has come up before and has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It's a mid-market paper and RS refers to "especially newspapers at the quality end of the market". I don't see any reason to doubt its reliability on everyday news. Its science reporting has come under particular fire, though, especially in relation to medical articles. The Daily Express is similar.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Collect, I think Stephan was referring to this part of WP:SPS: "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." For instance, I'd have no hesitation in citing Edward Tufte's self-published books on visual design. --GenericBob (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you might be mistaken, regarding motivations. see WP:ARBCC. There are specific references to this sort of referencing discussed here. Horologium (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Horologium, was that a response to my comment? If it was, I didn't understand it - could you elaborate a bit? --GenericBob (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
GenericBob—Yes, I was responding to you. The dispute above seems to be spillover from the arbitration case I linked to above; a couple of the people who are attempting to delegitimize Fox News in favor of self-published blogs from experts have been doing the same thing on climate change articles, even when it contravenes our BLP policy. Horologium (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it. Thanks for the clarification. --GenericBob (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Fox has been discussed a lot previously. It's undoubtedly a news source, albeit one known to be partial in certain things. My view is that things should be looked at on a case by case basis to divine if Fox is realiable to source the material in question. For example, if they say that it rained heavily in Sarah Palin's rally I see no reason to consider them unreliable. If they say that Obama is incompetent, I wouldn't use them to source that. --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

is Allmusic.com a reliable source?

I just added it to One Step Closer (Linkin Park song) and I'm wondering if it qualifies as reliable. Thanks, Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 10:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


It says "The AMG editorial staff, along with hundreds of expert contributors (all music fanatics in their own right)" on the about page for that site, making me think it's has user submitted content similar to Discogs, and DIscogs is not a reliable source. I would wait for more opinions though. It does say it has an editorial staff, so I'm not sure which content is the editor content and which is the user submitted content. Devourer09 (t·c) 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
AllMusic is mentioned here as an acceptable link for record reviews, I don't if this extends to their general text. It's an important question to answer because the site is referenced a lot. I'd also like to know if DigitalMusicDoor.com is considered reliable. I posted this question last week and got no responses. IHeardFromBob (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor podcasts with famous people interviews as sources

Okay, let's say some writer or actor is interviewed at a convention and he talks about his script or character - for instance Michael McConnohie said in a recorded interview that the voice he did as Cosmos on the Transformers was inspired by the voice of Peter Lorre. Now the podcast that broadcast this was just some fan site, probably not that notable, but the actual actor said it to all those people who were present. Can this be sited, and how would you site this? Do you just ignore the "podcast" and report "he said this" at the convention? Do you add a link to the podcast as proof? Thanks in advance for any advice. Mathewignash (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking, interview probably isn't the word you want. You might say "Speaking at whateverconventionitwas, McConnohie said that ...". Interview sounds more like a 1-1 chat than a Q&A session at a convention. But yes, just make it clear it is something that they said themselves and add a reference that has a link to the podcast. The only thing to be careful with about this kind of source - McConnohie speaking ad-lib - is to only use it as a source for what he thinks about himself and his actions, rather than for anything more controversial. The only person who really knows if he based a character on Peter Lorre is him, so he's by far the best source for that kind of thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, what of someone said something at a convention panel, and the only "proof" you have is a youtube (or similar video page) video an individual made of apanel? Do you still just quote that "at XXX the actor said YYY" then do you link to the youtube video to back up the claim? Mathewignash (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
yes... That is how you would attribute and cite it... however... there are a separate set of questions when it comes to citing youtube videos. A lot depends on who uploaded the video to Youtube... Did they have permission to do so (a copyrite issue)... can we be sure that they did not edit or manipulate the video in some way. Generally, unless we know these things we should avoid using youtube. Some Youtube videos can be used...others can't. I do not know what category the video you are talking about would fall into. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In terms of YouTube there is a policy in place WP:YOUTUBE Dwanyewest (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, for instance, a public panel at a convention interviewing a voice actor or Hasbro exec, asking them a question, and the person answers. Is that useable? Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a specific example in mind, could you provide a link? I'm not sure that there is any substantial difference between a video such as you describe and a youtube video, in that the same questions regarding authenticity and verifiability would apply. Given the ability of folks to edit video, I think caution in this area would be advised. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Freemasonry?

Is there any reason to consider the Zoser Research Society even remotely reliable for statements about African-American Freemasonry? It seems to be mostly focused promoting two Fringe authors. Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't appear to meet WP:RS for any subject, much less something they are directly involved with promoting (i.e., they are not neutral for that). First Light (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thanks... issue resolved. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910 sources

