Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 166

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 160 Archive 164 Archive 165 Archive 166 Archive 167 Archive 168 Archive 170

Is a reliable source? is a news website for mainly metal and hardcore bands, and has been used used on some articles as a reference for information. It posts news regularly although author names are hidden. I've looked for information about who runs the site and who's its authors are but I have found nothing. I personally believe that it is an unreliable source of information however I need the opinions of others. SilentDan297 talk 16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Staff page isn't too hard to find, but it doesn't really indicate any editorial control. I did a Google search on the phrase "lambgoat reports", and I turned up a few hits: [1] from Bloody Disgusting, [2] from Exclaim!, [3] from ChartAttack, [4] from Alternative Press, [5] from Nashville Scene. So other sites seem to consider them reliable. It's not overwhelming evidence or anything, but maybe they're reliable enough for simple claims. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that it may be reliable enough for some small, simple claims. The site actually looks like it is copying posts, news, etc., from other sources. So it may benefit you to just click the link on each post and go directly to the source. --Precision123 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Did not think to search "lambgoat reports" nor did I realise there was a staff page. So it should be classed as reliable? I have no issue with that because it saves me from removing them and finding new reliable sources to replace them. SilentDan297 talk 21:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Another thing about this website that I've noticed is reviews, and as Precision123 said, it may be useful small and simple claims, but what about opinions? SilentDan297 talk 21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

They are certainly reliable for their own opinions, which includes reviews. Whether they are reliable for news is a judgment call. Not everything that The New York Times says is instantly reliable, and there are probably a few circumstances where even tabloid rags are reliable. Try to use the most reliable source available for each claim, and avoid the use of any questionable claims in a biography. I often use obscure sites for their reviews, but I don't source contentious claims from them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
In general I steer away from citing opinions from obscure sites. I am not sure what kind position enjoys in the metal and hardcore music world, but it looks like it is somewhat relevant. So if you just want to quote a sentence, for example, as a review, it would probably not be problematic. --Precision123 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it should be placed onto the table of reliable sources on the WP:ALBUM/SOURCE article then? SilentDan297 talk 20:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Maaaaybe. I don't know if I would go that far. But you could bring it up on the associated talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Kengor

Source Paul Kengor. Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) Books (2010), pp. 226-227. The material is also provided on Ronald and Allis Radosh, Red Star Over Hollywood. I prefer to use Kengor's book since it is more popular and presumably easier to verify.

Article Hollywood blacklist Section and paragraph -- The blacklist begins. The paragraph will follow the one starting with "The other ten refused ..."

Content The following is needed to make the discussion of the hearing more neutral. It currently leaves out important information.

During the hearing, the committee presented evidence against members of the Hollywood Ten. This included communist party registration rolls, Daily Worker articles, New Masses bylines, party application forms, and membership card numbers. Lauren Bacall said that when the Committee for the First Amendment flew to Washington “We didn’t realize until much later that we were being used to some degree by the Unfriendly Ten. As a result, Bacall and her fellow committee members were involved in something “we knew nothing about.” Bogart angrily complained to Danny Kaye that members of the Committee for the First Amendment had “sold me out.” The California state legislature determined that the Committee for the First Amendment was a communist front. It was not, since most of its members were non-communist liberals who had been fooled by the communists. Members of the Committee for the First Amendment saw their reputation damaged and had to explain that they were not communists.

Thanks for your time. LesLein (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Made of Chalk

I would appreciate some views on the validity of the website Made of Chalk, which has been used to support some assertions at Heart (band). It looks like a self published site, but it has a journalistic type form. The page in question is a review here. The statement being supported is "Throughout history Heart has been labeled as Hard Rock, Folk, Easy Listening, Heavy Metal, and Adult Contemporary, many times demonstrating two or more of these styles on the same album. Their album title Dog And Butterfly was a symbol of their sometimes contradictory styles, with the "Dog" side of the album focusing on hard rock tunes and the "Butterfly" side made up of acoustic folk music". The site has named reviewers, but does not seem to give any information about them, or about the site.--SabreBD (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The site has an "about" page, which lists an editor and staff, but it also consistently describes them as "fans". The presence of an editor may push it into "borderline acceptable" territory. I'm usually pretty lenient when it comes to such sites; I would allow it for reviews, opinions, and analysis. I can understand why someone would object to its use, however. Also, Heart is a pretty big deal, and I would be surprised if you couldn't source this to a more reliable site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it seems likely that more well-known sources should be available if this is a widespread opinion about such a well-known and successful band. If not, you then have to address WP:DUE as well as WP:RS to include that material. If it passes the due weight hurdle then it may be best to simply attribute the information. ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks, that seems a reasonable approach. Much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Is this website reliable? I've been planning to nominate Trouble (Natalia Kills album) in a near future and I do not know if I should keep mentions to Idolator or remove them completely. Prism 19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is published by Spin Media; treat it like a moderately reliable blog. Briefly looking through the article, I see no problems with the way it has been used and cited. --Precision123 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The instances I've seen it included so far have been fair use. However, I should mention that publishers (in this case, Spin Media) are not the same as the writers. One writer I've frequently seen used from there is Sam Lansky, who seems to be a pretty honest writer. For all we know, however, another writer for the site could have very false writing. Of course, this would take further searching. Last I checked, blogs weren't considered reliable sources..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this unpublished paper by a PhD candidate a reliable source?

This paper[6] is extensively used on our article on the Mosuo, an article that has suffered from NPOV problems. I don't find it cited in Google Books or Google Scholar. I'm inclined to remove it as well as other material fact tagged over a year ago, but would like other opinions first. I can't see a justification for using it. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that anything pre-PhD itself is reliable. Only after that point does it become suitably peer reviewed. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Sitush, I think your position is too broad here. It's at least plausible that this paper falls under the one exception to WP:SPS, namely that Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Blumenfield is an internationally recognized expert on the Na, her subsequent work has been both published and lauded by reliable third parties, and she says in the document that she's summarizing a planned book. I put more detail here. I'm not arguing that it is reliable, but I think it's not so easily dismissible as the average PDF on a grad student's web page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Sitush is correct in that such a source needs some other reason to be seen as reliable, but the response at my talk page leaves me satisfied with leaving it in at the moment, although a comment on the talk page as well as attributing the statements seems appropriate. Thanks to both. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) "REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"

Is used as a source for a number of strong claims at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The query is as to whether it is a primary source and not a secondary one, and whether quotes taken from it are usable in the article where they might possibly be taken from a primary document out of full context. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The California Attorney General's report is primarily a secondary source in this context (although portions of it might be regarded as a primary source). The authors of the report collected and reviewed primary sources (evidence), which they are analyzing and interpreting. Primary sources would document the report authors' own involvement in the events in question (eg, video secretly recorded by the California Attorney General of ACORN workers engaging in conversations about prostitution). Secondary sources would be conclusions based on having reviewed primary sources (eg, a statement of the California Attorney General concluding that O'Keefe and Giles secretly recorded audio and video at ACORN offices). The portions that might be considered primary sources in certain contexts would be something like (p. 18), "On November 24, 2009, we interviewed Roach in our San Diego office.... We obtained from Roach a digital copy of the documents he recovered." Here the Attorney General's investigators describe their own involvement in collecting information. If someone wanted to write an analysis of investigations into the ACORN affair, this kind of statement would be considered a primary source.
What are the statements in the Gpedia article that there is a question about in terms of reliable sourcing? Dezastru (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Tea tree oil

  • Source. PMID 23099312. Pertinent extracts:

    Another home remedy, tea tree oil, also is not recommended because topical application often leads to local irritation and inflammation, allergic contact eczema, and allergic contact dermatitis as a result of eucalyptol and limonene content (Therapeutic Research Center, 2011). The National Pediculosis Association (1997-2009) also strongly recommends avoiding tea tree oil because pure tea tree oil is contraindicated in neonates, infants, and pregnant women because of a lack of information regarding safety and efficacy.


    Avoid unproven remedies such as use of mayonnaise, petrolatum jelly, and tea tree oil.

  • Content. In the body: "A 2012 review of head lice treatment recommended against the use of tea tree oil for children because it could cause skin irritation or allergic reactions, because of contraindications, and because of a lack of knowledge about the oil's safety and effectiveness." In the lede: "Its use as a treatment for head lice in children has been recommended against." Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd make the wording stronger in the lede. Something to the effect of "Despite being of no proven medical value and often causing allergic skin reactions, it is used as a treatment for head lice in children. The National Pediculosis Association strongly recommends not using tea tree oil for the treatment of pregnant women and young children because of safety concerns." That would be more in line with WP:WEIGHT. After all, the use of this substance as a treatment isn't exactly mainstream. Notable enough, but requiring an unambiguous statement saying that it's dangerous bollocks as far as the medical establishment is concerned. Just saying that it is used but not recommended gives undue weight to what is really a psuedo-scientific fringe treatment.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. One question that's arisen in Talk is whether PMID 23099312 is a good enough source to be usable. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just addressed that and a few of the other issues raised over on the talk page.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I see that Alex posted this here without notifying me. I understand that AlexBrn has misrepresented this as pseudo-science. I've done quite a bit of reviews on Pubmed articles, and every experiment where it has been used shows it is effective in killing lice. Where the medical community disagrees is whether enough evidence has been gathered to indicate it is as safe as current drugs. I think the issue here is Alex is operating on a belief it is pseudo science instead of looking for reviews on clinical trials. Luckly, I just got my VPN up, so i can get through the science direct paywall. Gsonnenf (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As I said over on the talk page, that's fine. But you need to bring the references. Until then, this meets all the standards standards for WP:MEDRS. Not that I reject what you say, but this sourced material can't be removed because you assert that the medical consensus is otherwise. You need to actually provide those references first.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Not pseudoscience, but maybe more like this. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
No that is Lindane in the XKCD comic. It is the current alternative when lice are resistant to Ivermectin. Side effects of Lindane include : "seizures and deaths have been reported to the FDA in patients who use too much Lindane or after a second treatment with Lindane."Gsonnenf (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of Tea Tree Oil or the reliability of the source provided. It wouldn't matter if Lindane caused spontaneous human combustion, that still wouldn't make Tea Tree Oil any more effective. And it wouldn't matter if Ivermectin led to irreversible lycanthropy, it wouldn't be evidence that the source provided is unreliable. That's not how either Gpedia or science works. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, the National Pediculosis Association also took a dim view of Lindane. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears eczema is a worse result than head lice per that article? I would fer shure have thought "seizures and deaths" were a teeny bit worse than head lice. AFAICT, the major issue is that there is insufficient money to be made to warrant full scale medical studies about "possible contraindications" of a home remedy but that, IMHO, is insufficient to label it as "pseudoscience" either. Collect (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of Tea Tree Oil or the reliability of the source provided. It wouldn't matter if we had reliable sources stating that Lindane caused spontaneous human combustion and tea tree oil caused eczema. A reliable source will still say that tea tree oil should be avoided because it causes eczema. And it wouldn't matter if Ivermectin led to irreversible lycanthropy, and tea tree oil caused flatulence. It wouldn't be evidence that tea tree oil didn't case flatulence. Comparing tea tree oil to other treatments is utterly irrelevant because this article is about tea tree oil, not about other treatments. If tea tree oil is unsafe, it will still remain unsafe whether some other treatment is more or less safe. And if the medical consensus is that tea tree oil is unsafe, then that will remain the consensus even if the consensus is that some other treatment is even less safe. That is how both Wikpedia and science work. Mark Marathon (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments. Is it known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage? The fact that the article by Eisenhower and associates cites anything that the National Pediculosis Association says raises questions about the reliability of the article. (I have not read the Eisenhower article, so I don't know the context in which the statement was made.) Incidentally, a specific statement warning against the use of tea tree oil for treatment of head lice in children seems out of place in the lede of a general article on tea tree oil – but that discussion is not really appropriate for this noticeboard. Dezastru (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers them to be legit [[7]], and describes them as "a non-profit health... agency... including scientific advisors". Unless there is something to make us question this standing, that's enough right there to make the organisation itself, including its website, RS. Unless of course you are arguing that the US Dept of Health is itself not MEDRS, which seems unlikely. It is indeed known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage. I have no idea where you got your information from, but the organisation is headed by a former university professor with numerous publications this field. The NPA is also regularly cited, favourably, in top tier medical and scientific journals and is a chosen partner of various research and public health programs. So the organisation clearly RS. You could have ascertained this yourself with a simple Google search, rather than relying on the erroneous information about the organsation being run out of a garage. And can you explain why citing the NPA raises questions about the reliability of the Eisenhower article, and by extension the reliability of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Mark Marathon (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
"The National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers them to be legit" [[8]]
That's just a listing of non-profit organizations interested in helping people with health concerns – through support groups, advocacy for patient issues before government bodies and medical professional organizations, fundraising for medical research, education, etc. It's not a stamp of approval by HHS medical scientists on medical claims made by any of the organizations. Unless you are arguing that medical scientists at the US Department of Health and Human Services also endorse medical claims made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Farm Animal Rights Movement, and the North American Vegetarian Society, all of which are on that same list on HHS's website.
"I have no idea where you got your information from, but the organisation is headed by a former university professor with numerous publications this field."
I'd be very interested in seeing these numerous publications in the related field that you are citing. Can you list them or point to a reliable source that lists them?
"It is indeed known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage."
At least, that's what Deborah Altschuler of the National Pediculosis Association says. Ms. Altschuler started the group 15 years ago when her daughter was sent home from nursery school with lice and the message we don't have families like that here. Since then, she has been trying to de-stigmatize lice, and to get people to behave rationally when they find them. Her group sells a $14.95 comb, which she believes is the only thing that will stop an infestation: picking out the eggs, or nits, one by one. She warns that many pesticide shampoos are dangerous. And she says that if people are serious about nitpicking, they really don't need to go into housekeeping overdrive.
New York Times, 1998 [9]
A year after the American Academy of Pediatrics called on schools to end no-nits policies that keep children being treated for head lice out of classes, little has changed except the intensity of the debate, according to an article published yesterday in The American Journal of Nursing.... The academy recommends treatment with a cream rinse, sold commercially as Nix, which contains permethrin. The nursing journal article said those recommendations had been vigorously contested over the last year by members of the National Pediculosis Association, which opposes chemical treatments in favor of the use of special combs to find and remove nits.
New York Times, 2003 [10]
Many of us come naturally to advocacy in our role as parents. The activist in public health, however, can face a peculiar set of problems.... This is where the activist evolves into educator, support system and collector of personal accounts - sometimes appalling - of families and individuals who have suffered from unnecessary, unsuccessful or excessive chemical treatments. The activist must do what disinterested experts will not do: investigate the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge in Pediculosis and its management. The activist must also seek allies - often the school nurses, occasionally the press, and sometimes (in cases where a child has suffered grievous harm), the lawyers - when there is no mechanism in place to exchange insights, experience and research. With the exception of an occasional accolade for all the hard work that goes into being an activist, I generally find myself resenting the term....  It is the activist's particular challenge to educate the public in spite of the relative indifference to this issue on the part of the professional communities the public turns to for advice.
Deborah Altschuler, president of the National Pediculosis Association, from the organization's website [11] Dezastru (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Another issue I have with the NPA is their TTO source material is dated from 1999 and is a non-peer reviewed letter. There have been about 100 articles about Tea Tree Oil since the 1999 letter. Also the TTO page has a 2009 copyright date and has no date of last review as is common on most medical websites. They also don't list any of their staff or credentials on their website. They also appear to be pushing some sort of Nit Comb for people to buy. Also listing on is no guarantee of medical competence. That index lists everything from social activists ( ) to weightloss gurus ( The descriptions are pretty much taken off the website "about" page.
Anyhow I've found a couple of PUBMED secondary source reviews of trials that I believe are as close to top tier in WP:MEDRS as we can get for Tea Tree Oil. I will also reiterate that MEDRS is need for the portion of the article that include medical treatment, including treatment of lice. Simple RS will not do for these sections. These articles are: and (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gsonnenf's comments about the National Pediculosis Association. Dezastru (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd say there are two separate issues here:
  • The National Pediculosois Society is an advocacy group and not a professional medical society. The fact that they have "scientific advisors" does not change that fact. So do all kinds of fringe organizations like the Fluoroquinolone Research Toxicity Foundation and various anti-psychiatry groups. Calling themselves the "National Pediculosis Society" is intended to give themselves a neutral, authoritative image, but their actual activities would be better described as the "National Society for Reducing the Use of Chemical Treatments of Skin Infections". They also appose the use of FDA approved, guideline-recommended treatments, and thus are not a mainstream group. The fact that they are listed on is not pertinent. The same website lists the National Alliance for Mental Illness, which receives 90% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry and is a poster child for industry sponsored "patient advocacy groups".
  • The fact that Tea Tree Oil is a natural substance does not guarantee that it is safe. Indeed, there are many highly toxic drugs used for chemotherapy (taxol, vincristine) that are natural products extracted from plants. If this was a synthetic drug produced by a pharmaceutical company, its minimal level of safety and efficacy testing and lack of FDA approval would prevent it from being discussed as a remedy for any disease at Gpedia. If it was mentioned at all, it would be only to state that is no convincing evidence of its safety and efficacy. The same standard should apply here.
I would suggest using a non-NPS source to point out the lack of safety and efficacy testing. If none can be found, I would not mention Tea Tree Oil in the article at all.Formerly 98 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree with the comments of Formerly 98. However, it should be noted that the Gpedia article being discussed is on tea tree oil, not on head lice. Dezastru (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I found something from the European Commission, if you dont' already have it.

Here's one from the American Cancer Society Formerly 98 (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

* Hello, I agree with you about the NPA. Though I feel the information from the about toxicity data on Tea Tree Oil being unknown is a bit out of date (citations from 1999 and 2003, Tea Tree Oil has been more extensively studied in the last 10 year). Per WP:MEDRS, I'm currently using currently using the gold standard in the form of a 2006 ("A review of the toxicity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil" ) and 2013 ("A review of applications of tea tree oil in dermatology") PUBMED secondary source review articles that establishes toxicity and safety data for Tea Tree Oil. Tea tree Oil specific material from other major tertiary sources with recent citations (EU Commission, NIH, Australian RDIC, ACS ) also help establish guidelines for safety. Any comments on these papers would be appreciated. I have the full articles available if anyone would like them.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Some help with an author, please: G. C.Dwivedi

I apologise for this not being an inquiry relating to a specific article but the nature of the query really is a general one.

The Jats are well-covered by uninvolved reliable sources. However, our articles also frequently cite G. C. Dwivedi's The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire and in particular a version edited by Vir Singh (author). From what I've been able to piece together, Dwivedi appears to be/have been a Jat himself; Vir Singh is director of Surajmal Memorial Education Society and also a Jat. I can't find out much about them in terms of their academic expertise as historians and worry greatly that they're promoting the deeds of the Jat people, as is common among caste-affiliated "pseudo-histories". The book itself barely registers as a citation on GBooks (and then only in poor sources) and it doesn't register at all at JSTOR. Note that Suraj Mal is a Jat hero and that the primary purpose of the SMES seems to be technical education rather than something more attuned to the subject matter of the book.

I'm worried here that we're dealing with crusading amateur historians/caste hagiographers. Can anyone find anything more that might give a general indication of reliability or otherwise for statements of historical fact? - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


I removed material from Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) and Thomas de Maizière that was cited to the German tabloid Bild.[12][13]. My rationale for deletion is:

  • Our Gpedia article on Bild indicates that the source is not reliable: "Bild has been known to use controversial devices like sensational headlines and invented "news" to increase its readership."
  • When Bild came up on RSN in the past, all three editors who commented expressed significant concerns about its use:[14].
  • The cited report in Bild relies entirely on unnamed sources.

Another editor restored the material noting that Reuters picked up the story. However, Reuters is not verifying or independently reporting on this - they're just repeating Bild's claim.[15]. I would appreciate comments on whether this material should be included from editors who are familiar with German media.GabrielF (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While I generally agree that we should avoid tabloid sources such as Bild, I think there are circumstances in which doing so is warrated. So far, Bild seems to have a good track record when it comes to reporting on these surveillance disclosures. Its headlines may appear to be sensationalized, but I do not see any attempts to distort or misrepresent the facts. According to Der Spiegel, the German govt. has even confirmed that an exclusive report related to these disclosures by Bild is factually accurate. If I may briefly quote from Der Spiegel: "...a claim made by a mass-circulation newspaper that Germany's army knew about Prism in 2011 is, in fact, true..." -A1candidate (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If another source is able to provide independent confirmation, then there isn't an issue. However, I don't believe that we should accept Bild as a reliable source on the basis of one report. The National Enquirer broke the story that John Edwards had an affair. We would never accept a report in the Enquirer cited to unnamed sources on a similar matter.GabrielF (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The NSA's surveillance of Merkel's aides has been independently confirmed by Snowden himself. -A1candidate (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Snowden is not confirming the specific report in Bild. The quote from Snowden that you linked is: "The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to believe that she’s the only prominent German face who the National Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials." That is very different from the specific claim that Bild is making, namely that 300+ officials are being monitored including Thomas de Maizière specifically.GabrielF (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As a practicing journalist, I would warn against any blanket assumptions or accusations when it comes to the reliability of a published source. Some are better, some worse, nobody is perfect. The famed “editorial control” more and more becomes a matter of mythology. When newspapers have to save – and they all have to – the unproductive and bothersome fact checker usually is first not to be replaced when retirement comes.

Having said that, the fact that BILD (not unlike other media elsewhere) sometimes can have a cavalier attitude towards sourcing should not be used to delete a whole passage from WP. I have checked the deleted passage named in the diff, and in my professional opinion, there is very little a newsdesk editor would object to. To wit:

“Quoting an unnamed NSA official in Germany, Bild am Sonntag reported that whilst President Obama's order to stop spying on Merkel was being obeyed, the focus had shifted to bugging other leading government and business figures including Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere, a close confidant of Merkel. Caitlin Hayden, a security adviser to President Obama, was quoted in the newspaper report as saying, "The US has made clear it gathers intelligence in exactly the same way as any other states." [1][2]

  • The passage from the article does not say “the NSA now spies on Minister Thomas de Maiziere.” The passage says (to paraphrase): “Bild am Sonntag reports that the NSA now spies on Minister Thomas de Maiziere.” The fact to prove is not the spying, but whether Bild am Sonntag did the reporting. That fact is properly sourced with a Reuters report. This is all we should be concerned with, and having done so, we should leave the passage alone.
  • I personally would not have used the second source from, not because it is wrong what it says (it basically repeats the Reuters report) but because its headline editor was sloppy, calling it a “Dutch” news report. Bild am Sonntag is not Dutch, it’s Deutsch. Minor quibble. Other sources would be readily available.
  • I personally would also have cited the primary source BamS article itself, not to prove what we don’t have to prove, namely that BamS is correct in saying that the NSA now spies on Germany’s Interior Minister and 300 more high profile people, but to fact-check Reuters’ assertion that BamS reported same. I assume this is the article in question. BILD is behind a paywall, and I will not spend 99 cents to prove a point. Again, a minor quibble, and an irritating personal habit born from trying to get as close to the facts as possible.
  • Further minor quibble: It was not BILD that said it, but Bild am Sonntag. Officially a different paper. Thicker. Longer stories. But if we discuss the reliability of sources, we should name the correct ones.
  • What is also mildly disconcerting is the fact that there seems to be a low level edit war about this passage, with one of the edit warriors among us. This forum should not be instrumentalized to gain points in edit wars.

To sum it up, the reliability or unreliability of BILD, or rather BamS, is not what needs to be weighed. The only fact that needs to be sourced is: Did BamS report that the NSA shifted its focus from the German Chancellor to the rows behind her? And the answer appears to be yes.

Should the passage be removed because BILD's reliablility is in doubt? The answer appears to be no.BsBsBs (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ "U.S. now bugging German ministers in place of Merkel: report". Reuters. Retrieved 25 February 2014.
  2. ^ "Merkel's aides now on NSA radar, claims Dutch news report". Germany News.Net. Retrieved 24 February 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Is Sevan Nisanyan acceptable as a source for etymology

[] is being used as a source in Tarkhan in a discussion about the meaning of the word.[16] His biography at[17] says he started by writing about computing, then travel books. He's written Etymological Dictionary of Contemporary Turkish and I presume it's the website version that is being used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Turkish page about Sevan Nishanyan says "dil bilimcidir" which is translated as "linguist" by google translator: "" is also accepted as academic source in the Wiktionary with the template "wikt:Template:R:tr:Nishanyan. -- (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Not unless there's some evidence of his expertise in historical linguistics or some academic response to his dictionary. (For full disclosure, I never trust Wiktionary.) Andrew Dalby 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
On his homepage he writes that the credibility of his etymological dictionary and his credibility as a historical etymologist (or historical linguist) is recognized by the Turkish Language Association, though he has a strange background, he wrote his Etymological Dictionary in prison and studied History, Philosophy and Political Systems in the U.S. and knows about 12 languages. So yes, maybe reliable. --F3n7x (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm the one who created Nshanyan's template in Wiktionary. I do not know anything about his linguistic training, but I can tell from my experience that the dictionary is reliable. I deal a lot with Iranian and Armenian etymologies and often create entries for Turkish words borrowed from these languages. And whenever I check Nshanyan, his etymology agrees with my well-known and clearly academic sources. One critique I have, is that he does not give his sources. PS Here is an academic response to his dictionary. --Vahagn Petrosyan (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Not reliable. Anyone who takes a language course can publish a "dictionary" and call himself or herself a "linguist", which seems to be what is going on here.[18] Dezastru (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
He is not a linguist and his "etymological" dictionary is not reliable. On the Nişanyan Sözlük ( kayak2 ~ İng kayak Eskimo kayığı ~ İnuit kayak "erkek aracı", erkeklere özgü kayık < kayık < İnuit ka "erkek"... I know Inuit and other Eskimo languages; but, not found "ka" (erkek = male) in Inuit and Yupik languages. --Kmoksy (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks almost reliable. Link: "7. Türk Dil Kurumu Yazım Kılavuzu'nda bulunan sözcükler Yazım Kılavuzu'na uygun olarak yazılmıştır." Here it says that the orthography of his dictionary was found to be adequate/reliable by TDK, the official regulatory body of the Turkish language. Sevan Nişanyan, of Armenian origin, is known to have a strong reputation in the linguistic field in Turkey. --Mrliebeip (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you fluent in Turkish? Did you translate the passage yourself? Does the line say that the Turkish Language Association has given its blessing on the accuracy of etymology in his dictionary, or just on the spelling of words in his dictionary – or does the line actually say that the words in the dictionary are spelled/written following the style recommended by the Turkish Language Institute? Dezastru (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did tranlate the passage on my own. My Turkish is fluent but sometimes I have to check foreign words like "Kılavuz". In this case the passage basically says that the words listed in his dictionary are based on the TDK's orthography. TDK maintains a close relationship with Nisanyan (link). The author of the academic response to Nisanyan (the link provided by user Vahagn Petrosyan above) lauded his efforts. Nisanyan's etymological dictionary is also frequently used as a source in Turkish academic circles like here: 1, or here: 2. -- Mrliebeip (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A statement that a work dealing with etymology follows a particular orthography system does not mean that the etymology content for the entries in the work is valid. Orthography deals with how words are written or spelled, not with the derivation of their meaning, which is what etymology involves. Dezastru (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think yes, it's RS. It seems to be taken seriously by Turkish historical linguists. The review first cited above is a long discussion of particular entries, often reaching different conclusions, but that's quite normal in etymology :) and the fact that another scholar gave it a full academic analysis speaks in its favour. If it's all rubbish, a reviewer would just say so and move on.
If it's RS that doesn't mean it's always right, but that it may be worth citing even in cases where opinions differ. Andrew Dalby 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It's possible it is reliable. Much of the evidence being presented here has not been particularly persuasive, however. Do you honestly believe he "knows about 12 languages" (the implication being that he doesn't just know greetings and a few basic travel-related words, but rather has an in-depth knowledge of numerous languages)? Dezastru (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
No idea :) I focused on what seemed most relevant. Andrew Dalby 00:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this person reliable for the same arcticle? Leland Liu Rogers — Translator. Indiana University, graduate student in Mongolian Studies. Leland is a fluent speaker of Mongolian, and has over two years' cumulative experience in. And this is the work I would like to refer to. -- Mrliebeip (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly publisher, scholarly series. Looks OK, though, as always, it depends what information you want to cite it for. Andrew Dalby 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The same information relating the Hunnic etymology of the word tarqan. In the past 2 years there were deleted some portions of text due to some incidents with IP sockpuppets and persistent vandalism. I just wanted to re-add the relevant points. -- Mrliebeip (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Computer Business Review

Removal of various citations because they are "blacklisted". I think CBR is a reliable source for computer history. Searching Google Books for "Computer Business Review" finds [19] some 800 citations to their stories. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User was advised to follow the bot's instructions and request whitelisting. User has advised, he won't request and that the admins wouldn't do it even if he did. Its for that reason that the sources were and should remain removed. If they are reliable then this user must request removal from the blacklist or request whitelisting. Doing neither is not an excuse, for leaving links that are blacklisted on a page. The removal of sources would not have been done pending whitelist request, if he/she showed willing to actually do so.Blethering Scot 14:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No opinion on the reliability of the source, but I figure if I post this here someone might clarify for me (this has been bugging me for years): SNUHRN cites "800 citations", but when I followed the search results to the end it came up as 155. Any idea why this is? Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I had only checked the first page which says "About 857 results (0.15 seconds)", even the 2nd to last page says "Page 14 of about 793 results (0.28 seconds)". I guess google overestimated a fair bit. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I see a batch of whilelist URLs was approved not so long ago for this site [20], so I have filed for another. What was refused was a removal from the blacklist. There's nothing in WP:RS about something being blacklisted (for spam) being automatically unreliable or necessitating removal, by the way. We even have WP:BOOKSPAM issues with off-line sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether reliable or not they have to be whitelisted. Thats up to you. Your the one that caused the links to be removed by refusing point blank to do anything about links being on the blacklist. However even if these are whitelisted its best to see if they are in fact reliable. Personally I think your tech social network seems a bit dubious, do all articles go through a full and proper editorial process.Blethering Scot 16:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not "your [my] tech social network". It was a printed magazine at one point that went bust like many others. (See its entry in [21]) The content has been made available online now on a site with a networking focus. Which doesn't make it unreliable for old/staff material. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that anything new on it goes through proper editorial. It does not seem like it. That means anything current on their prior to it becoming like this is probably reliable, however anything published now is dubious. There are far more reliable sites than this one.Blethering Scot 16:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Who cited anything "new" from it? Those RS/6000 stories are from before 2000. And even for new stuff this textbook cites a 2006 cbronline story. A 2012 CBR article is cited in this academic book. I think you need to drop the WP:STICK. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
And for clarity, I didn't add those citations, it was User:Rilak who added them some 5 years ago [22]; he made similar edits to other similar (old hardware) articles. He has stopped editing Gpedia around 2011, but he has a clean block log. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Blethering Scot, you could have just commented out the URLs instead of removing the sources; that was done before when CBRonline got blacklisted. CBR was a respectable trade magazine when the RS/6000 was still current; it's just unfortunate that its buyer decided to spam WP at one point. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP info sourced from All Movie Guide

Article on Eli Wallach. Is All Movie Guide[23] a reliable source for info about his life and career? NY Times seems to think so.[24] Does Gpedia? Dezastru (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Dezastru (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
As always, it is helpful to know what's the content actually at issue here. For what purpose would the AMG content be used? I don't see any clues in the recent editing history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
For example, "Wallach first appeared on stage in a 1930 amateur production." Dezastru (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The recent discussions I can find seem to conclude that the Rovi/AMG bios can be used as reliable sources, especuially for noncontroversial matters, and subject to the usual caveats and limitations. See Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#AllMusic/AMG as a source for biographical info, Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#disputed date of birth, Gpedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Allrovi. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Google translate or blog translate for article on Ukraine's Right Sector?

There is a disagreement on Right Sector and Talk:Right Sector as to whether Right Sector leader, Dmytro Yarosh, should be quoted from a Ukrains’ka Pravda interview using one of two available sources:

Help would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If quoting, definitely go with the Google-translated page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the original Pravda article, and here is the google translation of that article, instead of the comment. You'll have to scroll down to find the appropriate text. -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Should never, ever, use a machine translation of a source. Risk of missing subtle nuances in the language and just plain errors in translations. You can also post to an appropriate Wikiproject asking for help with a translation or for a summary of the source if you aren't sure. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
What about is this a reliable source? I can't tell if it's a comment, or article, or what. And why does the google translated text from it look similar to the google translated Pravda paragraph, but different in important ways? -Darouet (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You can use Google Translate to get an impression of what is in a source, and whether the source is a blog comment or a proper newspaper article. If that's not enough, ask for a translation or a reading on the languages ref desk. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Fully seconding Itsmejudith. Google Translate can be used to get the gist of something written in a foreign language, but never as a source.BsBsBs (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. It turned out that the historian's translation of the Pravda article more or less matched the google translate version. The google translation of the page has been ignored because nobody knows what is exactly. -Darouet (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Casals

There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals in which some users might wish to comment. A large part of the situation concerns establishing the common name of a person from sources outside Gpedia. Full information is provided on the talk page. (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Cesar Millan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a famous dog trainer but with controversial methods. This has affected the article for years. A section about a campaign against these methods backed by a number of well known organisations such as the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, The World Society for the Protection of Animals, " Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour was removed with an edit summary that it was not a reliable source.]. I replaced it as I strongly disagree that it is not a reliable source for the campaign and the views of the sponsoring organisation, and it's been removed again. Here is the press release[25] and here[26] is a page about the sponsoring organisations. User:Dreadstar has brought this up on the talk page, asking if it is an organisation known for fact checking, etc. I don't think that's the point here. The edit itself says "In March 2010, various preeminent UK animal welfare, behaviour, training, canine and veterinary organisations issued a joint statement in which they warned against the dog training techniques used by Cesar Milan: "The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour." It's been suggested at the talk page that the organisations may not know that their names are being used, ie that the "joint press release" wasn't actually what it claimed to be. I see no reason to think that the website is not telling the truth about this. However, it's hard to find publicity for it in the media. However, I've only found [27] and a statement by one of the participating organisations.[28]. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In both the bio and show articles the criticism is heavy handed, basically alleging various things he's done wrong, generally without rebuttal. Meanwhile he's wildly successful so my impression is that the criticism is a bit out of proportion and misleading. It would be better for both articles, to remove the one-off complaints that don't seem to have any traction, eliminate the controversy section altogether, and weave the one or two notable criticisms into the larger narrative. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
He's controversial in the dog training world, and that should be reflected. That's not the same world as his audience, which is basically dog handlers and dog fanciers. There are sources at the bottom of [29] that haven't been used, and there are sources in which he discusses his critics, although I'm sure he hasn't responded to each specific critic. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a 2012 Daily Mail article where he responds to critics which includes some criticism by Beverly Cuddy, Editor of Dogs Today.[30]. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I would focus on several sentences then that distill down the most credible criticism, and any effects/responses. The ones that aren't that strong, or didn't go anywhere weaken the case. Part of the issue is that animals don't speak for themselves so everything is filtered through professionals who are often competing against each other. Much of the criticism comes from his competition, or people seen to gain some advantage by publicly criticizing him. PETA leaps on cases like this, so I'm surprised they haven't done so. Another thought is what damage has anyone actually shown? It seems like its a sharp disagreement in training styles. Meanwhile he's getting praised again and again for doing exactly what he claims to do, and his critics saying he's doing wrong in some way. This feels like a case where a few sentences … not everyone agrees with his methods … would suffice. And I think that would go on both articles. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In this case though the criticism isn't coming mainly from competitors or individuals, although some is. I've just noticed that content critical of him has been removed because it discusses his TV show and we have a separate article on that, so the controversy section is certainly being 'distilled'. This source[31] from LiveScience (originally from Scienceline[32]) isn't written by anyone directly involved. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue is that a controversy section invites POV editing, so instead merging the content into the main article would likely alleviate the issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've got nothing against that, but if everything pertaining to his tv show is removed there won't be much left. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to only get rid of the least meaningful criticism, I also think a condensed but potent few sentences should go into both articles as his notability is tied to the methods. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cardinal Ottaviani, Pius XII and John XXIII

Are any of the many online sources cited in this section of the article on Mary Faustina Kowalska reliable (by Gpedia norms) for the statement, "After a failed attempt to persuade Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnation, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani at the Holy Office included her works on a list he submitted to the newly elected Pope John XXIII in 1959"?