There is interminable debate on the sources used since July this year to completely change the introduction of the Coanda-1910 article which generated a cascade of changes all over Wikipedia. There is a lengthy discussion on the talk page especially regarding the sources supporting the current version of the article which are regarded as of less relevance for the current version. This two references are: Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter. From the discussion pages it is demonstrated that Gibbs-Smith changed his initial not very neutral position from '60es later in a boo written in 1980. Frank H. Winter article cite as well is not complete and one of the editors is trying still to find the source for a full view, rendering as well Winter not as the main source for the current form of the article. --Lsorin (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This was raised previously on this noticeboard a bit over a week ago but there was only one response at the time. There was an opinion on Gibbs-Smith given on the Aircraft section of the Aviation Project about a week before. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
You are right GraemeLeggett, as you might have noticed I did not know about this mess at the time. Anyway I'm wondering why nobody even commented Bzuk entry. Hopefully you noticed my entries about Gibbs-Smith in the Coanda-1910 talk. Even his own specialist readers were wondering about the reliability of Gibbs-Smith:
  1. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958-1-%20-%200212.html?search=gibbs-smith
  2. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1969/1969%20-%200084.html?search=gibbs-smith
  3. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%202475.html?search=gibbs-smith
  4. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200771.html?search=gibbs-smith
  5. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968-1%20-%200037.html?search=gibbs-smith
  6. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1964/1964%20-%200206.html?search=gibbs-smith
  7. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200974.html?search=gibbs-smith
  8. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%202128.html
--Lsorin (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Those links are to "letters to the editor" in Flight magazine, not the place for evaluation of a source. Link 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have nothing about Coanda, his inventions or his aircraft—they are about the Wrights, or Cody, or Ader, or other early flight pioneers. None of them apply to the subject at hand: the Coandă-1910 and Henri Coandă. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
To evaluate Gibbs-Smith as a source, you must look at how he was cited in scholarly works, and how he was evaluated in public memorials. At the U.S. National Park Service page on the Wright Brothers National Memorial, eight Gibbs-Smith books are cited, more than any other historian. Searching through Google Scholar, we find that his Aviation book was cited by 66, his A history of flying cited by 34, his The invention of the aeroplane, 1799-1909 cited by 14, his The Aeroplane cited by 16 + 12, his Flight through the Ages cited by 8 + 2, his The Rebirth of European Aviation cited by 5 + 2, his A brief history of flying, from myth to space travel cited by 3 and his The new book of Flight cited by 3. In his obituary, Gibbs-Smith was said by the London Times to be "the recognised authority on the early development of flying in Europe and America". Who are we to challenge this broad acceptance of Gibbs-Smith as an expert in early aviation? Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Gibbs-Smith, part of his last statement (in 1970) [74] said this <<this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>> This is a change of his early statements in the articles of Flight magazine like <<However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice>>. Basically Gibbs-Smith is not just quoting the term 'jet' any longer, but recognize it as a jet-propelled aircraft. Because of this particular fact and the missing expertize of Gibbs-Smith in jet engines it renders any of his accounts completely irrelevant for Coanda-1910! I assume that Gibbs-Smith made the same mistake like the rest of editors in Wikipedia of not reading the definition of jet engine to realize that Conada-1910 fits perfectly as the first jet-propelled aircraft. Binkstenet I'm not contesting Gibbs-Smith position in the aviation historians leader, I'm just contesting his reliability regarding this particular airplane, so please don't twist my words! --Lsorin (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You cannot say that Gibbs-Smith was "mistaken" and has "missing expertise" and also try to use his words to prove a point in your favor. He is either acceptable as a source or not acceptable.
The two Gibbs-Smith quotes you mention ("Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" and "However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice") are not in conflict with each other. Gibbs-Smith calls the aircraft "unworkable" in 1960 and "unsuccessful" in 1970. In 1960 he wrote "it was simply a ducted air fan driven by a petrol engine", in 1970 he wrote "the fan was a simple air-fan driving back the air to form the propulsive 'jet'". In all cases he holds to his well-researched conclusion that it never flew, never was tested at Issy, never crashed and burned, never had fuel injection, never had fuel combustion in the air stream, and was nothing more than a test bed for a clever but failed engine design. In 1960 he wrote "Although ingenious—and certainly the first full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion—there is general agreement today, as in the past, that the machine could not possibly have flown: a fan-produced jet of air of such a kind would not have nearly sufficient thrust to propel the aircraft." If an engine which produces a "propulsive 'jet'" (Gibbs-Smith used quotes around "jet") does not actually propel an aircraft in flight, the aircraft cannot be called a jet aircraft. It would be like putting a water jet engine, taken from a speedboat, onto an aircraft to call it a jet aircraft. An engine utterly incapable of doing its job. When Gibbs-Smith says that the Coanda-1910 was "the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" he is not saying that it was the first jet-propelled aircraft, he is saying that it was the first attempt—a failed attempt. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
As you can see in the links above about other work of Gibbs-Smith he was mistaken or even he ignored sometimes clear evidence against his statements, as I explained already in the Coanda-1910 talk page, which for some reason you keep ignoring. Gibbs-Smith was never neutral in his approach regarding the Coanda-1910 and he ignored a lot of sources proving him the other way around ( for instance the thrust of the powerplant from the 1910 leaflet ). As well I explained already in the same talk page, his statement 'full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion' is again according to the definition of reaction propulsion for an airbreathing engine which Gibbs-Smith does no deny either, is jet engine. Regarding if the attempt was failed or not is of no relevance for the fact written by Gibbs-Smith that it was a "jet-propelled aeroplane". As he is changing his earlier accounts from a unworkable in '60 to attempt in '70 again it showes that he could not really prove that the airplane did fly or not, exactly like Winter in his 1980 article. According to the Aero-club de France [75] the plane did fly at [76]. So Bisksternet, keep you personal interpretations for yourself and stop ignoring facts, like your idol Gibbs-Smith. --Lsorin (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor saying that Gibbs-Smith was mistaken or that he missed or ignored elements of aviation means nothing to me. He is a reliable source, one of the best available, while we editors are here only to quote such sources. Coanda's Clerget was airbreathing, but his turbine was not. Gibbs-Smith changed not one bit of meaning about Coanda from 1960 to 1970; he only reworded his original sentiment. It's a mistake to read too much into this simple rewording of the same story.
As far as me ignoring something you have been pointing to, if that is the case, which I do not see, then I probably consider it irrelevant.
If there was some indication in your PDF link that the Aeroclub de France considered Coanda's claim to be true, I did not see it. The only instance of 'Coanda' that I found in the link is that he was one of many aviation pioneers who signed a memorial document. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Is not me as and Wikipedia editor, is his fellow readers saying that he is ignoring facts. ( see all the links above and I can find more of information like that is you want ). About the the turbine read please again the Definition of jet engine section in the talk page. I will add below my comments which you ignored, I suppose because it was irrelevant from your point of view.
----
"Just to explain you a bit more about the turbine and the powerplant Coanda was having. The most classical type of wind turbine existed many centuries ago (see Windmill. Of course the turbine used in the other direction was patented by Dr. Stolze as you said above. Anyway, and this is the tricky part, a normal turbine, even the ones running today in any jet engine in the sky produces a helicoidal vortex according to the Betz' law which was not the case with Coanda's "turbopropulseur". If you read carefully the English patent (same in the French and Swiss one) you will realize that his turbine was not just a simple one as the air jets were straitened at the exit from the turbine. This was never done before and explains as well the his personal statements, about the test of the plane, that lead to the Coanda effect studies. As well he is stating very clearly in the patent: "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same by the fluid which is compressed in the said propeller, having to transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction and to escape from the diffusing apparatus."
Another important aspect which does not exist in any previous turbines is the fact that the vacuum created internally is used for enhancing the performance. ( see Contra-rotating propellers). Do you want more technical details? This is why I would be more careful when calling Coanda's powerplant a hair dryer. A hair dryer would not burn up his plane, in the air, even made if is made wood. ;) Coanda's "turbopropulseur" it was never considered a turboprop as in today's terms coined by Sir Frank Whittle and Hans Von Ohain. It is considered correctly as a "termojet". By the way did you know that Coanda made his plane in Gianni Caproni's atelier? And he was a very good friend of Secondo Campini which build this thing? I think you can see the connection alone to the 'termojet'."
----
Why would Coanda be listed as a pioneer? Pioneering what? As you could see the at this link this is endorsed by the Aero Club de France.--Lsorin (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