Although this sounds somewhat like a conspiracy theory, I would not oppose it, if only it is judged to be based on a reliable source. I have discussed it here in the hope that someone (anyone other than the editor who has inserted the statement) would express an opinion. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to Prayer, Aspiration and Contemplation: Selections from the writings of John of St. Samson, O. Carm., mystic and charismatic, but the rest all appear to be self-published sources, mostly blog posts, making claims about third parties. They do not cite their sources. Daniel Klimek's [33] article "ON SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT - HISTORY SHOWS POPES VIEWS ON MYSTICS DIFFER" [34] might be useful if it indicated its sources; unfortunately, it doesn't. So, no, none of these meet Gpedia reliable sources standards for that statement. This article [35] by John L. Allen from the National Catholic Reporter is reliable, but the Gpedia article statement would need to be revised somewhat to reflect what the Allen article says. Dezastru (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The amount of information supporting the “failed attempt” statement is quite substantial, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. I’m confident that there are still many more sources of books, periodicals, information, etc. to be tapped. My next move is to contact all the sources in an effort to compile more verification. I’ll add additional references as they become available.AcuteInsight (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just got a tip that there is also a reference to Ottaviani's attempt to get Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnations in "Vatican Secret Diplomacy: Joseph P. Hurley and Pope Pius XII by Charles R. Gallagher, Society of Jesus New England [36]. It's $40, and I'm not buying another book just to have it rejected again. I'm going to try to order it through the library.AcuteInsight (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dezastru that the sources AcuteInsight has cited for her/his statement are not reliable by Gpedia standards. AcuteInsight's unsupported opinion that they are "quite substantial" is an insufficient rebuttal. If the book AcuteInsight refers to should turn out to contain a statement in support, it can then be cited, but the question is about the sources that AcuteInsight has actually cited. Esoglou (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reliable source?

Dorje Shugden controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) now uses as a source for claiming Shugden was a Dharma Protector.[37] I had removed it saying the website fails RS, but it's been replaced claiming it is a reliable source. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Doug. I'd say the article you quoted by Dreyfuss who is a professor at Williams College and a well regarded Tibetologist, is a much better source than the one the person who changed your edit used. That source is a self published site written by someone who lists no academic or professional affiliation, The site appears to be to one written by a keen devotee simply trying to show the practice he believes in in the best light he can. Anyway, I think you're right in thinking that the site is not a neutral academic source. So on that basis, my own view is that you would be justified in reverting the edit by TruthSayer.
However while you are at it, I'm sure you are also familiar with several other very good secondary sources (Drefyus, Lopez, Bell, Kay, Watts, and so on) where they relate various independent accounts, as well as historical and contemporary research showing that many in the Gelug and particularly the Sakya tradition believed that Shugden is a harmful demon, ghost, worldly protector, spirit, etc. In light of those sources, as well as numerous well reported statements from the Dalai Lama, and many other notable Tibetan religious leaders which have appeared in the press, you might want to consider rewriting the opening to something more like: "Dorje Shugden is a controversial Tibetan deity or spirit. For over three hundred years while some in the Gelug, and a few in the Sakya tradition, of Tibetan Buddhism have worshipped Dorje Shugden as a Dharma protector, many others in all Tibetan Buddhist traditions consider Dorje Shugden to be either a worldly spirit or a malevolent oath breaking demon." - giving the proper references and citations to those sources of course. That might give a brief summary of the background of the "controversy" which the article is about, without getting too technical or bringing up unfamiliar names and terms in the opening paragraph.
Chris Fynn (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The criteria for WP:RS are that these are reliable academic third party sources. How can the site fulfill the criteria set up in WP:RS? The site is set up and the content is written by an anonymous source, it is not peer reviewed by any academic source and it is not known if there is any established academic researcher behind the site and how much valid its content is. If someone argues this ANONYMOUS site should be used than also any other anonymous site can be used. This is all self-created, anonymous content where not even the writer stands up with his name. What is reliable in this? I don’t see any argument to use this site. Established research papers as Dreyfus or von Brück etc should be of prior use for the acticle. Here is a list of academic research which can be used because it meets the criteria for WP:RS: Kt66 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you 3. TiredofShugden (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no question here that this source does not even remotely meet reliability standards.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Having been asked for my opinion, I agree with Chris Fynn. And I would like to emphasise Chris' point that there is another goal here besides reliability, and that is balanced neutrality. The article needs to explain the controversy, and not just rely on one-sided referencing to say "Shugden is a dharma-protector" or "Shugden is a worldly spirit". Cheers, Fuzzypeg 23:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) search results as a source for Night of the Living Dead

Because of the public domain status, the film is sold on home video by many distributors. As of 2012, the lists copies of Night of the Living Dead numbering 52 on VHS, 181 on DVD, and 9 on Blu-ray.

It's there in the quote. What do people think? Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No it is not a reliable source. This is WP:PRIMARY data and has no particular significance except what the reader puts into it. This information should be omitted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Bluerasberry. Until a third party reliable source states it, it's undue. Trivia about Amazon sales does not belong in Gpedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with all. Should be not be used. --Precision123 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Not notable and not reliable. It's an advertisement, which is prohibited.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of in several articles on compositions

I just met eleven articles using as a source for various bits and pieces of information. The source has been used in:

  1. Three Bagatelles (Ligeti) -

    Moreover, the score also includes a fourth bagatelle as an encore of the piece to be performed if the pianist wishes, which is marked "Tempo primo" and only includes a sixteenth rest. Citation

  2. The Dream of Jacob -

    The work's original German title, Als Jakob erwachte aus dem Schlaf, sah er, daß Gott dagewesen war. Er hat es aber nicht gemerkt (Jacob woke from his sleep and said: Truly the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it. Citation

    (Notafina and another source used to support this content).
  3. Magyar Etüdök -

    The composition is mathematically adjusted so that all musicians end the piece together Citation

  4. Due capricci (Ligeti) -

    The set has been published by Schott Music together with Ligeti's Invention for piano, which is put in the middle and which the set is strongly associated with. Citation

  5. Mátraszentimrei dalok -

    The premiere took place in Saarbrücken, with Robert Pappert conducting the Kammerchor Hausen. Citation

  6. Magány -

    Magány, sometimes translated into English as Solitude. Citation

  7. Ramifications (Ligeti) -

    The composition is dedicated to Serge Koussevitzky and his wife, Natalia Koussevitzky and is meant to be a gift for the Koussevitzky Music Foundation in the Library of Congress. Citation

  8. Pápainé -

    This composition is in one movement and takes three minutes to perform Citation

  9. Invention (Ligeti) -

    It is a very quick piece, marked Risoluto, ♩ = 88, and gravitates towards F. Citation

  10. Clarinet Quartet (Penderecki) -

    The movement list is as follows: ..... Citation

  11. Éjszaka – Reggel -

    It was eventually published by Schott Music. Citation

All of these articles were created by the same editor. According to their About us page, Notafina "is a legal download site for sheet music and other digital content". EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific on how the site is being referenced. You list all these articles but not the actual reference from the site. in looking at the first article, I can't see it being used at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought I was being as specific as possible by copying the lines in each article that various pages from is being used to support. From my assessment they are nothing more than promotional links but I want someone else to investigate. The first article for instance links to this page from notafina which contains nothing more than a buy download button, the name of the author and score. The link used to support content in The Dream of Jacob article is the same, and this link is in the Magyar Etüdök article. Is that clear enough now? All of the others also lead to a page to purchase sheet music. I had used the format suggested for requests: Source - Article - Content. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone else wants to go through every single one of the above articles to find how each reference is being used fine, but if you want help you need to show the exact reference used in each one. I am not going to do that amount of work for you. Sorry. You provided the article and the claims, but not the citation used. In order to help, one has to go to every article and check each inline citation as you are not providing it here.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I've inserted urls to each page being used in the articles. Is this ok now? At least now I know where not to come for consultation on reliable sources. Are you always this hostile to newcomers? EagerToddler39 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Are Susumu Nakanishi and Donald Keene "historians"?

I'm not sure if this belongs here or on ANI, since it's clearly a politically-motivated user trying to find any excuse he can to dismiss my sources, but on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura User:Dwy has been claiming that literary scholars such as Donald Keene and Nakanishi Susumu don't qualify as "historians" because they are "literary scholars" instead. I should clarify that by "historians" Dwy is referring to a Japanese word rekishi-gakusha, a term that generally refers to the study of political history, and by "literary scholars" he means kokubun-gakusha. The problem is that the article in question is about a poet who is not notable for any impact he had on politics or the like, and whose name gets only a few passing mentions in the historical records of the time. For this reason, virtually no political historians write about him.

The subject is considered by a vast number of (probably most) literary scholars to have been of Korean (Baekje) descent, but in the 1970s and 80s this theory was criticized by two political historians based on somewhat non-intuitive readings of ancient texts and one or two of the minor details that are known about him. The theory was defended by several prominent literary historians, and the debate has largely died down since c.1985. Since then, virtually every book and scholarly article covering the subject in detail (with one exception) has said either "Okura was born in Baekje" or "Okura was probably born in Baekje". All of these books and articles are written by "literary scholars" and not "historians".

I interpret this as meaning that the consensus theory is that Okura was probably born in Baekje, but that we probably shouldn't state this in the article until a new general reference work is published that backs this up explicitly. User:Dwy, however, interprets it as "literary scholars say one thing, but historians say another thing". Unfortunately, because this subject is not a significant part of political history, the only political historians who have discussed it in any detail are the very few who oppose the theory on grounds of political history, and the overwhelming majority who (probably) see the theory as something for literary historians to decide amongst themselves have not touched it. This makes it very hard for me to discuss with Dwy, who insists that "no historians accept this theory".

My question here is whether scholars like Nakanishi and Keene count as "historians" for our purposes. Both of them have spent over half a century teaching and writing about the history of Japanese literature (the latter wrote a 4,000+page history of Japanese literature in English[38][39][40][41]), and if scholars who study old literary texts don't count as "historians" then do we throw New Testament scholars like Bart Ehrman out as well? To the best of my knowledge the only "historian" (by Dwy's definition) Ehrman has ever cited in one of his books was a historian of classical Greece and Rome who rejected the historicity of Jesus -- does this mean the article on Jesus should say "literary scholars of the New Testament consider Jesus to have existed, but historians reject this claim"?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave Jesus out of it :) We can report what these scholars say. It isn't our job to subclassify them. All that really matters is that this topic is relevant to their work, and it clearly is. Does that answer your question? Andrew Dalby 17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I brought Jesus in because Ehrman is an English-speaking historian who has had people ask him "Are you a literary scholar or are you a historian?" Y'know -- a REAL historian. He basically dismisses this question, saying that if he has a doctorate in the relevant field and teaches history and writes history, he's a historian. In my opinion this is the same for the two scholars I mention. The problem is that another user is insisting that they are "not real historians". I'm not concerned with being allowed report what the scholars say anymore (I won that debate), but with whether we should have to say "this theory is rejected by historians", or whether we can just work with the fact that, since literary historians are historians, then virtually all historians who we can cite accept the theory. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see, sorry. Well, literary historians are historians. The name's a giveaway, really. What they might be called in Japanese is not so very persuasive, because we ought to try to give guidance that would work similarly in other contexts on the English Gpedia.
So it would be misleading to readers if we said that historians reject this theory if (for example) Donald Keene accepts it.
It may be relevant to your discussion that to classify our scholars into groups, unless they explicitly do so themselves, is synthesis, which we try to avoid. So I wouldn't even say that "political historians" or "literary historians" take a particular view here, unless these conflicting groups are so named in our sources. Instead, given that there is disagreement, I would name the most useful or eminent names on either side: one should be enough, two at the most. And that's what we probably ought to do in the Jesus case too, I think, whenever that arises ... Andrew Dalby 09:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Keene's background is in Japanese literature, so it would be incorrect to call him an historian. But an article about history published in an academic journal is rs, because academic disciplines do not operate in isolation. The issue seems to be however about what weight to assign different opinions. Try to find an rs that writes about the various views and explains the weight that academics have assigned to them. TFD (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If your doctoral thesis was written as a historical analysis of an 8th-century poet are you still not a historian? (This is Levy: I don't know off the top of my head what Keene wrote his dissertation on. I also don't have him answering questions after a lecture in which some guy asked him if he's a "real historian" and he responded by saying that he has a job as a historian so that's what he is; that's part of why I started with the Ehrman analogy.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not very nice of Hijiri 88 to open a discussion here with such a one-sided description of the case, especially when he did not give me any notification or a chance to present my side of story. I am tempted to contradict every point Hijiri 88 made, but it would not be very constructive. So I make the most relevant point only:

As mentioned earlier,[42] the term "historians"(史家) was taken from the words of Susumu Nakanishi himself, 「帰化人の推定について史家の意見を仰いだところ「臣」たることに異議があった」(I asked for the opinion of historian on assuming that he was an immigrant, and they raised objection on the basis of his being "Omi.")(Nakanishi Susumu (1973), “ Yamanoue no Okura”, Kawade Shobo Shinsha, p.45) So it was not actually my synthesis.

By the other scholars who took part in the debate on the Toraijin theory, the opponents were often referred to as something like "scholars of ancient (Japanese) history"

  • Kazuo Aoki, Okura Kikajinsestu Hihan, p.263 「憶良帰化人説関係論文の論証過程には、日本古代史専攻者にとって常識と思はれる所知見が無視されてゐる部分があり」(In the arguments in the treatise of Okura Toraijin theory, various knowledge which should be regarded as common sense for the scholars of ancient Japanese history are ignored)
  • Arikiyo Saeki, Nihon Kodai Shizoku no Kenkyu p.140 「高木氏は「彼我の歴史や記録を漁ってその真偽を確かめなくてはならない責任」を果たすための適任者として古代史研究者を推している。よって本稿では…」(Mr Takagi [Ichinosuke] suggests that the responsibility of researching their history and ours to verify the facts should appropriately be performed by the scholars of ancient history, and therefore, in this paper...)
  • Izuru Murayama the Title of Extraction of Okura Yamanoue p.5 「関晃、平野邦雄両氏をはじめとする日本古代史研究家が既に否定的に見られた問題について専門外の人間がふれることになるわけで…」(I we will be dealing, despite being non-expert, with a problem on which the scholars of ancient Japanese history, such as Aikra Seki and Kunio Hirano, have already expressed a negative view...)

The term "scholars of ancient Japanese history" may therefore work as well. --Dwy (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that, unlike Dwy's obligation to post an accurate, neutrally-worded opening comment on the page in question, there is no rule that we have to present a "neutral" version of the dispute on this noticeboard. Nor was I under any obligation to inform Dwy of my post here, as I wanted to get the opinions of other Wikipedians. It's also worth noting that our article on Winston Churchill refers to him as a "historian" in at least four places; we even have an article on the subject. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Who said the Cathars worshipped two Gods - their persecutors? (unsigned)

I rather think they only worshipped one of the two -- the second was Satan. Interesting group. Collect (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Is there a question about sources here? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


I have long been familiar with this website, and have used it as a reference myself in some articles. However, I have since begun to question whether it is a reliable source, given that it has the word blog right in its title, after it was proposed as an addition to Murry Salby (see Talk:Murry_Salby#Protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2014). I would like some feedback as to whether it is a reliable source. The website itself is here. Jinkinson talk to me 04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to DeSmogBlog in that section of the talk page. The proposed edit does, however, include a link to Andrew Bolt's blog ([43]), unsurprisingly offering slanted and uncritical endorsement of Salby's claims. It's not clear what benefit plugging Bolt's blog offers, or why it gets so much attention in this short article.
DeSmogBlog is linked in the next section of the article talk page, apparently as a resource for editors researching the article. It seems to provide handy links to a lot of primary documents surrounding Salby's...interesting...history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, you're right, it's not in that section. Good catch. Nevertheless, given that I have used it in, for example, Timothy Ball (but could also have used it a lot more often than I actually did), I wanted to know if its use in Ball's article (or any other BLP) was acceptable as per our policy on Biographies of living persons. Jinkinson talk to me 13:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The blog's primary problem is that it is specifically "opinion oriented" and specifically implies that "established official IPCC reports are good" and "anyone opposing them is bad." As a result, within any post thereon is unlikely to be any balancing information about the person being written about. I find it interesting that they now appear to post unedited press releases from some companies - I guess they do not have enough material otherwise now? [44] demonstrate the POV pretty clearly. Collect (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog is a blog and, thus, should not be used in BLPs. (In practical terms, it's no worse than Delingpole's or Bolt's blogs, which are cited in the article and which are also shitty sources for a BLP). I think you (collectively) have to make a decision about this article: is it going to feature back-and-forth claims from global-warming partisans? Then cite Delingpole, Bolt, and probably DeSmogBlog.

Or are we going to use only high-quality independent, reliable sources? In which case the subject may not meet notability criteria, or would have a two-line article like: "Salby is a climate scientist best known for promoting climate-change skepticism. He was fired from his academic post in 2013. Salby claimed he was fired in retaliation for his skeptical views on climate change, while his university stated that he was fired for failing to meet his academic and teaching obligations." MastCell Talk 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, he has written texts of some repute, which also should be mentioned in any BLP. You might note my wording on that article talk page. Collect (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
DeSmogBlog is the creation of a PR executive/PR company. The blog makes no pretense of being an independent news site. They are an advocacy opinion site and tool of its PR executive founder and super-wealthy patron. They are reliable for their own opinion. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There are over 50 articles using as either an external link (i.e., Samarian spinel, Chalk Emerald, Taylor-Burton Diamond); a general reference (Pink Star (diamond), Imperial Crown of Russia); and/or as a citable source (Brown diamonds, Coronation of the Russian monarch, Gabi Tolkowsky). I cannot find anything on the internet that leads me to believe the site's author is an expert gemologist or historian. Is his site actually reliable? (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There certainly must be a better source than The author of the web site does not seem to possess any apparent expertise, but who knows. That's the problem with free web hosting: you never really know who's writing the page. It looks like an enthusiast's home page to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For the BLP on George W. Bush is [45] a reliable source for the following statement, specifically as worded: "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office"? Dezastru (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It gives the numbers without commentary. I suggest going from 26 to 49 percent is "substantial." YMMV, but I do not think that a near doubling can be described as less than substantial with a straight face.
Gallup [46] states Americans' views of former president George W. Bush have improved, with 49% now viewing him favorably and 46% unfavorably. USAToday [47] has "Americans' opinions of George W. Bush have improved with the passage of time, and now the public's ratings of the former president tilt positive. Bush left office with decidedly negative favorability ratings as well as approval ratings, so the recovery in his image is notable. I suggest if "substantial" is not good that "notable" is straight from the sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
In any case,, Gallup and USAToday seem to meet WP:RS AFAICT. The material was in the BLP for a very long period until two editors sought to excise the sources for some reason. Collect (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
(Off-topic, but just to clarify: The statement that the article had been stable for a long time until two editors recently sought to remove material is very misleading.
The lede of the article had contained the following line for the past year: "Although his presidency has been ranked among the worst in recent surveys of presidential scholars, his favorability ratings among the public have improved since he left office." An editor, for unexplained reasons, recently removed the part of the sentence that said his favorability ratings have improved since he left office.[48] Collect then restored the line, but added the word "substantially": "His favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office." (emphasis added)[49] Introducing that "substantially" might seem innocent enough – unless you have been following the editing on this article, in which case you would know, as Collect knows, that that change would be controversial.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56]) Dezastru (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, the question here is whether is a reliable source for the statement "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office". This discussion is not about other sources for that statement. Please quote the content from that supports the statement. Dezastru (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think so, yes. It's a fairly straight repetition of statistics from a bunch of reliable sources including NBC, CNN, Pew, CBS, Fox, etc. It doesn't editorialise and it provides clear reference points so that others can find the information in question which is what we require of our sources. That does mean we need to interpret the results somewhat but, as Collect points out, describing a near-doubling of favorability ratings as "substantial" is fairly NPOV. It's not "massive" or "significant" or "incredible" or whatever. So... reliable? Yes. How we describe those sources is another matter. Stalwart111 13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you actually look at the source that is being discussed? Where specifically in the source is there a "near-doubling" of favorability ratings? I honestly don't know how Collect (or you) is coming up with these numbers. (Note that in an edit summary on reverting a removal of this and two related sources, Collect also wrote, "most people consider a change from 19% to 49% to be 'substantial' see Gallup article thereon", yet there is no 19% to 49% in any of the 3 sources that were being replaced).
"That does mean we need to interpret the results somewhat"Gpedia's policy on use of sources is unambiguous: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Dezastru (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Then go for secondary sources instead (always a better option) rather than raw polling data. CNN calls the jump "significant" (which I jokingly included in my list of less-NPOV terms), the Washington Post calls the increase "slight" but focuses only on national, whole-poll results, Fox calls the results "remarkable" and USA Today calls the results a "rehabilitation" and "notable" but mostly quotes material directly from Gallup which is available here. I'm not sure what you're after here. Each of those sources is reliable and the Pollingreport source that repeats their raw polling data is a reliable source for that raw polling data. I think you know what I meant about "interpretation" with regard to raw data provided in secondary sources - I'm not suggesting editors conduct original research. But we can't just repeat, verbatim, extensive polling results in a single line of prose. Feel free to use "significant", "remarkable" or "notable" instead (in quotation marks even), sourced to those articles. Stalwart111 21:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

USAToday (given above) says "notable" for the increase. Would you prefer that term here? I trust the RS nature is not at issue here. Pollingreport lists a change from 26% to 49%, and some other polls (one CBS one, for example) had a low of 19%. Still -- 26 to 49 is "notable" without making any improper surmise (though out of a hundred people, 99+ would find it "substantial:. Collect (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please state from precisely where in the page you are getting the 26% to 49% figures. (For example, if you were referring to data included under the NBC News poll of May 2011, you could say that there were figures of 13% in 1/9-12/2009 and again in 5/5-7/2011 with ratings of "very positive.") I do not see any 26% to 49% on that page. Dezastru (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why that matters. Is someone trying to insert those figures into the article? You wanted to know if it was a reliable source for the statement, "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office". I'm saying it might be but it doesn't matter - there are plenty of other (better) reliable sources that could be used to verify even stronger statements. Stalwart111 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It matters because when an actual attempt was made to use a better source, such as you suggested above, and to revise the statement in the article to the more neutral "as with most former presidents, his approval rating among the public has improved since he left office", the changes were reverted, restoring the citation along with a citation of a Gallup article that was published too early to possibly be a reliable source as well as a citation of a USA Today article citing Gallup that reported positive ratings of Bush had increased only from 17% - 25% and that concluded "Americans still rate George W. Bush among the worst presidents, though their views have become more positive in the three years since he left office".[57] Dezastru (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but that's different again to the "26% to 49%" figures you're demanding reliable sources for. I, personally, don't think we should be quoting figures at all. What's the point? The "results" are actually a massive group of figures and even within those there are categories of registered voters, independents, age groups, etc. The figures themselves don't really tell us much. It's the third-party editorial that's probably going to be most valuable. I'm not sure that comparisons to previous Presidents is particular valuable given only one (Gallup from memory) actually covered all of them. The others (non-Gallup) were linear chronological comparisons to favourable/unfavourable polls during and after his presidency. I don't think either of those "statements" is particularly "good" so I don't see the value in fighting over reliable sources (or not) with that as the end goal. Can we come up with a better form of words that doesn't just use Gallup and doesn't quote particular polling figures? Stalwart111 04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm demanding proof because this is the reliable sources noticeboard. If someone is going to revert a change and replace a reliable source with a different source, they need to be able to show that the source they are restoring is reliable. In this case, based on the numbers cited in the edit summaries and comments posted here, the editor who made the reversion appears to be misreading the source that is being restored. So I'm not trying to include the figures in the Gpedia article; I am trying to confirm whether the editor has read the source correctly. If the editor has in fact misread the source, the editor's opinion on whether the source is reliable for the statement that is being challenged is invalid.
"Sure, but that's different again to the "26% to 49%" figures you're demanding reliable sources for." Well, that's just the point, isn't it? I can tell you precisely where the 17% - 25% rates are cited from. I'm not the one claiming that a source reported a 26% to 49% increase or a "near doubling". Is it not perfectly reasonable to ask someone who makes such a claim to produce the evidence, particularly if the discussion is occurring on a noticeboard dedicated to that purpose?
If you'd like help rewrite the article, feel free to join the discussion on the article's Talk page. A number of us have not felt the current wording is particularly good, but it was hammered out after months of discussion and edit-warring a year ago, and as much as any of us have disliked it, it was what could be agreed to. Dezastru (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that's unreasonable but I also wouldn't say it's particular relevant either. You're asking for "evidence" of something that nobody seems to want to introduce into the article (the figures themselves) because someone has used those figures to justify the addition of the word "substantially". It seems clear the word "substantially" was based on the collective (perhaps paraphrased) interpretation of multiple reliable sources that described the increase in a similar but not identical fashion. If the objection is to the word, which is the part you say changed between revisions, then pick another word. Collect used the term "substantial" whereas reliable sources used the words "significant", "remarkable" and "notable". It doesn't really matter how Collect came to his conclusion or what his specific conclusion was - reliable sources came to the same conclusion and have provided a bunch of different words you could use in place of the one Collect picked. This really isn't a matter for WP:RS/N because it's not the source that's in question - it's the weight given to particular sources and the neutrality of the words used to describe their conclusions. I can't see Collect objecting to you selecting one of the three words listed above, each of which can be directly attributed to a reliable source. Stalwart111 07:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cardinals and bishops campaigning

In the third paragraph of the article Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, is citation of Seattle Catholics Divided On Repealing Gay Marriage a reliable source for the statement:

Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against same-sex marriage

The question is about "cardinals and bishops" (not other leaders) themselves "actively campaigning" (not just encouraging others to campaign). It is claimed that the citation gives support only to a statement such as

In some parts of the United States, Catholic bishops "urged their parishes to host a signature drive" for a referendum against same-sex marriage, and an opponent of this measure said that "Catholic leaders have increasingly campaigned against same-sex marriage".

But this has also been disputed.

This question, together with the broader one whether other supporting sources perhaps exist, has been discussed without conclusion on the article's talk page: here. Perhaps an advance can be made by examining whether this, the one source actually cited, supports or does not support the statement in the article. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The source is RS only for a claim that a local priest gave permission for people to seek signatures on a petition outside a specific church. It is a major problem when people jump from a very limited source into making general statements. To make a general statement, one needs a reliable source making that statement. Collect (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou seems to have come to RSN hoping that other users will read the article and its sources for him because he can't be arsed to do it himself. The article and its sources are very clear about the large sums of money that the church donated to anti-marriage campaigns, their lobbying against hiring discrimination laws, etc. I have pointed out repeatedly on the article talk page that this material is already adequately cited, and he has flat-out refused to check. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ros, you know how it works: statements need facts; facts need support. Attacking Esoglou won't do. Are you now contending that there's support for your statement that "the church" made donations of "large sums of money" and that such is equivalent to the assertion that "cardinals" and "bishops" "actively campaigned" against specific legislative initiatives? Cloonmore (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Instead of discussing editors, attributing motives to them, and using offensive language, would it not be better to address the question of the reliability of the cited source for the statement it is claimed to support? Esoglou (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The cited NPR article does not mention cardinals, so it is not reliable for any statement about cardinals per se. However, the source does say that "Catholic leaders have increasingly campaigned against same-sex marriage in other states. In Minnesota, where it's also on the ballot this fall, bishops there have directed parishes to form committees to advocate the church's position", so it is reliable for a statement that Catholic leaders have campaigned against same-sex marriage. The statement that "Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against same-sex marriage" is clearly true, you just need to search more thoroughly for better sources if you want to include that information, since it is in contention. (And not just Catholic leaders in some parts of the United States; there are sources documenting such efforts by Church leaders in a number of countries.) For information on the US context specifically, you might try searching for reports in Dezastru (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems clearly true to me as well. I am not sure why there is such resistance to this particular phrase being let in to the article. It is not overly contentious, or dubious. One look at the USCCB's activities under the former president, Cardinal Dolan, is enough to confirm it beyond a doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
All you need is a reliable source for "campaigning" in the sense in which it is used in the context, which speaks of encouraging clergy and laity to campaign. Whether other sources are reliable is another question. What is asked here is whether the one source actually cited is reliable for the statement? Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think the point of this board was for editors to chime in as to whether they hold a personal belief as to a statement's truth. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the board was about reliable sources.Cloonmore (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It has little to do with a "personal belief" and more to do with the objective verifiability of the contested statement. Verifiability is one of the five pillars of Gpedia. Elizium23 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Verifiability is indeed in question here, but not whether there may exist other unspecified sources to verify the statement made. The question here is whether the adduced citation verifies the statement. Nobody, not even User:Elizium23, judges it to be a reliable source for verifying the statement. Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this viewpoint considered "RS" enough for notability?

On the Spanish Gpedia there is an AFD on es:Liceo Mexicano Japonés, a Japanese curriculum school in Mexico. (See the notability standards of the Spanish Gpedia here: es:Gpedia:Artículos_sin_relevancia_aparente, which differ from the English Gpedia) I referred to a passage in a book as an argument that the book has significant content:

Page: No. 214.
Text: "When the Liceo Mexicano Japonés (Mexican Japanese School) opened in the late 1970s, after more than a decade of organizational activity, it marked the culmination of the Japanese community's efforts in Mexico City to centralize its educational facilities in one well-funded setting. The school, located in the fashionable suburb of Pedregal, soon enrolled over 1,000 students from kindergarten through secondary school and became one of the most prestigious schools in the nation. Both Mexican and Nikkei-jin students attended the school, along with the children of Japanese diplomats and business owners residing in Mexico. Fieldwork by Chizuko Watanabe concludes that Japanese parents sent their children to the school to "main-[...]"
Page: No. 215: "[...]tain their ethnic identity and pride, implant a spiritual heritage that they claim is the basis for success, and to establish close ties with Nikkei-jin children who live in distant areas."
A Wikipedian questioned why one should care about Chizuko Watanabe's viewpoint (it wasn't directly cited in the Spanish article), but I decided to check on who she is. It turns out she is the author of a master's degree thesis, and Masterson cited her thesis in this book.
  • "Chizuko Watanabe. "The Japanese Immigrant Community in Mexico Its History and Present" (M.A. thesis, California State University at Los Angeles, 1983." - Watanabe's master's thesis includes interviews with people.
I know that by itself a master's degree thesis is not usually considered a reliable source. But if a secondary source (a scholarly book published by the University of Illinois Press) published cites a master's degree thesis, does it make the content acceptable? Does the presence of Watanabe's conclusion increase the topic's notability? Or does the fact that it originates from a master's degree thesis harm the prospects of this quote giving notability to the article?

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Gpedia will have its own rules, but this would definitely be a reliable source in English language Gpedia. A scholarly book is a scholarly book. If it originates from a masters' thesis that just shows that the thesis must have been exceptional and worth publishing. The school would meet our notability guidelines since we regard all schools as notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
One thing interesting is that the Wikipedian said that the sources I showed did not show significant coverage. When I put the Spanish quote in Google translate, it sounds very similar to the English one: "«Cobertura significativa» significa que las fuentes tratan el tema directamente en detalle, y no se necesitan investigaciones originales para extraer el contenido. Cobertura significativa es más que trivial pero puede ser menos que exclusiva. Esta cobertura tiene que proporcionar suficiente información para escribir un artículo verificable, aunque sea breve." I also just found out the campus is a work of art of a famous Mexican architect... WhisperToMe (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Since one Spanish Wikipedian is for deleting it, and three are for keeping it, it may survive! It would be surprising to see this article deleted. Yes, the fact that the building is by a well known architect should help to make the topic notable. Masterson gives the reason for being interested in Chizuko Watanabe's work, so there was really no need for anyone to question that. But, as Judith says, Spanish Gpedia has its own rules. Andrew Dalby 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I found the paper is cited five times on Google scholar, but this list does not include The Japanese in Latin America. That means this master's thesis has been cited at least six times.
  • Making Ethnic Choices: California's Punjabi Mexican Americans
  • Mexico in the 1940s: Modernity, Politics, and Corruption
  • Allied policy toward axis Interests in Mexico during World War II
  • America's Japanese Hostages: The World War II Plan for a Japanese Free Latin America
  • Transpacific Mexico: encounters with China and Japan in the age of steam (1867-1914)
  • The Japanese in Latin America (not seen on Google scholar)
In addition, Masterson's book says on p. 265: "We will concentrate this discussion on Mexico City's Nikkei-jin, who have been studied most intensively, particularly by Chizuko Watanabe and Takehiro Misawa, in the decades following 1970."
And this statement may be related to why her work was cited by the Punjabi Mexican book:
  • Explorations in Ethnic Studies: The Journal of the National Association of Interdisciplinary Ethnic Studies, Volumes 14-16. NAIES, 1991. p. 153. (Snippet view) (Search View)
  • "The Mexican Japanese studied by Chizuko Watanabe shared certain characteristics with the Punjabi Mexicans. Japanese immigration to Mexico was greatest between 1908 (when the Gentlemen's Agreement cut it off to the United States) and[...] The Nikkei (Japanese or half- Japanese born in Mexico), even those children whose parents were both Japanese, all spoke [...]" and also "she studied are not part of any one community. However, Chizuko Watanabe's study of the Japanese in Mexico and Barbara Posadas' studies of the Filipino-Europeans in Chicago do focus on groups comparable to the Punjabi Mexicans[...]" See the search
So does this support the idea that this master's thesis is at a higher standard compared to other master's theses?
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, certainly it does. It doesn't matter how the work set out in life, so long as it now has peer recognition, and this work clearly does. You could use it on the relevant article here, no problem. But you have to understand that we can't make a rule for the Spanish Gpedia. It's the discussion over there that will decide whether that article is retained. Andrew Dalby 09:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Now, I understand this has no power over there. That's okay. What I wanted was this noticeboard's guidance. And despite having no power over there, I can use this noticeboard's expertise as an argument in favor of keeping the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I encountered the following arguments:
  • 1. One Wikipedian says that because Masterson is quoting Watanabe and not analyzing that particular quote, her sentence counts as a primary source and not a secondary source. Does field work (in anthropology or ethnic studies) count as a secondary source or a primary source? I would think field work involves analyzing what other people say and write, right?
  • 2. The second is that the newspaper supplement was for promotion and/or entertainment (did he mean soft news?) so it doesn't count as a secondary reliable source. My counter-argument is that Janett Nathal (author of the article) is an employee of the company and that the company has editorial control, and so since she is the writer, it counts as reliable.
Again, I am aware this board has no power over there. But what are your opinions about it?
WhisperToMe (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you have met a Wikipedian who is staking his life on killing this article. I guess we don't know yet what the result will be. What I have done, if it happens to me, is to create or improve the relevant article on other Wikipedias. If you do this you go on finding relevant sources, which is useful anyway. Then, if the article really is deleted, you can come back to the subject six months later and try again. The Wikicontext will be different, your sources will be better, and the topic will look more notable because there are better articles about it in other languages. Don't know if that helps -- it's just a friendly suggestion :) Andrew Dalby 12:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion! I've edited both the English and Spanish versions at the same time so both have the relevant information. He said he has access to the Mexico Journal article and Watanabe's thesis, but when I asked him to e-mail me a full copy of the Mexico Journal article, he said that I should just pay for the service. Instead I put requests both on the Gpedia:RX and on Reddit. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is reliable?

Is reliable enough to add to Gpedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a source you could list on the WikiProject page if other members of the project don't object. The only potential problem is that they solicit user-generated content for use in their site directory, forums, and perhaps elsewhere, and explicitly encourage their readers to use these pages for self-promotion. For that reason you may want to add a qualifier that some sections of the site should be used with caution. TheBlueCanoe 01:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Short film by Nicolas Hague?