German Wikipedia article

I note that the story told in the German Wikipedia is very different from the story in our article. It seems to be in part based on this source, and in part unsourced. Hans Adler 14:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. The English Wikipedia is messed up since July with some unreliable sources ( Gibbs-Smith and Winter). I noticed this very late, that is why the English version is in a continuous editing/locking/escalation and because I'm not an administrator and I have very little Wikipedia editing experience, I don't know how to get it fixed or at least get the attention of some neutral administrator. I proposed several neutral introductions, rejected or ignored always by the other side.

--Lsorin (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, and for that administrators have no special rights. See WP:DR for a description of our dispute resolution processes for content disputes. Ultimately they are all about presenting rational arguments and then getting more and more other edits to look at the facts until there is a clear consensus. Personally I have no opinion at this stage as to who is right. Hans Adler 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The current version is wrong compared to other versions in German encyclopedia or other encyclopedias as you already noticed. That is why I'm trying to get the introduction changed, so that a consensus build up can be restarted without being ignored by the other side like in the first try.--Lsorin (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The German version is the way it is because nobody over there has bothered to look up Frank H. Winter or Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. We here at English Wikipedia have absolutely no reason to defer to the same article in another language. Our English version looks at far more reliable sources than the German one. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The German version is correct because is based on correct sources, not unreliable sources like Winter and Gibbs-Smith listed right now in the WP:RSN.--Lsorin (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Gibbs-Smith was considered a "lion" by fellow aviation historians. A very notable personage. Winter is currently an aviation historian emeritus at NASM. No need to keep banging on them to try and diminish their status. They are perfectly reliable sources, and the German article does not reference them. As well, the German-speaking editors do not use the issue dated 10 December 1910 (pages 900–901) of Flug- und Motor-Technik, the official journal of the Österreichische Flugtechnische Verein. If they had used that article, they would have sketches and a description which show the Coanda engine to be entirely without fuel injection and combustion in the air stream. Instead, they trust www.luftfahrtmuseum.com which states "All information provided on these pages are given without any guarantee." They also use www.allstar.fiu.edu which gets its information from post-1954 sources, and shows no evidence of comparing what was reported and written in 1910 with what Coanda in his later years said happened back then. Somebody in Austria or Germany ought to hunt down a copy of 10 December 1910 Flug- und Motor-Technik and scan it for us. It sure is not available at my local university. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
About Gibbs-Smith: notable - yes, reliable for Coanda 1910 airplane - doubtful. That is why is listed here (WP:RSN) and analyzed in the talk talk page.
Regarding the LuftfahrtMuseum you are again trying to tell that the historians from that museum, together with the ones from several museums in Romania and France are not exactly doing their jobs and they are not supporting a fellow "lion" and very notable personage.--Lsorin (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You are the only one here who has expressed doubt regarding Gibbs-Smith's reliability on the subject of early aviation. The Coanda-1910 is an early airplane that Gibbs-Smith singled out in particular, to concentrate his investigation energies on and root out the truth. If he chose to write about it, he is considered reliable on the subject.
Yes, I think that museums are not doing their jobs; museums choosing not to research 1910–1911 documents along the lines of 10 December 1910 Flug- und Motor-Technik. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that I'm the only one which expressed doubts regarding Gibbs-Smith's reliability on the subject of early aviation: Pleas read the starting of this whole section again.
I think that is why you personally don't visit museums, because you personally believe they are not doing their jobs. I proposed at some point that I will buy you personally a ticket, to visit at least the museums in Paris and Bucharest. Now I understand fully why you did ignore my proposal.--Lsorin (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to repeat a series of URLs already present in this discussion topic. All those URLs go to "letters to the editor" where some aviation people are jousting with Gibbs-Smith because he is such a prominent target. None of the correspondence has anything to do with Coanda, so it is useless for us here. Binksternet (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I totally disagree! This is why this section was created in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard at your own proposal: "No kidding, man, if you don't like Gibbs-Smith or Winter, take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Simply stating that these experts are not reliable is not going to work. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)". Gibbs-Smith might be relevant in your personal library, but is not relevant for Coanda-1910.--Lsorin (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Claiming a gullible reprint like http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/c1910.htm as a reliable source is ridiculous and in the same breath claiming that Gibbs-Smith isn't reliable is even more so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get structure into this discussion