Dr. Robert Thurman came out with an article yesterday that directly contradicts every claim made by this short film by Nicolas Hague. Thurman also points out facts that are missing in Hague's film, but are present in every academic book. Thurman is a Buddhist scholar, and an expert in the Gelug school. Can we consider Hague's film as a Nonreliable source?Heicth (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For what purpose? The reliability of a source depends entirely on what it is being used for. --Jayron32 02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The unreliable short film is currently being used in Gpedia for these claims, which are rebutted by Thurman and others:

  • "The Shugden worshipers in India protest that they are denied admission to hospitals, stores, and other social services provided by the local Tibetan community"
  • "In the Tibetan refugee camps, Shugden worshippers have been turned away from jobs, shops and schools. Posters with the message 'no Shugden followers allowed' cover hospital and shop fronts."
  • "No Shugden worshipper has ever been charged or investigated for terrorism, and yet the monks that continue to worship Shugden remain victims of a campaign of name and shame."Heicth (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The Thurman article is not enough to declare the video completely unreliable for the statements in contention.
Thurman's article does not directly contradict every statement made in the video, although it does challenge or contradict several of the claims made by people interviewed in the video or stated by the reporter. Also, while Thurman is a scholar of Buddhism and was ordained as a Buddhist monk, his article is not written as a dispassionate scholarly exploration of a topic. It is written as an opinion piece, with political statements such as "Whatever one believes about the reality of fierce angels or demons, it is clear that the leaders of the Dolgyal Shugden cult have done nothing over the last 30 years but cause trouble.... It has benefited no one except those misguided operatives in the Chinese government who wish to destroy Tibetan Buddhist culture, in order to assimilate systematically deracinated Tibetans into becoming second class Chinese citizens, and thus, through such a policy of crushing the identities and even lives of the 'minority nationality' Tibetans, to secure forever their claim to the vast territories and resources of the Tibetan plateau. But as we have seen all over the world--and as aware persons can attest here in America with our still very much present First Americans...." So the reliability of Thurman's article on all of its claims is not unimpeachable.
The video says that Shugden adherents say they have been discriminated against, and several of them are interviewed in the video saying as much. The video maker has the prime minister of the Tibetan government in exile read a sign that asks Shugden worshippers not to enter a shop; the prime minister says that the sign is perfectly reasonable. A representative of the Parliament says all of the MPs were in agreement on government policy dealing with Shugden. So the video is reliable for statements saying that Shugden adherents say they have been subject to discrimination.
On the statement "No Shugden worshipper has ever been charged or investigated for terrorism", the video is not reliable. (Bear in mind that the video was made more than 5 years ago.)
This [58] article from the Times of India is relatively recent and less polemical than the article by Thurman:
The Tibetan community is divided over Dorje Shugden controversy, evidently in recent days, as local police station has received an unnamed parcel from Singapore bearing the sender's name as Shugden, which contained a DVD and a letter questioning the role of Dalai Lama and the deities in the Tibetan struggle for an autonomous region within China. Shugden is a segment of Tibetan community which follows Dorje Shugden, reportedly a Dharma protector of Sakya Gelug tradition. But it has not been recognized by the Dalai Lama and had [sic] been socially boycotted. Dalai Lama had issued an explicit ban order on this section of practitioners in 1996, stating that they do not comply with the principles of Buddhism. Dorje Shugden practitioners have also been stripped off voting rights, which other Tibetans enjoy.
Dezastru (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The murders of 3 people by Shugden cultists are from 1997. The video is from 2008. There is no excuse omitting this most famous aspect of Shugden. Thurman is a Gelug specialist. Accusing him of making a political statement is rubbish. Are you going to accuse other scholars like Kapstein as making a political statement, when they call Shugden, NKT etc. a cult? This video is the political statement, since it is used everywhere in Shugden propaganda. A staged confrontation by a guy dressed as a monk, and wrongly translated subtitles is not evidence of discrimination against Shugden practitioners, especially since there are NO SHUGDEN practitioners in India, except Chinese employees. Heicth (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have much sympathy for the Shugden, but Dezastru is right that "the video is reliable for statements saying that Shugden adherents say they have been subject to discrimination." Other evidence from reliable sources should be used to provide balance and alternative viewpoints. And if, as you say, the clear majority of reliable sources agree to certain facts about the Shugden sect, then those views should have prominence.TheBlueCanoe 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll also echo was other editors said previously: if there are elements of the film that are demonstrably false, then they shouldn't be included. Thurman's piece might disprove or at least qualify some of the aspects of the film, but he can't disprove the fact that Shugden followers claim they face discrimination. TheBlueCanoe 01:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

John A. Rizzo is he a high quality reliable source?

Source: [59]

Article: waterboarding

Content: "Is waterboarding a form of torture? No." As per John A. Rizzo.

Glennconti (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead of the waterboarding article says waterboarding is torture. This source says waterboarding is not torture. Is John A. Rizzo a "high quality" source that can be used to restart the debate (which has recurred many times) on whether a less definitive statement like "waterboarding is generally considered to be torture" should be substituted in the lead? Any opinions will be sincerely appreciated. Thank you. Glennconti (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, John A. Rizzo is not a scholar of any description, but a lawyer for hire. Under the George W. Bush administration he was appointed the Acting General Counsel of the CIA. In his advisory capacity he approved and thereby helped enable the use of torture in CIA interrogation practices. He is a politicised figure, highly compromised by the legal ambiguities that surround the practices he endorsed. He has no medical background or credentials that might allow him to objectively assess the impact of waterboarding on a person, and he certainly has no scholarly track record as an authority on ethical behaviour. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If waterboarding is torture, then John A. Rizzo should be in jail. So he is the opposite of an impartial source. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reliable?

Is this newspaper reliable? the fact that the article has been primed to say "created with a goal to provide objective information " gives one pause, taglines asserting objectivity are generally signs of the opposite.

Use: It published an obituary of an artist [60] which would help establish the notability if it is an acceptable source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera piece a reliable source?

Dorje Shugden controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other pages now uses this Aljazeera piece as a source for various claims. I notice several glaring errors, such as the number of Shugden practitioners, not to mention staged purposeful confrontations, slow motion editing to make people seem sinister etc. This is the very definition of a "hit piece". What do you think?Heicth (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In general Al Jazeera is one of the most trustworthy journalistic sources. Do you have reliable sources that would suggest errors or inaccuracies in its reportage? Disliking something is not reason for removing it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Simonm223. There's no question Al Jazeera has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control and that we should consider it a reliable source. But it's not unheard of for reliable sources to disagree, even over the facts. When that happens, we do not decide the controversy and we do not decide the truth. We simply report the disagreement in proportion to the support each side has in the relevant sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Msnicki has touched on precisely the right way to treat this situation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"The figure of four million worshippers for Dorje Shugden is preposterous." There are several other obvious "errors". Furthermore, they don't even mention the murder of 3 people by Shugden cultists that every academic source mentions. Lastly, its an academic fact that China fuels Shugden activity. This was nothing but a "hit piece." Heicth (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source - but that doesn't mean that none of these are too. And when two reliable sources disagree yes, we should probably report both, and put them in context. Watch for WP:NPOV when doing so, of course, but be bold. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please stop parroting that Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Reread my comments. Heicth (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
You asked if Al Jazeera is a reliable source. You got an answer: yes, it is. If you want to fight its inclusion, you could try to cite WP:UNDUE, but I don't think you'll have much success. Al Jazeera is generally considered a high profile, reliable source, and biased sources are perfectly legitimate, even if you subjectively feel they are hit pieces. If you feel the report is incorrect, then there's little you can do about it but quote a reliable source that disputes it. If you're feeling particularly argumentative, you could tag it with template:disputed-inline and raise a stink on the talk page. Maybe consensus there will establish some sort of amicable solution. If not, try an RFC. After that, i suggest you just give up and let it go. Sometimes consensus goes against you, and you have to leave an article in a state you find offensive or incorrect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I asked if this Al Jazeera PIECE was a reliable source. Not Al Jazeera in general. I have clearly demonstrated that its not reliable. Heicth (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
See WP:TRUTH for a controversial essay on this topic. It might explain why people are not swayed by your arguments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Gpedia isn't concerned with whether something is true. An oft-cited example is that if Gpedia had been around in Copernicus' day it'd have posited as uncontroversial that the earth was at the center of the universe. What Gpedia is concerned with is how generally reliable a source is, and Al Jazeera is generally highly reliable. It might very well be wrong in this case. If so you should use other reliable sources demonstrating other positions in order to show that's the case. This is especially true with fraught political issues like this one. Simonm223 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Gpedia's role is not to establish the truth in any instance, such as here, where Heicth is saying that this particular Al Jazeera piece is inaccurate. That point, that we don't attempt to establish truth, is rather unintuitive, and bears some thinking about. Instead, Gpedia attempts to rally together a variety of accounts from reputable sources to cover all the main positions on the subject. These will often be in disagreement with each other; but no attempt is made to say which one is true. Rather, we attempt to give more weight to those sources that are considered to be more reliable. Al Jazeera is generally considered fairly reliable as news sources go, but news sources are not generally considered to be as reliable as, say, academic articles printed in reputable peer-reviewed journals, or academic books published by reputable academic publishers.
Heicth, I suggest you find a couple of highly reputable sources that contradict the Al Jazeera claims you believe are false, and add those to the article for balance. If they really are more reputable, they can be given greater primacy, e.g. "There are an estimated 400,000 Shugden worshippers,[cite your sources] though one news report has estimated 4 million.[cite Al Jazeera]" If it ends up just looking like an embarrassment for Al Jazeera, then other editors might concede the point and let the Al Jazeera claims be removed altogether.
I hope this helps. Fuzzypeg 00:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not correct, Fuzzypeg. The role of Gpedia editors can be to establish truth, insofar as Gpedia articles should never include information that is not true and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. If it can be established with reasonable certainty that the figure quoted by Al Jazeera is plain wrong, then it should not be included in the article. Of course, the burden to demonstrate the unreliability of the information rests with anyone that wishes to remove it. Formerip (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Look, here's the simplest way to report this. Say what the sources say. Attribute to the source's voice not Gpedia's voice. Say "Al-Jazeera is reporting that the sky is red[1], while other sources such as the New York Times[2], the BBC[3], and Mom's Totally Reliable News Blog[4], dispute this claim, noting that the sky is actually a sort of yellowish-green color with a bit of a paisley pattern". If you do it that way, you make it clear that there is a dispute, you make a note of the sides of the dispute, you place the reporting of facts in the voice of those that are reporting it, and you leave it to the reader to decide where the Truth lies. This is not necessary where all reliable sources clearly agree; in those cases you can report something in Gpedia's voice. But where there is disagreement, Gpedia does not take a stance, but merely reports the disagreement. Also, this does not apply where FormerIP notes as well: When a normally reliable source is demonstratedly wrong, we don't report it. The issue here is that we haven't demonstrated that Al-Jazeera is wrong here, we've just demonstrated that other sources disagree; it could be that those other sources are wrong. --Jayron32 12:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Robert Thurman just came out with a piece today that debunks all of the claims put forth in this video, although doesn't mention the video specifically. Heicth (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is a reliable source generally for statements of fact, although not always. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Self-published? Reliable?

Please take a look at the references in the Robert Hunkins article.

  1. Are these self-published?
Although it may not be obvious, those publishers were the vanity press of the day. It's doubtful whether any of those works received any editorial oversight.
  1. Are they reliable sources?

Thanks for taking a look. (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Domestic and worldwide box office gross

I have always wondered about this so I feel it is best to ask here what others think. Box office Mojo is actually IMDB. Is this site actually a reliable source for Gpedia? What about The Numbers is that a reliable source? I can't see where they are getting their information from. Does anyone know if there is an accepted site for these figures?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Numbers and Box Office Mojo are both accepted as reliable sources by WikiProject Film. Box Office Magazine, Variety, Screen Daily, The Hollywood Reporter,, and, to a lesser extent, consumer entertainment magazines/websites (Entertainment Weekly,,, etc) can also be used. See WP:FILM/R for the project's full list of resources, but keep in mind that most of them won't report on details like budget or gross. Besides that, it's worth checking the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Guardian, and other newspapers with a strong arts/film tradition. In the UK, Australia, and Canada, you can sometimes find budgets and box office stats from government sources. And, finally, it never hurts to check specialty magazines/websites, such as Fangoria, Starlog, Twitch Film, or Film Threat. Variety is usually your best bet if BOM and The Numbers come up empty. Sometimes useful articles are archived by the Google newspaper archive or in Google Books, but don't get your hopes up. The IMDb is not a reliable source, but it can be used to gather clues for your research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I was all over project film the other day and was not able to find anything.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Signpost as source for Wiki-PR editing of Gpedia

In 2014 Wiki-PR launched a new website under the name

"WMF bites the bullet on affiliation and FDC funding, elevates Wikimedia user groups". SignPost. February 12, 2014.

rybec 13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable per WP:WINARS. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I just removed it and all the Status-Labs related stuff sourced to it. Let's hope no one adds it back in. Jinkinson talk to me 23:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Dutch Progressive Rock Page reliable?

Hi, I am in search of references for Gpedia talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band). Is a Dutch Progressive Rock Page CD review regarded as a reliable secondary source? The two reviews at the source webpage are evidence that the two albums produced by Café Jacques are covered by a reliable media publisher. This is the means by which I wish to show notability (i.e. the band released two albums with a major record label). I am intending to put two inline citations after the names of the albums in the discography, if that is the right way to approach it. In other words where citations 2 & 3 are now. Thankyou. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Kshatriya Page & its Lineage Article Reliability

Hi, what i mean to say is Nagavanshi is not one of the Kshatriya Lineage.Also i am saying that the references provided for "Nagavanshi" Lineage in Kshatriya page are not at all reliable. The reference provided are:

^ Omacanda Hāṇḍā. Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalaya, p.251. [1]

Jump up ^ Viyogi, Naval and Ansar. History Of The Later Harappans And Silpakara Movement, p.198 [2]

Jump up ^ Pranab Chandra Roy Choudhury, (1968).< Folk Tales of Bihar, p.63. Sahitya Akademi

Please analyse these references provided in Kshatriyas page with experts & remove that "Nagavanshi" Lineage from Kshatriya page immediately if they are not reliable.Thank You. - (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC) and

I'm wondering if I should add these as articles on Gpedia or not. (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As the subjects of articles? Then you want to read Gpedia: Notability - basically, have reliable sources (books, newspapers, magazines, tv shows) written substantial information about them? Frankly I doubt it, but you might be able to find a few and surprise us. Or as reliable sources for articles? Then, well, I'd have to say no. claims that " All lap times published in originate from trusted sources - car magazines, automotive TV shows etc.", but I don't see that actually done in practice, it looks like anonymous site members can generally add what they like. seems to be entirely a bulletin board of anonymous posters, no more reliable than a Gpedia talk page. --GRuban (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

hometownlocator, fallingrain, ...

A couple of questions:

  • is being used in some 1200 pages. Is it reliable? Or is it comparable to the nototriously unreliable (i.e., do we have any evidence that it uses a better database than fallingrain, or is it one of the many similar websites based on the same poor database)?
  • Is there a list of other similar unreliable geographic sources that get used regularly on Gpedia?
  • Is there any means or effort to get rid of those? Blacklisting is normally only done for sites that are actively promoted (spammed), not for sites that get added by unsuspecting or lazy editors

Other at first sight similar sites:

  •, used 194 times
  •, used nearly 5000 times[64]
  •, used more than 5000 times[65]
  •, used some 2700 times[66]
  •, used 415 times[67]
  •, used about 100 times (search function doesn't work well with the dash)
  •, used some 150 times
  • And less commonly (less than 100 times) used ones like,,,,,,, ...

Any ideas? Fram (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like simply scrapes (or licenses?) data from Google and the U.S. Government. I don't see any particular reason why it should be treated as a reliable source. The data should probably be cited from the original source, rather than some middleman. Didn't look at the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

recipe in book that cant really be found?

The book itself is not listed in or google books project, however a mention of the book is found here in one book, thats it, much less a recipe to base an entire wikipedia page off of. the book in question is called "Steward & Barkeeper's Manual in 1869"

A recipe for a John Collins is featured in the Steward and Barkeeper's Manual of 1869:

Teaspoonful of powdered sugar

The juice of half a lemon

A wine glass of Old Tom Gin

A bottle of plain soda

Shake up, or stir up with ice. Add a slice of lemon peel to finish


all based off this 2010 book ^

The author of this book along with the author of "imbibe!" David Wondrich who frequently self promotes including on this page several times use sources or references that do not exist or are behind pay walls.Drinkreader (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Drinkreader (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The book "Haney’s Steward & Barkeeper’s Manual" is reviewed at length in the April 2009 edition of, here. The book is also cited in Maynard Andrew Amerine and Axel E. Borg's 1996 A bibliography on grapes, wine, other alcoholic beverages, and temperance: Works published in the United States before 1901 (p 127, #1626), here. The book certainly exists, and the fact that the text is not readily available on the interwebs does not affect the reliability (in the en.WP sense) of the work. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
While rare, that manual is found here in the library of congress catalog. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable or not?

Does anyone care to share their opinion on a source for the Moors article currently? This source is a republished edited version by an independently owned publisher Black Classic Press of a book from 1886. This new republished version of the original book by Stanley Lane-Poole has been redone by the Afrocentrist writer John G. Jackson (writer). You can take a look at some of the book here and I think just by looking through a little of it you can already see it comes off as a questionable source. It does not seem reliable in my opinion due to the fact it has no scholarship and it comes off as questionable too. The source already was deemed unreliable by another editor, but before I decide to officially remove it from the article, I would like to hear a few more editors sentiments on this source. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Not, I'd say. Unless we are talking about historical views of the Moors. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
From a quick look at the Google preview, unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Anybody else care to share their opinion? ShawntheGod (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Since you arrived you been pushing your agenda. Now RS is not proved by people's personal opinions. or because you do not like Afrocentric authors. Does not work like that. Quick glances and no rationale are actually not how we work on Gpedia. If something is unreliable there needs to be a rationale for that, or else it is a personal opinion which we can swing through every ref used in every article. Unreliable according to who? We must prove RS, but we must also have a criteria for not RS. I mean "quick look at google preview" translates as "it seems against my politics and I do not like it:" WP:VOTE--Inayity (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Jackson and Poole are established academics in their respective fields. And not one word by ShawntheGod actually even attempts to make an academic charge against what is so Un RS about it. Now that makes it a personal opinion. Or is the work of any and all Afrocentrics now banned by Gpedia on Face value? Please get serious.No serious discussion to warrant any removal, it has already been discussed on article talk page. Again WP:VOTE --Inayity (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The book is not the original version of Poole's outdated work. It's a version published in 1992 in which has been retouched by other authors and was not even published by a scholarly publisher. What type of scholarship does Black Classic Press have? I don't see it. You want to me point out the questionable views? I'll be glad to do that right now. "and by 1492 the Moors had lost all of Spain except the Kingdom of Granda" That's clearly false, by 1492 the Moors lost Iberia in its entirety, and Granada fell in 1492. It I'll go on "The original inhabitants of Arabia...were not familiar Arabs of our own time, but a very much darker people" I think you can just see the claims with no validity here. Here's another one "The word Moor literally means black, so the Moors were black people" the original Moors were Arabs and Berbers from Morocco, just like the article says currently. I'll go on "the first Islamic incursion into Africa was in 640A.D, when General Amru captured Egypt" Who is general Amru? I don't see any "General Amru" there, at all. I could go on, but I think you understand why I see the source as questionable with extremist views and poor job of fact cheking and having no scholarship. If you feel like "a quick look" isn't enough, then I'm sure Richard Keatinge will tell you why he feels the source isn't reliable in a little more elaboration. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Not all of those are equally good examples. This is general Amru, and that spelling of his name is OK. By [the beginning of] 1492 the Moors had lost so much of Spain, and by [the end of] 1492 they had lost all of it. But in general terms I agree that this book is not RS. Andrew Dalby 16:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Makes no difference to RS if outdated, or if republished. Black Classic is a respectable publisher of African American scholars (yes you can have African scholars on Africa). But at least now you are having a discussion about the book, because what you and others where having was not a serious discussion.--Inayity (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
This book isn't a exact republished version of Stanley's original work, it's an edited version."Black Classic is a respectable publisher of African American scholars" Really? I take a look at books published from there and I see typical questionable Afrocentric pseudohistory illogical revisionist claims. Such as this book that says in the description "In The Origin of Races and Color Delany demonstrates that the builders of the pyramids, the sculptors of the sphinxes, and the original god-kings were Black.", you know the typical nonsensical claims of history that don't hold much validity anywhere and distortion of history for a racial POV that comes along with Afrocentrism. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
To rework a book by Lane Poole like this was an intriguing idea. It isn't a way to produce a reliable historical source for Gpedia. The original book might be useful as a source for Lane Poole's views, the revised version as a source for Jackson's views; that's it. Andrew Dalby 15:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Inayity has removed the source from the Moors article, it's quite clear he sees as to why the source is unreliable after my elaboration. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Robert G. Brown and The Pandeist Theorem in Pandeism

At the suggestion of my dear friend User:TippyGoomba I seek a determination on the usability of a self-published work by Dr. Robert G. Brown, professor of physics at Duke University, proposed to be used on the Pandeism page. Dr. Brown's CV spells out a history of something more than two dozen publications in peer-reviewed journals in the field of physics, and numerous magazine columns and articles predominately addressed to aspects of information theory. He has, as well, an undergraduate degree in philosophy, though this may be minimally relevant. Pandeism is, naturally, generally a philosophical topic, but Dr. Brown wrote and posted on his university website this article, A Theorem Concerning God, the centerpiece of which is what Dr. Brown calls "The Pandeist Theorem." He therein sets forth a proposition that of all extant theological models, Pandeism is the one best supported by physics, and he goes on to comment as to how Pandeism compares to other theological models (or specific religions) in light of principles of physics. In addressing this issue User:TippyGoomba quotes from WP:UGC, specifically (emphasis theirs):

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Here we are not speaking of the use of self-published information as a source about a living person, so only the first line relates to this issue. Specifically, User:TippyGoomba disputes that it at all matters that Dr. Brown is reasonably well-published in the field of physics, when Pandeism is a theological model. I have pointed out that physicists do, as it happens, comment on the viability of theological models in light of scientific knowledge, and TippyGoomba propsed bringing the discussion here. And so I propose it to be proper to reference to a self-published work inasmuch as Dr. Brown therein discusses this theological model within the context of his area of abundantly demonstrable expertise in physics. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Brown has not published in reliable (e.g. peer-reviewed academic) publications in the field of philosophy/theology, he isn't a reliable source in his own right as it relates to this the Pandeism article. Based on the foregoing, it's also IMO dubious whether he's an "established expert" in the field of philosophy/theology to begin with. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
But is he not a reliable source as to physics? Or as to a point of physics which happens to have ramifications for theological claims? By comparison we don't so far as I have heard exclude, for example, geologists from commenting that creationist claims are unsupported simply because the geologists are not themselves theologians. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say this Dr. Brown, who is an established expert in physics, has some education also in philosophy, and wrote the linked essay about relations between physics and theology, in particular pandeism, could be considered an expert of this sub-field (border field) of links between physics and philosophy/theology. As a consequence, I believe he could be cited inside a possible paragraph of the article pertaining to connections between pandeism and science, or similar. Viceversa I agree he cannot be considered an expert about pandeism tout court --LNCSRG (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Geologists tend to limit themselves to the geological (not theological) bits of creationist arguments. When someone like Dawkins goes after theology instead of science, what results is not reliable. John Polkinghorne is one example of how someone can become a recognized expert in both fields (and at their intersection). That's an extreme example, but I just don't see any particular theological or interdisciplinary expertise demonstrated on Brown's CV, so I would not consider Brown's self-published work in this area to be reliable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

SteveGTennis and Coretennis

I'm currently working on the ITF Men's Circuit article with a hope to one day be able to take an article to WP:FLC, I need sources from a third party and I am wondering whether Coretennis and SteveGTennis would be considered reliable websites for use. Any help is appreciated. Aureez (Talk) 16:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Core Tennis looks pretty legitimate. Steve G Tennis looks a bit bloggish, as it gets its info from other sources. --Precision123 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


In Archive 112 there's a discussion on whether or not Cyberbaiting deserves an article or should be part of Cyberbullying. Neither has happened. Sources mentioned way back in the 2012 discussion were [68][69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]. I come to it by means of this article: [77]. It looks like it peaked in usage around then, based on a quick look at Google Books, but it would be nice to have a formalized decision. Thmazing (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Regarding the source which was used in the following edits: First TransPennine Express, Chiltern Railways, British Rail Class 170. My browser (Firefox 27) shows the message "Silverlight does not appear to be correctly installed on this computer." Since this would fail WP:ELNO#EL8 if used as an external link, is it admissible as a ref source? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are confusing the real source being cited, which is primary source testimony from a parliamentary meeting, with what is apparently just a convenience link to that meeting. (The citation details should be cleaned up to better reflect what the actual source is. Incidentally, it looks like the date provided in the Gpedia articles text contains a typo. The convenience link goes to a recording of what is labeled as a 12 March meeting on the website).
As for whether the MP actually did say what the editor who has added this content claims the MP said, I cannot say because the linked page is for what appears to be a 2-hour-long meeting, and I have neither the time nor patience to listen to the whole thing to see whether the MP said what has been claimed. Dezastru (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I already fixed the dates, three days ago. My question is: do I remove those refs and replace with {{cn}}, or leave them alone? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, let me amend my previous post. I was under the impression that there is a written transcript somewhere of the remarks that were made during the proceedings and that the video recording is provided as a second form of documentation. If that were the case, then the transcript of the meeting could be cited without a link. But if there is no transcript or other written documentation of the content of the remarks, then the link to the video becomes the only source for this primary information. (And it isn't a convenience link, as I erroneously wrote, since the site is published by the Parliament, not by a secondary provider.)
The page you are questioning IS a reliable source (although a primary source) for the statements being discussed. That a particular plugin or web viewer is necessary to view the content does not detract from that (WP:SOURCEACCESS), although it would be optimal if no special plugin or viewer were required.
The date I referred to is 12/04/2014: "MP Stephen Hammond revealed on 12/04/2014 that ...." That date has not yet occurred.
Hammond's remarks are about @10:55 in the video. I think he said until March 2016, not until May 2016.
This site [78] (secondary source), which looks like it is probably reliable, reports on the meeting. Dezastru (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I do realise that you are referring to dates like 12/04/2014 - that is exactly why I said "I already fixed the dates, three days ago" - see this example where I altered "12/04/2014" to "12 March 2014". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing from ANRFC.

no consensus to blacklist. In cases where a primary source is being linked, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY are obviously still controlling as to if the source is valid or not. Use of that source should be handled on a case by case basis. How the source was obtained is irrelevant, and a Gpedia:Convenience link should not be problematic (However, agree that the source itself is what should be cited and not family tree). For user generated content, fails WP:RS. But in any case, no evidence or consensus that the site is problematic enough to be globally blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 17 March 2014‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from ANI board

This website, from the "leader in software and services for family history enthusiasts," was recently used as a source to insert alleged birth names, and date of births on a BLP. No other sources I found were reporting this information. I'm told this is covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY, and should not be used.

Hundreds of Gpedia articles are using this cite as a reference or external link, (see here).

Should this cite by blocked from use on Gpedia? Is there some value that is appropriate? Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe this might be more appropriately discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard, especially as I'm uncertain how this matter requires administrator intervention. DonIago (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking the site needs to be blacklisted, which requires an administrator to do. BUt I may be missing that this has some validity. I haven't seen a case yet which didn't violate either WP:ELNO, or WP:BLPPRIMARY. And most of these links are on BLPs. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Take it to RSN and see if people want it added to the blacklist. That can be done if there is consensus there. I don't mess with the list myself as I'm always afraid of breaking the syntax, but I know how to add a request! Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a software company, and of essentially nil value for making any claims of fact. Collect (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like 661 Gpedia articles include a link to familytreelegends. The software depends on user input, which can be good or it can be garbage: GIGO. The reference is not reliable or unreliable on its face. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I know WP editors like to paint an entire website with a single brush, but that's not a very good practice. In the case of, whether it's a reliable source depends on which records from the site are being cited. The site has digitized books - reference, history, and geography books - that are the same as the books found on Google Books or Those should be considered reliable sources. The remainder of the records on the site are indexes of primary sources. Although not primary sources themselves, the method of index creation often leaves a lot to be desired, so the indexes should not be considered reliable. Any family trees found on the site are user-contributed, so they fail WP:SPS (the site hosts, but does not publish the trees), and are not reliable. (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to see if this is mostly being used to support BLP names and date of births, which sure seems likes it's misusing primary sources, or if there is valid uses that it is also accomplishing. If the site is using reliable sources, then those are the reliable sources we should be citing, not an aggregator of sorts. The majority of cases have been violating WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:EL. Can you show some examples where that is not the case and the software is being used within acceptable areas? Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Three examples:
Take a look at the categories in the familytreelegends' records collection. Records found in the Birth, Marriage, Death, & Other; Military; and Land, Court, & Probate categories are indexes of primary records. Those in the Biography & History and Geography & Reference categories are digitized books, such as those shown above, and those found on and Google Books.
I'm not sure what you mean by "software". None of the familysearchlegends citations I looked at were to any software, only to the site's record collections. (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
In the above examples, it would make sense to cite the original source rather than FamilyTreeLegends. When someone uses Google or Google Books they are not putting the search as the source, they put the original source. I have no issue with using this company if it leads to a source but i don't think the search vehicle itself should be cited. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You didn't bother to click on any of those footnote links, did you? None of them was using the search as the source. ALL of them linked to the actual source, either a digitized image or a transcription of the source. (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I di dactually, and I think it's misleading to the reader who sees FamilyTreeLegends as a source when they, much like Google books, is simply the conduit to the real source. The real source should be cited directed, possibly with a link to FTL's image capture. But the source should be honestly represented instead of appearing to be FTL. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This is actually directing me to My This site is exactly like and is all user generated content. The site itself is not RS and I can see no logical reasoning to use the site as a source when the references used to document genealogy there would be like finding a reference here. We don't cite Gpedia just because the source was found here.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Should be blacklisted

  • Support This looks like it is being misused on a large enough scale to be concerning.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. My comparison might not be accurate, but i see the site's positive uses to finding reliable sources, much like one can use Google Books. However not everything at either of these cites can or should be used as sources, and just like we don't use a Google Book search as an actual reference, neither should we use this cite. Instead directly attribute to the underlying source and reference that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Also, and see if there are any more. TFD (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Most of those supporting the ban really do not understand what the website (or rootsweb or ancestry) are all about. This isn't a black and white issue. Some of the records on familytreelegends (and rootsweb and ancestry) are primary records that should not be used. I feel just as strongly about that as others. But some of the "records" are not actually records - they're historical texts. Please see my ( comment above where I laid out 3 examples of historical texts hosted at familytreelegends that are without a doubt reliable sources. See hundreds more here. Do you really want to blacklist the CIA World Factbook? (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

  • In each of those cases though, FTL is a conduit pointing to sources. The original sources themselves should be cited, not FTL. Meanwhile FTL is being highly abusive of the BLP policies and sharing birth names and birth dates, as well as other personal information that may or may not be accurate, likely could be used for identity theft, and should not be used anyway per WP:BLPPRIMARY. I just haven't seen any case where we should cite FTL instead of the original source. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
    • No, sorry IP, but primary sources can be used in a number of instances. You are simply incorrect about that. But thinking that using the My Heritage as a source for ANYTHING is even worse. And I actually understand these sites pretty well as I am a member of almost all of them and have a very extensive family tree. Birth records may be used to source DOB as long as they do not contain any personal information. Same as a death certificate or even the photo of a headstone may be used to source the date of a death. On the other hand, a lot of these supposed primary sources are in fact secondary in nature. Testimony from probate documents and sworn affidavits can also be used if they contain pertinent information. Even if there is no additional sourcing, an actual primary source is not simply excluded because it is primary. It still has pertinent information and using My heritage instead of the actual source...DOES NOT MAKE IT SECONDARY.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      • The main issue here is the notability of the figure and whether they are a living person. Primary sources of someone from 100 years ago is a different animal. I used to be slightly envious of people with famous I am envious of people with good paper trails. Just remember that if you are using genealogy sites to find information of living must be very careful what you divulge. If you are using the site to find information of someone who dies 100 years ago...there is little chance of that.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Last comment....I have to wonder how the majority of these articles are using these sites. The issue becomes when the site itself is used because there is nothing else. Gosh...I wish I could just use the content from My Heritage and Think of all the research I could save myself if I just say "screw it...this says I'm Kanekapolei's great, great, great it must be true. No need to research further". simply doesn't work that way in the real world or Gpedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
          • The article Richard Tylman is extensively sourced to Rootsweb. The problem is that we do not know if the records in that source relate to the subject of the article. A judgment was made that Richard Tylman, yeoman, who is mentioned in a license issued by the magistrates is the same person as the subject of the article, even though the subject of the article held the social rank of gentleman and had died 16 years earlier. TFD (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've asked for an outside editor to close. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-published source reliable?

At Soldiers, Saints, and Scallywags, David Gore, 2009, chapter A Mild Deception, pp 72-79, gives details to the discredit of my great-great-great grandfather, who appears to have invented aristocratic connections for his family and purchased both unrelated portraits (of people with the same surname) and space in books of the time to substantiate the connections. The author seems to have done his homework in this and other historical matters, and the book is recommended by the Guild of one-name studies (of perhaps rather humble academic status, certainly not a certified peer-reviewed publication) at It has also been reprinted by the Wiltshire Family History Society, see

I am considering using some of this information to point out the deception. Is this source reliable for this purpose? Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Marginal, but conceivably COULD be used - how, and is it uncontroversial?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It is marginal, but seems to be completely uncontroversial. Under Teffont Evias the subject was mildly notable and we have a poorly-written and adulatory comment on him. I'd like to replace it with something shorter and less complimentary. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability and popular culture: Korean TV dramas

In the past couple of years I've watched nearly thirty examples of the kind of TV program the article "Korean drama" covers (K-dramas), and written about them for a book (and movie) log I keep. A few months ago I used all the sources I could find to compile a sort of history of K-dramas, realised it was too much for the log, and adapted it into a "History" section for the article "Korean drama", which is over a third of the article's total length. (Compare my work on a comparable section for "State income tax".)

Since I don't read Korean, I promptly posted to the "Korean popular culture" working group's talk page, noting the existence of the section and my disqualification, and inviting corrections. None have been forthcoming.

Last month I watched a drama that considerably disturbed me, in a way that I then found was reasonably common among anglophone viewers. I added a "Controversy" section to the article "Secret Garden (TV series)" about this, reading as follows:

"Some Western viewers object strongly to scenes in which Kim Joo-won's sexual assaults on Gil Ra-im are portrayed as romantic, and received by her as such. As usual in discussions of media portrayals of sexual assault, other viewers object to these objections; some offer explanations involving traditional Korean gender politics."

The section was promptly removed, ostensibly because its only support was blogs. I responded by creating a section in the talk page about it. (There I speculate that there may be more authoritative sources in Korean, but the specific one I hypothesise has not, in fact, said anything on the subject, at least to judge by web searches.) The blogs cited: Dramabeans recap of episode 13, December 2010 Outside Seoul blog, August 2013.

I have since read a fair amount of what Gpedia's policies say about reliable sources. I conclude that although it's clearly insane to object to these blogs as self-published sources per se, given that what I'm trying to support is the existence of "objections", the rider about self-published sources as sources about themselves applies: since these objections concern a third party, they can't be cited. (So if I understand correctly, I could cite Dramabeans critiquing itself, but not, as marketers do, quote its reviews of actual dramas. Um. Dramabeans is more or less a blog, certainly a self-published work at least as regards the two main writers, and one of the main sites in English on K-dramas. It's one of the two blogs I cited, the other being a much more typical trivial blog, though one that happens to be well written and well thought out and so forth.) Near as I can tell, even the talk section is impermissible, not that I'm going to be the person to delete it.