This is an extremely unstructured discussion. It is supposed to be about the relative reliability of certain sources, but I have no idea which sources to compare at this point. Also, the point of this noticeboard is that neutral editors look at the facts and then provide their opinion. Not only have no facts been provided (instead we have only heard about opinions here), but when I made a short factual comment it was immediately jumped upon as if I had taken a side. This kind of behaviour discourages dispute resolution and must stop.

I am willing to look at facts and do my own research about them. I am not willing to wade through pages and pages of fruitless discussion just to find out what the uncontroversial facts are that people are interpreting differently – i.e. just to get to the point where my work as a neutral party is supposed to start.

It appears that we have a dispute between two parties, currently represented here by Lsorin and Binksternet. One party wants the article to say that the Coandă-1910 was in some sense the first jet plane. The other party wants to say that this is a misconception that was caused by unrealistic claims which Coandă made many years later. To get some structure into this thread I am creating two subsections and would ask you to just add a list of references, possibly with a short literal quotation of up to three sentences, but with no personal opinions or arguments of yours added. I am asking you not only to offer the best sources supporting your own opinion, but also to say which of the opposing sources you consider relatively most reliable. See WP:Writing for the opponent for the background of this request. Hans Adler 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best sources according to Lsorin

The 3 highest-quality sources supporting the Coandă jet plane claim:

  1. Jet Engine definition in Encyclopedia Britannica
  2. Henri Coanda Papers [Stine, 1920-1961 (bulk 1950s)] at Smithsonian Institution Research Information System
  3. Academia Republicii Populare Romîne. Institutul de mecanică aplicată., & "Traian Vuia.". (1956). Revue roumaine des sciences techniques: Série de mécanique appliquée. Bucharest: Académie de la République Populaire Roumaine, Institut de mécanique appliquée.

The 3 highest-quality sources opposing the claim:

  1. none
  2. none
  3. none

According to the proposal WP:ENEMY I have to write from Binksternet point of view. All the changes Binksternet is proposing are based on two accounts as stated in his disagreement to my request: Disagree. To be called "jet propelled", an aircraft would have to be propelled by a jet. Frank Winter in 1980 and Charles Gibbs-Smith in 1960 conclude separately that the aircraft never flew, and never was tested at Issy. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC) This two sources are listed above in this noticeboard.

  • Gibbs-Smith is changing his statement later in 1970 [77] said this <<Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane ... Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>>. As well the neutrality of Gibbs-Smith accounts from 1960, especially the one used by Binksternet are extensively discussed in the consensus section.
  • Winter's incomplete account is actually twisted used by Binksternet as explained in talk section. Basically Winter's conclusion <<If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine.>> it is not against the largely accepted form "first jet-propelled aircraft" as I proposed in the talk page. --Lsorin (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best sources according to Binksternet

The 3 highest-quality sources opposing the Coandă jet plane claim:

  1. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was an aviation historian with the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum (London) from 1932 to the 1970s, knighted for his expertise in aviation history. The Smithsonian Institution appointed him as the first Lindbergh Professor of Aerospace History at the National Air and Space Museum. The Royal Aeronautical Society recognized his work with the award of an Honorary Companionship. Gibbs-Smith included in some of his aviation history books short passages against Coanda's version of events in 1910, one published in 1960: The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development: "There has recently arisen some controversy about this machine, designed by the Rumanian-born and French-domiciled Henri Coanda, which was exhibited at the Paris salon in October of 1910. Until recently it has been accepted as an all-wood sesquiplane, with cantilever wings, powered by a 50-h.p. Clerget engine driving a 'turbo-propulseur' in the form of a large but simple ducted air fan. ... Although ingenious—and certainly the first full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion—there is general agreement today, as in the past, that the machine could not possibly have flown: a fan-produced jet of air of such a kind would not have nearly sufficient thrust to propel the aircraft."
  2. In 1970, Gibbs-Smith continued his denial of Coanda's version of the aircraft having flown: "Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane..." "The first jet aeroplane to fly, the Heinkel He 178: 1939." "the first jet aeroplane was designed in France, but not built (de Louvrié, 1865)..."
  3. Frank H. Winter has been a historian at the National Air and Space Museum for thirty years. Winter published in 1980 a very thorough analysis of Coanda's claims, published in the Royal Aeronautical Society's The Aeronautical Journal: "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined". There is a copy of this article at my local university library, and I intend to check it out soon. Until then, snippets are viewable online: "...may be added the Frenchman Charles de Louvrié, who, in 1863–1865, designed his Aéronave propelled by the burning of 'a hydrocarbon, or better, vaporised petroleum oil' ejected through two rear jet pipes. If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine. But even here Coanda's priority may be questioned."

The 3 highest-quality sources supporting the claim:

  1. Stine, G. Harry (August/September 1989). "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Air & Space Smithsonian, volume 12. Stine worked alongside Coanda at Huyck Corporation from 1961 to 1965, and helped him make new versions of early engine sketches, the 1965 versions showing the 1910 engine with fuel injection and combustion in the airstream. "The [Coanda] effect was first observed in 1910 by Henri-Marie Coanda, in connection with exhaust flow from an experimental jet engine".
  2. Brady, Tim (2000). The American aviation experience: a history. Brady is the Dean of the College of Aviation at the Daytona Beach Campus of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "The development of the jet is, broadly, the story of three men: Henri Coanda, Sir Frank Whittle, and Pabst von O'Hain... Fuel was injected into the vent and ignited. On a trial run when Coanda ignited the fuel, the aircraft rapidly gained speed, lifted off the ground, and flew for about a thousand feet before crashing into a wall."
  3. Royal Air Force Flying Review, November 1956. Cited by Gibbs-Smith as championing Coanda's version. Gibbs-Smith hints that the "important source quoted" was Coanda himself. The article is so far undiscussed on Wikipedia, as it is not online, and nobody has looked it up in library archives. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put any additional discussion ihere, so that the lists stay clean and speak for themselves. Thank you. Hans Adler 08:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It's easy enough to find more material. Any discussion of this will name-check Coanda and his sometime roommate, Campini, since both tried out the same idea. Adding compressor to the search will exclude anything that doesn't provide at least some small degree of detail. This is what that search comes up with on Google Books. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll get the same with "Coanda Campini jet engine" combination. Anyway the editors must keep in mind that only English book references are obtained like this. There are several other relevant references in other languages and other forms.--Lsorin (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Google books does handle other languages eg search for Coanda in French though googlebooks cataloguing is problematic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the search GraemeLeggett. I will add 1910 to your search to get more relevance to this particular topic "Coanda 1910"--Lsorin (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet, I did not add the Encyclopedia Britannica for the entry you listed. Please leave the readers to have they on opinion regarding the definition of the Jet Engine as I listed above "jet engine,any of a class of internal-combustion engines that propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid".--Lsorin (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No, of course you did not wish to highlight the sentence I highlighted; it does not help your argument. The part you wished to show as one of the best three pro-Coanda references requires the reader to perform a synthesis, connecting Coanda's 1910 aircraft with the general description of engines which "propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid". The encyclopedia does not say that Coanda was first in this regard, and does not mention him at all. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica is not a history book. So the rest of the article is irrelevant. As I already stated above the reader must read the definition of the jet engine and not your manipulated text.--Lsorin (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I am saying that we cannot list Britannica as a source because it goes against the guideline at WP:SYNTH where Wikipedia policy is explained: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." No mention of Coanda, not useful as a source in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not know about this rule in Wikipedia and I don't follow exactly your logic with A and B. I will leave this for Hans Alder to decide. The logic I used, is based of Boyne's account in the introduction of A Concise History of Jet Propulsion at the end of this article.--Lsorin (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources opposing Coanda's claim

Why did Winter call it a "machine" and not the first aircraft? Reason: nobody reported it tested or flown in 1910 or afterward. Winter lays out several points along the timeline of important jet aircraft development, starting with a design in 1865 by a Frenchman, a model in the 1920s and a flying aircraft in 1939. Winter does not count Coanda as an important pioneer because the engine in the "reactive-propelled machine" was not an aviation jet engine—the widely accepted kind with combustion in the air stream—it was a ducted fan with turbine compression ejecting a flow of warm air mixed with piston engine exhaust. It never propelled the aircraft in flight; it was impossibly weak. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since when is an editor permitted to change the edits of another editor? I really don't get how this whole Wikipedia works. --Lsorin (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I was going by Hans Adler's request to have "best sources" listed "but with no personal opinions or arguments of yours added". You provided personal arguments, which I moved to the discussion section. I intend no harm. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose Hans Adler can decide by himself if my entries are against his request.
Now coming back to your entries according to the definition of reactive engine any airbreathing engine is a jet engine. As I explained already in the Waiting for Winter section, basically Winter's account is <<<first full-scale jet(airbreathing reactive)-propelled>> aircraft. And another question for you can you explain your entry: "jet engine—the widely accepted kind" with some references?--Lsorin (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
An airbreathing jet engine must have combustion in the jet stream. The combustion in the Clerget 50 hp piston engine does not make for an airbreathing jet engine. Pure air coming in, and warm air mixed with piston engine exhaust fumes coming out, does not make the engine into an airbreathing jet engine. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again please leave the editors, read the definitions by themselves: "An airbreathing jet engine (or ducted jet engine) is a jet engine that has an inlet duct that admits air, which is predominately used to form a jet that is emitted for the purposes of propulsion". In the type section the motorjet is listed. The motorjet article "initialy", until Romaniantruths and you came with your personal "truths", contained Coanda-1910 powerplant as well, as being the basis of the Caproni Campini powerplant in which Secondo Campini and Giovanni Battista Caproni build using his earlier friend's, Coanda, results.--Lsorin (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Airbreathing" must include the concept of oxygen combining with fuel and heat for combustion. If the combustion is in the piston engine and not the air stream, there is no airbreathing jet engine. The fact that air enters Coanda's ducted fan or turbine makes no difference. A motorjet is an airbreathing jet engine because it has combustion in both places: in the piston engine and in the turbine. The Coanda-1910 powerplant has been said by Winter and Gibbs-Smith, and described in December 1910 Flug- und Motor-Technik with cutaway diagrams, as having no combustion in the turbine. This makes being a motorjet a disputed claim, and being an airbreathing jet engine a disputed claim. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I asked you before to change the definition of jet engine and now [[[airbreathing jet engine]] in Wikipedia, to fit your personal claim that Coanda-1910 is not a jet engine! I did ask as well before: Are you a "jet engine" or "airbreathing jet engine" expert? Why you avoid answering this simple questions?
To add on what I stated above this article from 1942 explains very accurate the inner workings of the Campini's 1940 powerplant which is striking similar to Coanda's earlier patent. Of course the jet engine race was at it maximum high at the begging of the war, so Mussolini propaganda machine would not recognize any earlier work on the subject like Frank Whittle, Hans von Ohain, Sanford A. Moss and of course Coanda. The whole invention as an full Italian triumph.--Lsorin (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Gap from 1910 to 1950s