It gets worse, though. It now appears that well over 50% of the content of the "History" section of "Korean drama" is also due for removal for lack of reliable sources. ("State income tax" is not comparably vulnerable.) Since the section consists of fifteen paragraphs, I'm not going to go over it in detail here, but such sources include:

1) Blog posts (including the main source cited for TV ratings records, cited as "Top 50 highest-rated TV dramas of all time").

2) Self-published works (including the most historically-inclined source for the years up to 1964, cited as "With S2", a set of five PDFs, for example "Radio Dayz").

3) A master's thesis.

4) Dissertations cited without regard to supervision, independent citation, etc. (Ironically, I do know of one citation to one of these, since the later and more useful dissertation, Jeon's, which is quite recent and is my single most important source, cites the earlier and less useful one.)

5) An enthusiast page for the history of a video recorder company.

6) One footnote tries to cite DramaWiki, the other main site in English about K-dramas, which as a wiki is also unacceptable, but Gpedia blacklists it anyway, for reasons not made remotely clear when editing. (Not this time either.) [1]

7) One footnote even amounts to "Citation needed".

In comparison, only a few of the footnotes cite a published article about early radio in Korea, a published article about K-dramas' exports in the past two decades, and some newspaper articles.

It's worth noting that while there isn't much published scholarship on K-dramas, there is some, and it's primarily, of course, in Korean, with bits and pieces in Japanese, Chinese, and Thai, at least. I've been waiting for months now for access to a recently published history of K-dramas, because I'm hoping it'll have formatted information I can use in related projects not on, or meant for, Gpedia. So in other words, the information exists - the self-published up-to-1964 work is patently based on research the authors probably didn't do themselves - and exists in what Gpedia would apparently consider reliable sources, but isn't available in English-language sources.

The Korean page linked to from "Korean drama" as the equivalent article ("대한민국의 텔레비전 드라마" or "%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%98_%ED%85%94%EB%A0%88%EB%B9%84%EC%A0%84_%EB%93%9C%EB%9D%BC%EB%A7%88") has an extensive history section, which Google Translate makes mincemeat out of, and which cites no sources at all. I obviously don't know much about Korean Gpedia's policies, but what I've observed from the pages on individual dramas is that those are low on text (plot summary, reception, production notes) in general, so this section in the overview page is exceptional.

So OK, I have a big and a little concern here. The big concern is that two long documents of presumptive merit (well, I certainly think mine has some!) are vulnerable to deletion not because they can't be done well but because they *haven't* been done well *by Gpedia's evidence standards* and nobody's stepping forward. The little concern is that an issue that taints not only a drama, but because of similar issues with other dramas and the praise the first drama received, the whole industry, apparently can't be addressed on Gpedia. (Unless there's Korean feminist scholarship on the subject and I just don't know about it.)

Oh, and one other concern: When I do something that helps the promotion of K-drama, its flaws are ignored. When I do something that hurts the promotion of K-drama, its flaws justify its deletion. Um?

Joe Bernstein not a registered Wikipedian

[1] Gpedia has in the past plagiarised DramaWiki (see "Eyes of Dawn" [2]), and frankly should do more of that, since DramaWiki tends to be more reliable within its remit. For example, Gpedia on "My Lovely Sam Soon" has the ratings agencies backwards; I know this because the Korean TV advertising agency, Kobaco (no longer a monopoly, but was one at this document's date), confirms DramaWiki's version; see

Sheesh. Much of my following verbiage is devoted to defending Dramabeans as a reliable source. And here I find that English Gpedia plagiarises them too! So what's not acceptable in Secret Garden (TV series) turns out to be perfectly acceptable in Gourmet (TV series) - compare the character listing there with the one in the Dramabeans recap of episodes 1-4 - as long as no credit is given! The edit producing this was done by 69dressings nearly a year and a half after the Dramabeans recap, i.e. over four years ago.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

[2] Eyes of Dawn is one of the most important dramas in the history of K-drama. It is not an accident that it is (at least as far as I know) the earliest drama available on English-subtitled DVD. Its continued absence from Gpedia after over six years, while Gpedia covers literally hundreds of less important dramas, is shameful. I expect to watch it within a couple of months, and would be tempted to address that absence myself, except for this education I'm getting in verifiability. (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we're trying to avoid the "My uncle Al" effect. (Which name I just made up.) It goes like this: "My uncle Al objects to some episodes of The Secret Garden due to such-and-such." Clearly we shouldn't put that in the article, right? Even though it's true, and verifiable, there's nothing showing that it's relevant - why should our readers care about what some editor's uncle Al thinks? So we should similarly avoid "Some bloggers object to that episode of The Secret Garden". I'm guessing we can find a few bloggers objecting to pretty much any given tv show in a reasonably internet-wired country. This one is sexist, that one instead threatens traditional values, this one is too violent, that one is instead too boring. Without reliable sources saying these specific objections matter, we're pretty much going by your - one anonymous editor's - opinion that they do. Now I'm not sure if I understand what you write there at the top - are you saying that you are a published author (by a professional publishing house, not just self-published) of a book on the subject of K-dramas? If so, then you're not just an anonymous editor, and we can take your opinion as such - put it up on your blog so we can cite it, and we might well write "Joe Bernstein, author of FooBar's Guide to KDrama, notes objections to some episodes of The Secret Garden due to such-and-such." --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, um, akcherly, one of the sources I was citing *has* published a book about K-dramas, but it seems to be more or less self-published (it's an e-book), so what does that show? (Dramabeans again: Why Do Dramas Do That? by the two lead writers, one of whom was the author of the page I was citing.)
Anyway, is the "My uncle Al" effect then the entire history of K-dramas? No, I'm not a published author on this subject, except, again, self-publication (a few posts on Usenet). As far as I know, nobody in Gpedia has cited my articles in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy ed. John Clute and John Grant, let alone any of my journalism. But my question isn't limited to Secret Garden. Yes, I'm extremely pissed off about that, specifically in relation to Boys Over Flowers, for which you do cite material objections because they happen to come from the Seoul YWCA. But I'm more worried that any editor who happens to dislike me can justifiably remove a section of an article that I worked on for some time, not because anything in it is untrue (though bits of it may be, and almost certainly the emphases are distorted by the info I had access to), but because I, personally, happen to be unable to meet your evidential standards for *showing* that it's true. And I'm especially worried that the standard by which one thing I wrote was cut, while another, so far, survives, seems to be essentially biased.
(Off to Dramabeans to check whether the book really is self-pub, and what do you know? They have a set of twelve outside links on their front page, two of which are to DramaWiki, the site I already mentioned, and to Outside Seoul, the thoughtful but I thought obscure blog which was the other thing I cited re Secret Garden - and note that that particular drama is mentioned, in that cite, only in the comments, not in the main article, which is however a substantial article on sexual assault vis-a-vis K- and other Asian dramas.)
Oh, and yes, the Dramabeans book is self-published:
Joe Bernstein (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
(error fixes) (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Blogs and self-published sources are, basically, unrealiable. That isn't biased but is a long-standing policy. However, some of the sources you are talking about may not be blogs but online arts magazines. For a review of a Korean TV series we're looking for the same kind of sources as for a US TV series. Where are such series typically reviewed? What did those sources say? If you work from that direction, from the sources into Gpedia, you should be fine. Problems typically arise when someone wants to include content and then goes looking for sources to justify that content. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Belatedly I've noticed the instruction to link to outside web pages referenced. So I've inserted a bunch of links above and below. Sorry.
It isn't clear to me how to reliably tell the difference between a blog and an online arts magazine, although I'm quite confident Dramabeans is closer to a blog than it is to, say, Slate or Event Horizon.
Maybe I should, however, go into more detail about Dramabeans, because your question "Where are such series typically reviewed?" is getting to the core of my concerns. Dramabeans has a bunch of facets, but its raison d'etre is something called "recaps". A recap is essentially a summary of a drama episode, with still photos. As Dramabeans does them there's usually also one song per recap (these aren't permanently available, however, unlike the text and photos), and occasionally some actual video is quoted. I've seen recaps older than Dramabeans, and they tended to be really light on text. In contrast, Dramabeans provides lots of detail, and the main writers have similar, and pronounced, styles, some of their locutions having become popular. I've met people who, too busy to actually watch their dramas every episode, rely *primarily* on Dramabeans recaps to follow dramas that interest them. The two main writers, "javabeans" (hence the site name) and "girlfriday", appear to be two women, probably in their 30s, who grew up in America but speak fluent Korean, and grew up on K-dramas. They may live in or near Seattle, as do I, but I haven't to my knowledge met either. I know of no professional qualifications either has as a TV critic except her long experience of K-dramas, and her current ability to make a living from Dramabeans; nor do I know whether, in either case, that ability is supported by a better-paying spouse's job.
There are two basic places I know to look for English-language reviews of K-dramas. One is, um, lemme see ... the archives of Korean Quarterly, where a bunch of the earlier North American releases were reviewed. (Note that Secret Garden is recent.) I don't know much about this quarterly but assume it would pass English Gpedia's muster. The other is Dramabeans, where each recap usually includes comments by the recapper at the end, and the final one usually includes an extensive evaluation of the drama as a whole by each recapper who worked on it. Nor is this Dramabeans-centricity limited to me: YA Entertainment, whose 80-odd releases may be an actual majority of *all* Region 1 DVD, English-subtitled K-drama releases, quoted Dramabeans more than any other source in its marketing. As it happens, Korean Quarterly reviews no drama later than 2006, while Dramabeans started in 2007, so their remits are sort of complementary.
Mind, as GRuban suggested, there's a *massive* blogosphere around K-dramas, specifically in English (there's yet more in Korean, and some in other languages). Pretty much every time I find that I need to do a lot of searches about a particular drama, I find at least one blog I hadn't previously seen, years old, devoted to K-dramas. So yes, there are lots of reviews out there beyond the two sources I just cited. Dramabeans is unique not from being a blog but from consistency and quality.
And that's pretty much my point. People who read Korean have not come forward to produce, for either Korean or English Gpedia, accounts of K-dramas' history that are well-sourced by Gpedia's standards, in the existing, mostly Korean, scholarship on the subject. Instead someone came forward for Korean Gpedia to write an unsourced account, and I came forward for English Gpedia to write one sourced, as it turns out, almost entirely in things English Gpedia specifically rules out. (I've taken the section as it existed two or three days ago and rewritten it to exclude everything "unreliably" sourced. Should I just post the two versions here so you can see what I'm talking about? One is a genuine historical account, however distorted by the availability of evidence; the other is a slapdash collection of factoids.)
I think ruling out blogs, wikis, theses, enthusiast pages, etc. makes it unreasonably difficult to deal with this particular element of global pop culture, one which has been reasonably successful internationally, and one whose creators interact copiously with self-appointed, self-published fans at home. (Several Korean entertainment *awards*, *which English Gpedia documents*, are *voted* at major fan sites such as Daum and Soompi. Soompi is multilingual; I haven't used English Soompi much, since it's mostly below even my evidential standards, but it is where I can get lists of nominees for some earlier awards, and it's where Dramabeans, at least, got started.) I know there are tons of Gpedia pages dealing with Western pop culture, heavily sourced to periodicals whose evidential value I think clearly lower than, say, Dramabeans, but y'all seem to disagree. There are tons of pages (in *English* Gpedia) dealing with East Asian pop culture, heavily sourced to periodicals most of y'all can't even read to evaluate, though some of those are reasonably respectable sources. I now understand why those pages aren't, by and large, sourced to places like Dramabeans and DramaWiki, but I suspect that lack impoverishes English Gpedia to some extent.
Separately, I stand by my claim that there's a bias in the relative survival of the two sections I wrote. One came down in days, and happens to document a disreputable aspect of K-dramas. The other has lasted for months (it's *still* up, even after this), has gotten various kinds of attention from several registered Wikipedians, and isn't nearly so negative. Both are, by English Gpedia's standards, inadequately sourced. Why the difference? Maybe because I insulted someone's favourite drama; that's obviously bias. Maybe because I objected to a drama; but if praise can stand while objections can't, that's obviously bias. ("Praise?", you ask. Um, documenting awards, for example, is praise; I haven't heard about any Korean equivalent to the Razzies. I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if authoritative sources in general shied away from criticism, partly for the same reasons many do in the West, but also partly out of East Asian traditions of courtesy; this would, if true, introduce a systemic bias.) Maybe because people who pay attention to specific dramas' pages have a lot of experience dealing with blog-sourced edits, while people who pay attention to Korean drama don't; but hey, here I am at sourcing central, pointing out my own work's deficiencies, so why is it still there?
I don't want it to come down. I didn't want "Controversy" in Secret Garden (TV series) to come down, although "my uncle Al" is something of an argument. I don't expect to change Gpedia's standards of evidence. So I don't see a good solution here, but will keep talking until it's clear that there isn't one.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
An idea: Why not ask around the Korean Gpedia to find people who speak English who can find Korean sources? I know Gpedia:RX can be used to find journal articles and news articles, but maybe those on the Korean Gpedia can do the same with Korean academic databases. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, I did, right after writing the section in the first place, as already noted in the second paragraph of this section. OK, I didn't ask *in Korean Gpedia*, but NB Korean Gpedia has its own "History" section in its own "Korean drama" article, and that has no references at all; it's not obvious to me that Korean Gpedia contains people who'd care about writing in English so as to meet English Gpedia's standards of evidence. Anyway, the reason I'm not a registered Wikipedian is precisely that I don't want to put in the time to, among other things, learn how to "ask around" on Gpedia; these past weeks have taken rather more Gpedia-internal time than I've ever wanted to spend.
So I'm skeptical about this as a solution in general, but if someone else wants to try, wonderful. I've already failed with it.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Joe, I would recommend asking on the main talk page of the Korea WikiProject on the English Gpedia. Anyway, the Korean Gpedia is located at The Korean Gpedia has an "embassy" that lists some members who also speak English: ko:위키백과:대사관 - Even though the article on the Korean Gpedia lacks references, I'm confident somebody there will know where to find reliable sources in Korean. Some people who are on the Korean Gpedia also write for the English Gpedia and they are aware of the sourcing here. If anything, your questions may result in the Korean article getting sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, against my better judgement, I've gone and done that, both places. (The K-drama I'm currently watching is boring enough so far to make me welcome such distractions.) I've also included pointers to this page. We'll see if anything results. Meanwhile, since I'm posting here at the bottom, I'll note that the current K-drama in question, at English Gpedia, plagiarises Dramabeans, the very site whose reliability I've been defending. (And for whom I'm not a sock puppet: they *like* the episodes that're boring me!) Evidence way up above, just below the note on plagiarism from DramaWiki. The editor who originally perpetrated this plagiarism has been banned, so I'm not blaming anyone here now, or even the editor who killed "Controversy" in Secret Garden; but she's edited the plagiarised article, so she's not entirely innocent, either. Dramabeans is good enough to steal from but not good enough to draw from honourably? An emperor here is looking increasingly nude.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The only person who seems to have been active in the past year at the ko embassy talk page knows French but not English, so I posted in both languages there. Then I wondered, what if French Gpedia has a sourced discussion of K-dramas' history? So I went and looked. Well, it doesn't, but of 13 footnotes in Drama_coréen, 7 reference Dramabeans, explicitly as a "blog". I also checked both the French and the Korean equivalents to Gpedia:Identifying reliable sources. Both exist; both call for references; the Korean one explicitly bans blogs, the French one only discourages them. (It also has a detailed guide as to what to do if there are issues with references, but none of the situations discussed is closely similar to that in Korean drama.)
I'm beginning to wonder about dispute resolution processes, though I'm not sure whether complaining about plagiarism in Gourmet (TV series) or contesting the edit to Secret Garden (TV series) is what I might want to do.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC) (fixing a link)
That's a good idea, trying the French Gpedia. In the meantime, you can try posting in English here ko:위키백과:사랑방 (일반) (the page is in Korean but people respond to English messages). If that doesn't work, I know of some other Korean users who may help you. Try contacting:
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Ostensibly Unreliable Sources: Eight Examples

I think you're mistaking my motivations here. I'm not saying "Oh, I see, English Gpedia is a monolith with consistent standards of evidence, and I'm desperate to get my content to fit those standards". I'm saying "Huh. I'm coming to English Gpedia with the fruits of a community who work together, and English Gpedia scorns that community and doesn't want its fruits. Except by stealing them, which it frequently does. Can this be changed, or defended, or is English Gpedia just irredeemably evil?"

Now, your obvious reply is that I'm reifying English Gpedia. As the evidence below shows, relatively little plagiarism has been done by Wikipedians in good standing. But the thing is, it has been let stand by Wikipedians in good standing, including the one who zapped my citation of Dramabeans. So either Wikipedians who edit Korean drama articles don't know enough about anglophone resources re K-drama to know that DramaWiki keeps on its front page an explicit request to Wikipedians to kill plagiarisms, or they don't care. And anyway, you're reifying me into a good Wikipedian, so it's only fair that I reify Gpedia into a bad organisation, or find out why it isn't.

I've watched all or part of thirty K-dramas, of which twenty-four have English Gpedia articles. Six of these plagiarise DramaWiki today, one having replaced its plagiarism of Dramabeans with a plagiarism of DramaWiki, a different one also plagiarising Dramabeans today. As it happens, I'm not invested enough in DramaWiki to want to learn how to zap all the plagiarisms, especially since that would put the onus on me to write new synopses of these dramas I've watched, and my preferred style for such is more like DramaWiki's than Gpedia's. My point here isn't about plagiarism, although I certainly think it needs dealing with, but about the dynamics I see as resulting from Gpedia's stance on verifiability. Just to start with: I found no plagiarisms going the other way. I was sure there'd be at least one in my sample, but no. DramaWiki, which requires registration of participants (I haven't even been able to notify them of this post, as I have Dramabeans), has not to my knowledge copied Gpedia.

Let me start with the typical English Gpedia K-drama article. (English Gpedia now has over 500 of these, per List of South Korean dramas, of which only thirteen concern dramas dated there before 2000. I certainly haven't consulted all of them, but am speaking of those I have.) After the intro there's generally a synopsis or plot summary, often detailed and comprehensively spoiling said plot. Then there's usually either a succinct cast list or a detailed list of characters; the latter often goes with a less substantial synopsis. There are usually, but not always, episode ratings; there may be a soundtrack listing; there may be text about the drama's reception; there may be other stuff. There may or may not be references. (Speaking of which, the latest Wikipedian to edit Korean drama has inserted a wholly unreferenced section about blogs and streaming sites, linking to several of the latter but none of the former, and has inserted a false alert that the entire article, not just my section or his, "does not cite any references". Response to my postings at last, and unsurprisingly, but excessively, hard line.)