One of the most glaring problems with the article is that all of the pro-Coanda sources take Coanda's mid-1950s and '60s assertion as truth, that he was the first to fly a jet aircraft. A funny thing about the sources is that the ones which investigate the aircraft from before 1950 do not describe the Coanda-1910 as a first jet aircraft: they say it was not notable, did not fly, or they do not mention it all. Absolutely no jet engine history or jet aircraft development book from before 1950 mentions Coanda, let alone lists him as an early pioneer. Sources which come from the 1950s and later separate into two camps: the ones which take one or more versions of Coanda's story at face value, and the ones which compare Coanda's late-life story to texts and images from the 1910s. Frank H. Winter wrote a very detailed rebuttal to Coanda's mid-1950s and '60s stories, describing the stories in their various forms, comparing them to themselves (why are 10 December and 16 December variously given as the date of test/flight/crash?) and comparing them to documents (and the lack thereof) from the 1910s. Walter Boyne and G. Stine are listed by Lsorin as strong defenders of Coanda, but nothing in their books is cited to the 1910s—they take Coanda at his word. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

About the gap, after the test in Decemeber 1910 Coanda did not pursue the development of the engine as he consider it dangerous to be used for airplanes propulsion. The jet flames that he noticed during the test, as he said it took 20 years of studies for him to understand the phenomenon called in his name. This explain why at least he did not talk about jet engines for at least 20 years. During years before the Second World War, Coanda did work for the Germans on secret projects military sleds and other projects using similar jet-propulsion system and the Coanda effect of course. During the war he got arrested by the France Police and spent 2 months in the death row until the France Police was convinced by two English agents that Coanda might be helping the allies in the War effort. This is how Coanda managed to run during the war in England and then United States where his started to work on top secret projects until the 1950's when basically the 1910 tests were revealed. His work hidden in secrecy and the historical facts of when the events took place, explains the gaps related to this particular plane. This is explained in Boyne accounts and later articles. Sadly Winter and especially Gibbs-Smith ignored or they just did not have access to this information, like Stine. The most complete information of Coanda's work during the begging of this "gap", I expect to be largely described in Coanda's latest monography published on 1 of October 2010 by a group of aviation historians lead by Dan Antoniu. Until I get a hand on that book, I cannot put it as a most relevant source, but I don't expect surprises from historians which had access to most of Coanda's materials from England, France, United States, Russia and especially the personal Coanda 800kg documentation at the Muzeul Aviaţiei in Romania.--Lsorin (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears that you are using Coanda's supposed involvement in secret projects from 1942 to the 1960s to explain the absence from 1910 to 1942 of anybody saying Coanda invented the jet engine, or the jet aircraft, or listing Coanda as an early pioneer. The two spans of time have nothing to do with each other. The 800 kg of papers in Romania should have some documentation of this sort from 1910, but nothing has been brought forward by Romanian archivists who hedge their bets about the 1910 aircraft's supposed injectors and burner by writing "According to what Coanda says later on after the World War II"—meaning they do not have any other source except Coanda's word. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Since when the gap has been extended to 1960? Coanda's archive has not been inventoried fully as there were considered "military secret" especially during communist Romania. As well you cannot deny that Coanda's work was top secret especially during the second world war. As I questioned you in the talk section, what would be Coanda's reason to patent injectors and burner, which were already in use in most of the engines existing at the time? Gibbs-Smith especially attacks Coanda's patent, without touching at all the 220kg thrust listed by Coanda in the original 1910 leaflet.--Lsorin (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The archive's 1910s portions would be the easiest to sort, being so few in number. The Romanian archivists have found nothing. Gibbs-Smith does not care about 220 kg being too much or too little because the aircraft weighed 420 kg. Any student of aviation could tell you the result of that little power applied to that much mass. Gibbs-Smith says the full-size model displayed in 1910 was "inevitably earth-bound". Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose Gibbs-Smith knew at least this kind of student of aviation facts. As you can see that article written by a student, I suppose, the thrust of 220 Kg provided by Coanda's powerplant was more than enough for his half a ton aircraft.--Lsorin (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Gunston writes in his 1995 book he "disbelieves" the engine was capable of 220 kgf of thrust. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This means that Coanda, in Gunston mind, started to lie already in 1910 by presenting invented numbers at one of the most respectable exhibition in the world, in a leaflet which is publicly read by all fellow engine and aviation specialists of the time.--Lsorin (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Reporters of the day said that they thought the engine was not adequate to move the aircraft. The decision to place the aircraft in the upstairs gallery instead of on the main show floor was another indicator of this. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly about Gunston mind, I suppose! The contemporary reporters would be of course puzzled and doubtful, in a propelled flying machine world, to see such a futuristic design. But I could not find a single article around 1910 questioning the thrust listed by Coanda at the exhibition or if those values have been tested in Caproni's shop. Keep in mind that they were working together on that project and there were several helpers to Coanda 1910 airplane work. Could you find those reporters stories? Keep in mind as well that the jet engine was still to be patented, so how a reporter could even know what to look for in understanding Coanda's powerplant? And how it is possible to have so big lies at the main attraction of the Paris exhibition? And again if you want to remove Coanda 1910 from Wikipedia as not important because was presented in the upstairs gallery, then please reply to my consensus build up proposition! I already proposed so, having Gibbs-Smith as the main source. If not then please come with a reliable source, debating this statement from extract from "Technical World Magazine" Volume 15 from 1911 <<At the international aerial locomotion exposition in Paris, Coanda was without doubt the principal attraction.>> --Lsorin (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The reporter whose pen name is 'Oiseau' is the guy who wrote about the 1910 Paris Salon in Flight magazine. He said of the Coanda-1910 that its powerplant appeared small. This same reporter wrote about the Salon in two successive issues of Flight, and waited until the second issue, 29 October 1910, to write about the Coanda-1910. If the aircraft was universally recognized as the star of the show, he would have written about it in the first installation on 22 October! Even today, with a century of hindsight, Flight Global says of the 1910 Salon that its highlights were machines from Voisin and Sloan, with Coanda not mentioned.
Why would the 220 kgf number be wrong? Perhaps the testing procedure was faulty, or the test instruments. We cannot know whether Coanda put the 220 number forward in confidence that it was correct or with the intention of exaggerating its power. Because we cannot know, we cannot comment. Only Gunston has commented, as far as I know, and he is an expert source.
Regarding your "consensus proposal", I never gave it serious thought, as it appeared to me to be herding editors a certain POV direction. It is against Wikipedia practices to delete an article such as Coanda-1910 just because reliable sources thought it unimportant in 1910, and I have never wished for the article to be deleted. I have instead been working on a sandbox version of the article, one that is still waiting for a full copy of Winter's 1980 rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You are incredible in manipulating the text to fit you personal opinion. Now a personal question: Have you even been to an exhibition? Of course 'Oiseau' didn't know on 29 October two weeks after the start of exhibition what would be the main attraction! Keep in mind as well the the text might have been drafted already a week before and then published in two numbers. It makes absolute sense to list the facts at the closing of the exhibition in this case a year later article from "Technical World Magazine" Volume 15 in 1911. The author from Flight Global 2009 is really missing or ignoring the epoch's materials. By the way I asked you a direct question unanswered in the talk page: "How did you get to know about the 2e Exposition de la Locomotion Aérienne in first place?"
To doubt 220Kg thrust, is only your personal opinion. I was asking you before: What is your expertise in engines and engine testing? Do you think that Coanda didn't know what is a Kilogram or used broken instruments for which he spent his father's fortune? Did Gunston commented the other material from 1910 as well? For instance in Zeitschrift für Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt, Volume 1 by R. Oldenbourg. from 1910 the same value is given for "testing at stand" <<Es sei hierbei bemerkt, daß Coanda vor der Konstruktion seines Flugzeuges viele Versuche bezüglich der Form der Flügel angestellt hat ... denn mit einem 50 PS-Motor hat Coanda bei seinen Versuchen am Stand einen Zug von 220 kg erhalten.>>. I hope that Hans Adler can help us with the exact translation.
The sandbox is basically the same as the current article showing the side of the story based on twisted and unreliable references. So that is why I did not comment. I build a sandbox to become an article as well for this kind of mess created by you and Romaniantruths and you refused to even consider it.--Lsorin (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been to an exhibition; many of them. Halfway through the first day there is usually a 'buzz' about one or more of the displays. One of the indicators is a great mob of people around an exhibit, another indicator is people talking to each other in the aisles. I imagine that Oiseau sensed very quickly which aircraft was the most interesting to the attendees. It does not matter, though; we will not be able to put our personal conjecture into the Coanda-1910 article.
To doubt 220 kgf is Gunston's opinion, not mine. I am just guessing at how it might have gone wrong for Coanda. Perhaps the test stand results were not the same results that would have been obtained with the powerplant mounted on the aircraft... Whatever the case, my conjecture does not count, but that of Gunston does. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The last two entries are your personal opinions. So please keep them out of a neutral Encyclopedia.--Lsorin (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Random section break

Thanks for providing the lists. I have finally had some time to look at them in some depth. Obviously I could only look at what I have access to. Here is my opinion on the sources:

  1. Article Jet engine in EB online: Excellent tertiary source, but does not directly say anything about the question. This is how good tertiary sources of this kind treat a topic if (1) they don't deem it important or if (2) there is enough uncertainty that they are not sure what to say, but mentioning the uncertainty doesn't seem right either.
    We can try to draw indirect conclusions from the article: (a) By taking the article's definition of a jet engine literally and combining it with other things we know for certain about Coandă's invention. (I am not sure how that is supposed to work in detail: The definition very clearly says "aircraft", so unless the Coandă-10 ever flew – which is precisely the core of the dispute – it's dubious whether it can be applied in the first place.) (b) By drawing conclusions from the fact that it does not mention the Coandă-10 and that it gives later dates for the development of jet engines and does not mention Coandă in this context. (Here the problem is that people may use slightly different definitions of jet engine that are basically equivalent nowadays but were not so when things were still being invented. Decisions about which part of a long process was the real breakthrough is can rarely be taken according to purely objective criteria.)
    Short version: When used strictly, the source is no help at all. Even if we allow original synthesis, the source can be used either way.
  2. Coandă papers at the Smithsonian Institution. That's really two sources: (1) The papers themselves are a primary source. Being mostly from the 1950s, they are unlikely to provide any useful insight into what happened 40 years earlier. I think everybody agrees more or less about what Coandă claimed in the 1950s. (2) The database entry is a secondary source. Such entries are usually written by a librarian after a certain amount of research. Since they are doing it professionally, it should go through as a reliable source. However, evaluating Coandă's claim does not fall into the librarian's area of expertise. The librarian will not normally have done independent research on the question.
    Therefore: We don't have easy access to the papers, but even if they did we could only use them to fill in the details of an account primarily based on secondary and tertiary sources. The content of the database entry doesn't help either.
  3. Gibbs-Smith, "The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development", 1960. (Also a 1970 edition?? Might just be an error in Google Books.) Highly relevant scholarly book. I will discuss further down what it does/doesn't support.
  4. Revue romaine des sciences techniques. Unfortunately Google only shows me snippets. (If someone has a complete version of the relevant pages I would be obliged if you could send me the file.) This is a scholarly source from 1968, saying plainly that the Coandă-10 is (or was) considered the first jet plane (avion à réaction), and that it flew 30 years before Whittel, Campini and Heinkel.
  5. Winter, "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined", 1980. I will discuss further down what it does/doesn't support.
  6. Stine, "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", 1989. Highly relevant article by a respected expert, published in a specialist magazine. This makes it a scholarly source.
  7. Grady, "The American aviation experience: a history", 2000. Relevant scholarly book. Supports the claim that the Coandă-10 flew and crashed.