We have two plagiarised sites at issue here, which happen to be the two I consider the most useful sites in my ongoing research on the Korean dramas I watch. DramaWiki, the main site plagiarised in my sample, has articles on over 1200 K-dramas (as well as lots of Japanese dramas and dramas in Chinese), including pretty much every K-drama since 2000 and a fair sample of the 1990s; I don't know whether they have any from the 1980s or before yet. DramaWiki articles start with a short info section, comparable to the combination of intro and info box in Gpedia articles; then comes a synopsis, generally written short and with attention to avoiding spoilers; then there are usually episode ratings for newer dramas, or more limited ratings info for older ones, there may be a soundtrack listing, and there may be other info. Most of the material at a DramaWiki page is factual and difficult to prove plagiarism of, though I have little doubt, given what I've already found, that DramaWiki is the real source for much of this sort of thing at English Gpedia. I've generally ignored the synopses, because all the dramas I've watched to date are on DVDs, and come with their own teaser synopses; but in fact, the main way people in anglophone countries now experience K-dramas is online streaming, so synopses of this sort are urgently needed, and deserve the care DramaWiki often bestows on them. They are also the easiest things to catch Wikipedians plagiarising. DramaWiki is a sub-site of D-Addicts, whose other main facets are a set of fora, and bittorrent offerings of K-dramas. I assume the latter is illegal, but legal streaming sites advertise on both D-Addicts proper and DramaWiki. Gpedia blacklists links to DramaWiki - so in other words, the only way Gpedia encourages people to cite DramaWiki is by stealing! - and I don't know whether this is because D-Addicts' bittorrent offering is against the law or because of some specific misbehaviour. DramaWiki's info pages do not link to pages offering downloads, at D-Addicts or elsewhere, unlike the inferior pages at which English Gpedia often links to. Anyway, to get to DramaWiki's page on each drama listed below, go to wiki dot d-addicts dot com slash the title indicated, with the usual substitutions such as _ for space.

I've already described Dramabeans recaps, but I left something out: Sometimes the recap of episode one begins with a set of character sketches. Now, I've actually found an example of Gpedia plagiarising Dramabeans for a synopsis, but it's an uphill battle; the other example of plagiarism I've found instead uses the character sketches. To get to these go to Dramabeans, follow the link to "Recaps", find the title indicated, and go to the recap for its episode one. Dramabeans doesn't hyperventilate about Gpedia plagiarism as DramaWiki does - well, it has far less reason to - but does have a copyright notice on each page.

Introductions complete, here's my evidence, in considerable detail:

1. Mary Stayed Out All Night plagiarises DramaWiki on Mary Stayed Out All Night, whose DVD title is Marry Me, Mary! This is the third drama I watched (I'm going mostly in that order) and one of my favourites, although pretty much everyone at Dramabeans considers it absolutely terrible.

The synopsis contributed to DramaWiki by Hanjae on 23 Nov 2010 reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

Since Gpedia has such a hostile attitude to DramaWiki, I figured y'all might not trust its use of wiki software, so I checked each page in question at, whose 31 Dec 2010 copy shows this synopsis.

On 9 Dec 2011, Sunuraju, who appears to be a Wikipedian in good standing, created the Gpedia page. The synopsis included in that first version:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

Gpedia's synopsis now reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

2. Prosecutor Princess plagiarises DramaWiki on Prosecutor Princess, whose DVD title is the same. This is the twelfth drama I watched, and girlfriday of Dramabeans liked it more than I did.

The synopsis contributed to DramaWiki by Hanjae on 17 Feb 2010 reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>'s 9 Mar 2010 copy shows this synopsis.

On 1 May 2010, XChampagne created the Gpedia page. The synopsis included in that first version:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

This is the first example I found (though note Eyes of Dawn) of an actual attempt to stop the plagiarism: Decltype, a Wikipedian in good standing, almost instantly got into an edit war with XChampagne, explicitly because of the copyright violation, and won it after two rounds; there's no further record of XChampagne, whose activity seems to have been confined to this article. However, Darkpiggy put this synopsis back on 22 May 2010. Darkpiggy's activity was confined to two days, and concerned this article and the article about its titular lead, Kim So-yeon.

Gpedia's synopsis now reads:

Ma Hye Ri is a woman with an excellent memory and ability to focus, which allowed her to pass the bar exam with ease. Despite her talents, she is more interested in being fashionable and dislikes hard work so she is far from being an ideal prosecutor and has doubts about her suitability for her job. Through her conflicts with senior colleagues and struggles with difficult cases; however, Hye Ri gradually matures into a brilliant prosecutor with a sense of duty and justice.

3. Becoming a Billionaire incompletely plagiarises DramaWiki on The Birth of the Rich, whose DVD title is Becoming a Billionaire. This is the fourteenth drama I watched, and I moderately liked it; Dramabeans skipped it.

The synopsis whose first sentence Hanjae revised, and whose other sentences Hanjae contributed, on 28 Mar 2010 reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>'s 29 Mar 2010 copy shows this synopsis.

The synopsis created by an anonymous Gpedia editor on 10 Jul 2013 reads:

Choi Seok-bong believes he is the son of a billionaire, from a one-night stand with his mother. The problem is, his father doesn't know the existence of his son, nor does Seok-bong know who his father is. While working as a bellboy at a luxury hotel, Seok-bong practices at the qualities he thinks a billionaire's heir would have; all these efforts are for the day he meets his birth father. But one day, Seok-bong is diagnosed with testicular cancer, which only has a 50 percent survival rate. Seok-bong doesn't have enough money for treatments, and finds it absolutely ridiculous that a billionaire's heir would die because he has no money. Finding his biological father may be Seok-bong's only hope. So he approaches Lee Shin-mi, the heiress of Ohsung Group and a notorious penny-pincher. Although they get off to a rocky start, with Shin-mi's help, Seok-bong struggles towards his goal of attaining wealth.[2][3]

Note the final sentence. The footnotes point to the same article in two places, which does not include any of this text, and which I'm pretty sure doesn't actually back up much of it either, although I haven't read with care to establish that.

Gpedia's synopsis now reads:

Choi Seok-bong believes he is the son of a billionaire, from a one-night stand with his mother. The problem is, his father doesn't know the existence of his son, nor does Seok-bong know who his father is. While working as a bellboy at a luxury hotel, Seok-bong practices at the qualities he thinks a billionaire's heir would have; all these efforts are for the day he meets his birth father. But one day, Seok-bong is diagnosed with breast cancer, which only has a 50 percent survival rate. Seok-bong doesn't have enough money for treatments, and finds it absolutely ridiculous that a billionaire's heir would die because he has no money. Finding his biological father may be Seok-bong's only hope. So he approaches Lee Shin-mi, the heiress of Ohsung Group and a notorious penny-pincher. Although they get off to a rocky start, with Shin-mi's help, Seok-bong struggles towards his goal of attaining wealth.[2][3]

(In case anyone cares: The testicular cancer / breast cancer dispute is endemic in discussions of this drama. All we know for sure is that he's unwilling to identify the cancer site; he frequently denies that it's breast cancer, but could be lying.)

4. Secret Garden (TV series) plagiarises DramaWiki on Secret Garden, whose DVD title is the same. This is the twenty-ninth drama I watched; although both main writers for Dramabeans castigated the sexual assault scenes as harshly as I could wish, they ended up giving the show favourable ratings over all, despite seeing its flaws clearly; I hated enough aspects of the show (not just the sexual assaults) that saying I hated the show over all is fair. This is the other case in which I've found an attempt to stop the plagiarism.

Hanjae heavily revised the DramaWiki synopsis 23 Nov 2010:

<snipped for copyright reasons>

Bumblelion1018 created the Gpedia page 3 Dec 2010, too fast for to capture an intervening copy, with the following synopsis:

<snipped for copyright reasons>

Bumblelion1018 created a page for another K-drama the next month, and then seems to have vanished. On 1 March 2011, administrator VernoWhitney zapped this synopsis as a copyright violation. An anonymous user added it back on 5 May 2011, and it's stayed ever since.

Gpedia's synopsis now reads:

<snipped for copyright reasons>

5. Gourmet (TV series) plagiarises DramaWiki on Gourmet and, as posted before, DramaWiki's recap of episodes one through four of Gourmet. The DVD title is The Grand Chef. This is the thirtieth drama I'm watching, which I'm finally beginning to enjoy, and which javabeans at Dramabeans thought well of.

The Dramabeans recaps for this series appeared shortly after airdates, beginning 6 Jul 2008 with a post by javabeans including the following character sketches: <snipped for copyright reasons>'s 10 Sep 2008 copy shows this material. I imagine you now see why Gpedia relatively rarely plagiarises Dramabeans; I'm pretty sure it isn't for lack of desire, just for lack of convenient brevity.

DramaWiki tracked this drama starting long before it aired, and had a placeholder synopsis for much of that time. On 6 Oct 2008 Leimomi considerably revised and expanded the existing synopsis into:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>'s 17 Jan 2009 copy shows this synopsis.

JKSarang, blocked as a sock puppet of InkHeart, created the Gpedia page 16 Oct 2009 with this synopsis:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

69dressings, blocked as a sock puppet of InkHeart, added the following character sketches 21 Nov 2009:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

Gpedia's synopsis now reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

Gpedia's character list now reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

6. Will It Snow For Christmas? used to plagiarise Dramabeans on Will It Snow For Christmas?, until it started plagiarising DramaWiki on Will it Snow at Christmas%3F instead. This is the nineteenth drama I watched, and while javabeans at Dramabeans thought better of it than I did, I thought it on balance good.

The synopsis contributed to DramaWiki by C51236 7 Dec 2009 reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

Even if had the necessary granularity, they were thrown off by the question mark in the title until 2011, so they don't verify this.

The synopsis contributed by an anonymous Gpedia editor on 26 Dec 2009 reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

Gpedia's synopsis now reads:

<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed>

Neither reference supplies this wording, though at least they aren't identical this time.

Now, neither Gpedia nor DramaWiki *started* with this synopsis. I don't have an exact quote available of the DramaWiki one, but both sites started out with very similar synopses. The first edit to the article at each site involved a separate line, reading "credit to dramabeans". At DramaWiki, the first edit added that line. At Gpedia, the first edit took that line away. In other words, DramaWiki plagiarised Dramabeans for a little while, and then corrected it; Gpedia quoted Dramabeans for a little while, and then turned it into plagiarism.

My position is becoming clear. I find the K-drama world remarkably casual about intellectual property. It's true that a major illegal streaming site, dramacrazy, was recently shut down, and another may be in trouble too. But there are plenty of entire dramas on YouTube, some even with English subtitles; soundtracks are more often there than not; Dramabeans is clearly encouraged to use images galore; *video stores* in the US get licenses to produce what amount to legal bootleg copies of currently airing dramas; the list goes on. If javabeans, girlfriday, or the DramaWikians want to get up in arms about this plagiarism, I won't object, but I'm not personally all that interested in leading the charge. What takes my breath away is the CONTEMPT shown by years' worth of plagiarism of these two sites, while simultaneously pretending that Gpedia is on a pedestal that would be contaminated if it dealt honourably with them: links to Dramabeans are speedily removed (a search the other day found only two in English Gpedia - though dozens in European Wikipedias), links to DramaWiki barred from getgo.

I understand that no individual I'm addressing here now is in a position to change that, and to the extent that anyone not specifically interested in K-dramas is still reading, they're not even a tiny bit responsible for it. Except that Gpedia's standards of evidence, which y'all have clearly bought into or you wouldn't be here, more or less ineluctably lead to precisely this sort of situation.

A long time ago I ran the first English-language website on author John Crowley. He found the site interesting and worth his attention. I'm surprised to hear Gpedia wouldn't have. Around the same time, I got involved in the workings of the Big 8 (Usenet). I was one of the first members of what became the Big 8 Management Board, and am cited along with Jim Riley because the two of us (locked into lots of arguments) did most of the research underlying the historical discussion of the Big-8 Usenet hierarchies. I already knew I couldn't cite my own work here; I now know why the pathetic and unreferenced "History" section in "Big 8 (Usenet)" doesn't cite it either. (But hey, at least it doesn't plagiarise it. I should count my blessings.)

In other words, Gpedia is hostile to pretty much every community I've ever participated in, except the academic and journalistic communities. (The only reason I might have some credibility now on Usenet's history is that I lost the arguments, and the community, so the Big 8 now has the sort of active management Gpedia can believe in.) And near as I can tell, this hostility is directly rooted in the way verifiability is handled.

Which is why I'm posting this here, instead of looking for a forum on copyright violations instead. This is evidence of the hostility I'm talking about, not because a bunch of individuals, some of whom Gpedia actually has sanctioned, perpetrated plagiarism, but because Gpedia's ivory tower kept the plagiarism undiscovered for years.

Joe Bernstein (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Joe, the copyright problem reporting board is here: Gpedia:Copyright problems. There's no hostility on my part in asking you to contact people on the Korean Gpedia to get better sourcing. I am teaching you a way of improving the Wikipedias, by contacting people to get them to give you info. To get people to stop copypasting from Dramawikis, you add sourced content that satisfies their desire for information, so they have no need to copy-paste from elsewhere.
Your post was way too long. The vast majority of people don't have the time or inclination to read a post that long. If you want to post more detailed analysis you can make a collapsible section that can be opened or closed (I can find the code if you need me to)
I went ahead and notified a Wikipedian who is experienced with dealing with copyvio stuff, so she'll take a look
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Um. I apologise to the extent that you think I accused you, personally, of hostility to me, personally; I think it's quite obvious that you're trying hard to be helpful to me, albeit to a version of me that, well, doesn't exist. In particular, how do you write a "sourced" synopsis? To the extent that it isn't a plagiarism, it's original research, pretty much by definition. See, this is an example of what I *was* talking about: verifiability, as defined by Gpedia, operates as an *engine* of hostility, in this case by making pretty much any synopsis vulnerable to deletion.
I'm in the process of evaluating everything I do with Gpedia. When Usenet stopped taking up so much of my time, I figured Gpedia might absorb it. What I'm finding is that much about Gpedia - signally, but not only, the issues I'm having with verifiability - is not to my taste. Since I routinely write long, I'm interested a priori in that collapsible code, but the odds of my using it here seem to be dropping.
Thanks for your attention and help.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
"In particular, how do you write a "sourced" synopsis? To the extent that it isn't a plagiarism, it's original research, pretty much by definition.". No it isn't. You don't need independent sources to write plot synopses where the work itself can be consulted as a source. See Gpedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, but: "To get people to stop copypasting from Dramawikis, you add sourced content". What people on Gpedia copy from DramaWiki is (at least) synopses. So I understood this as a suggestion that I (or someone) write sourced synopses. In any event, the record shows that people are willing to delete perfectly good synopses in order to plagiarise DramaWiki - see the corrected example below re Mary Stayed Out All Night - so I don't think it's a perfect solution; it's possible, if unlikely, that adding references would help deter this, if there were a sane way to add references to a synopsis.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Found the collapsing code further down on this page, have now hidden the lists in State income tax#History. Thanks for the suggestion. JLB (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Argh. I wanted to see if anyone had done what I was supposed to, overnight - gone and zapped the plagiarisms - and found I'd made an egregious mistake. My apologies to Sunuraju in particular, whose 9 Dec 2011 edit did exist but was certainly not the creation either of the article or of the plagiarism.
Corrected version of case 1 above, Mary Stayed Out All Night. Hanjae did write the synopsis as indicated. On 30 Nov 2010 someone at Blogspot copied it. On 31 Dec 2010 captured the DramaWiki page as indicated.
On 2 Feb 2011, Fiercejacci created the Gpedia page, which appears to be that Wikipedian's whole history. The synopsis:
Wi Mae Ri (Moon Geun Young) is a cheerful, pragmatic daughter of an failed businessman who had grown used to being constantly on the move to escape debtors. She becomes fast friends with the free-spirited indie singer Kang Moo Kyul (Jang Geun Suk) when she nearly ran him over with a car. Meanwhile, her father Wi Dae Han (Park Sang Myun) is saved from his debtors by his old friend, Jung Suk (Park Joon Gyu), who had just returned from considerable success in the japanese entertainment industry. Jung Suk, who had harboured a secret love for Mae Ri's dead mother, sets a deal with Dae Han to have Mae Ri marry his son, Jung In (Kim Jae Wook). In her desperate to escape this predicament, Mae Ri begs Moo Kyul to pose as her husband, and finds herself in even more trouble than before when her father proposes a 100-days period in which she has to divide her time equally between Moo Kyl and Jung In, after which he as to decide who to marry.
Within minutes, Acather96 removed this as a copyright violation not of DramaWiki but of the Blogspot plagiariser. Ultimately VernoWhitney won the resulting edit war the same day. On 15 Mar 2011, Iamtheman03, whose Gpedia history covers about two months interested primarily in things Filipino, contributed a new synopsis, and actually a half-decent one. That synopsis then evolved until 13 Aug 2011, when an anonymous editor "changed the Synopsis and Description to the correct Synopsis and Description" (!), in the process messing up the whole article. That's the source of the renewed plagiarism.
Again, I apologise. Obviously this also means my count of, and similar comments about, previous anti-plagiarism activity, were also wrong. I know of no other errors, and find no results, so far.
Joe Bernstein (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, Joe. Unfortunately, we do tend to have repeated issues with copying in television and film related articles where people copy synopses and other material from official or other sources. :/ While fans tend to put these back repeatedly, we do what we can to remove them when they are identified and to keep them out if we see them come back. We have a template that helps sometimes: {{plot2}}. Unfortunately, it doesn't help always. I've cleaned up all the issues that you've identified here. If you see anymore, please let us know - you can use the procedure described at Gpedia:Text Copyright Violations 101. We'll do what we can. I do appreciate your careful documentation above - made it a lot easier to do the mop-up. :) If you want to talk about this aspect any further, please drop by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="">here</a> and attribution parties <a href=";action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>