More comments, especially on the most interesting sources, later. Meanwhile let me just say that it's clear from the sources that there is some genuine uncertainty and that our article must reflect that. It appears to me that the sources are not strongly contradicting each other. They seem to be mostly just stressing different aspects of what is known. Hans Adler 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A mass of books on early aviation were written by Gibbs-Smith, starting with The New Book of Flight in 1948 and A History of Flying in 1953. The 1960 book The Aeroplane: An historical survey of its origins and development was followed by a handful of titles, then in 1970 by the more widely cited Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II. The 1960 and 1970 books are the ones where he deals with Coanda's claims—the earlier one having the most detail. Both books describe Coanda's aircraft in much the same way, with no change of opinion evident. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again you are manipulating the readers: "with no change of opinion evident". Please let the reads conclude by themselves what Gibbs-Smith wrote. From his conclusion in 1960:
<<There can be no doubt that the important source quoted in the [November] 1956 article [in Royal Air Force Flying Review] was either indulging in a friendly leg-pull, or was suffering from a faulty memory. However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice.>> – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220–221. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
to the one in 1970:
At least I can see the use of "reaction propulsion unit" which translates to "(airbreathing) reaction engine"=jet engine and the removal of the quotes around the jet term. Did he forgot them?
<<it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 5o-hp Clerget engine driving a large ducted fan in front of it... Although inevitably unsuccessful, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>> – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1970). Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II, page 156. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.--Lsorin (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I see no significant difference in the way Gibbs-Smith presents the 1910 aircraft. He is equally dismissive in both books. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, keep your personal options for yourself. This is a neutral Wikipedia where the editors decide what Gibbs-Smith wrote in both accounts and his neutrality and expertize in the field, especially Coanda. I already analyzed the 1960 entry in the talk page without comments from you. I can do the same for 1970.--Lsorin (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Another discussion is ongoing in this talk page where basically the Wikipedia expert commented on Winter's account: "the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine" is plainly wrong. Such comment from an Wikipedia expert renders the Winter's account wrong or irrelevant for Coanda-1910.--Lsorin (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet: thanks for the clarification concerning the Gibbs books. I missed the difference of titles. Both of you: Sorry for being a bit slow. Strictly speaking, I have already done my part of what you can expect from the reliable sources noticeboard. However, now that I have started reading about this stuff, which I confess I am still not particularly interested in, I am planning to get involved and discuss possible ways to improve the article on the talk page. I suggest that we wait until Binksternet has received the missing source or the article has been unprotected, and that we also take all discussions that are not directly related to whether a specific publication is or is not a reliable source to another place. Hans Adler 12:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Boyne is a good source. The problem I have with your link is that everybody who thinks the Coanda-1910 flew also thinks it crashed and burned. Boyne is the only person in the world who seems to separate those who think it flew from those who think it crashed, in this pair of sentences appearing in an Air Force Magazine article: "Countless loyal Coanda fans insist that the airplane flew. Others say it merely crashed." This pair of sentences does not present its null set conclusion in any other Boyne work, especially in his books which would be under greater editorial oversight than a magazine article. Me, I think the sentences do not work together, and that Boyne would have fixed the problem had it been brought to his attention. I know if I were his editor, I would have pushed back against these two magazine sentences, making him rewrite them to make sense.
Boyne in his books mostly writes about air power and military air history, so naturally the non-military Coanda-1910 gets very little 'ink':
As you can see, Boyne does not have a lot to offer about Henri Coanda in his books, mentioning the engine only once, as an influence on the Caproni Campini, calling the engine a "ducted fan compressor". Books of the sort listed above are higher level references than a magazine article. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
(It has been pointed out to me that Boyne's seemingly null set sentences might divide people into these two groups: those who think he flew and crashed, and those who think he taxied and crashed. There are, of course, those such as Gibbs-Smith and Winter who think he did not ever test the vehicle at all; a group Boyne does not mention in his magazine article.) Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "State of the World's Minorities 2007 - Lebanon". UNHCR. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
  2. ^ "Glossary -- Lebanon". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
  3. ^ "Lebanon - Religious Sects". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
  4. ^ "The Shia Community and the Future of Lebanon" (PDF). Justworldnews.org. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
  5. ^ "March for secularism; religious laws are archaic". NowLebanon. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
  6. ^ "Fadlallah Charges Every Sect in Lebanon Except his Own Wants to Dominate the Country". Naharnet. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
  7. ^ "Aspects of Christian-Muslim Relations in Contemporary Lebanon". Macdonald.hartsem.edu. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
  8. ^ "The Lebanon war One year Later". Project Syndicate. Retrieved 2010-09-30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78&oldid=1146313304"