Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available: Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]]. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.	Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199

Are they reliable sources

http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.

Questionable sources in Operation Keelhaul

Sources in question

[2] Hornberger, Jacob (April 1995). "Repatriation — The Dark Side of World War II". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on August 11, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070811230525/http://www.fff.org:80/freedom/0495a.asp

[3]Skousen, Joel. "Historical Deceptions: Operation Keelhaul". World Affairs Brief. Archived from the original on 15 February 2013. Retrieved 2014-07-04

https://web.archive.org/web/20130215214414/http://worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Keelhaul.shtml

Article

Operation Keelhaul

Content

The term [Operation Keelhaul] has been later applied – specifically after the publication of Julius Epstein's eponymous book – to other Allied acts of often forced repatriation of former residents of the USSR after the ending of World War II that sealed the fate of millions[2] unwilling to return to the Soviet Union.[3]

I would like to remove these two sources as fringey - for example, the article Future of Freedom Foundation refers to the forced repatriation as "one of the worst holocausts in history" and "Allied holocaust." The word holocaust appears 7 times on this page.

Instead, I'd like to use a reference from Nikolai Tolstoy (1977). The Secret Betrayal. Charles Scribner's Sons. ISBN 0-684-15635-0., along the lines of what's used in the Victims of Yalta Wikipedia entry:

Tolstoy estimates that overall two or more millions Soviet nationals were repatriated.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Feel free to remove those sources; this kind of article should be using books by reputable historians, not pressure groups. I'm not familiar with Tolstoy's work and cannot comment on his reliability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed both sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not archive this just yet. An editor recently reinstated these sources and related content. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe Tolstoy is a perfectly good source here. I remember the media controversy when Tolstoy published, which re-opened the entire debate. However, Tolstoy as a reputable source was never criticised, it was the painful subject itself which caused something of a storm Irondome (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thank you for your comment. I was looking for opinions on Hornberger (The Future of Freedom Foundation) and Scousen (World Affairs Brief) - the ones that are linked above. Any thoughts on these? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with your assessment and that of Qwertyus. An historical work is better than what appears to be advocacy/pressure group websites. WP:RS wise, I don't think they would pass muster. Irondome (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will alert the editor. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Is an Islamic Historian a reliable source for an Islamic Fascist's record, in Europe during WW2

Is Michael Sells, 'HOLOCAUST ABUSE:The Case of Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husayni,' Journal of Religious Ethics, 2015 Vol 43, No. 4, pp 723–759 a reliable source for Amin al-Husseini's role in WW2 and the historiography on him.

Sells has the John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature in the University of Chicago Divinity School. His curriculum is here He was awarded the 1997 American Academy of Religion Annual Book Prize for Excellence in Historical Studies, for one of his historical works, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia, University of California Press, 1996.

Notwithstanding all this, some editors deny he qualifies as WP:RS. See here on the talk page.

I find the objections unbelievable given this scholar's background and qualifications, and the fact that the paper in question not only covers the relevant scholarly literature in several languages, but harvests his research on primary sources in the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, and several other archives. Could experts in RS with no horse in this race assess the merits of this scepticism? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Highly reliable. The author is an expert, working as an endowed chair at one of the top universities in the world, has written several books and countless papers, is well-cited, and the source in question is an article in an academic journal. No red flags, not even pink ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The endowed chair is with the School of Divinity - how is that relevant, let alone reliable, to the history of the Holocaust? Bad Dryer (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean this graduate school that is ranked number one in the field of the study of religion according to the National Research Council's measure of faculty quality in its survey of all doctoral granting programs in religious studies? nableezy - 16:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

yes, that's the one. Are you saying the Study of Religion gives one expertise in the history of the Holocaust? Bad Dryer (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you admitting you haven't read the article? The essay is also about the Holocaust as part of what is called America's civil religion (see the first page). 'In recent years, American civil religion has come to embrace the memorialization of the Holocaust'. Tom Segev once argued that the Holocaust was the civil religion of Israel, understandably so. There's a notable literature on this, and it is the subject of extensive scholarly study by historians of religion. But this is immaterial. His chair is in History, and that it is in School of Divinity is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I did read the article, and I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth,as that makes you come off as some sort of bozo. The article is not being used to suport statements about this supposed "civil religion" of Israel or the USA, but about historical facts related to the Holocaust and Husseini's conduct during that period. I am interested in hearing how an endowed chair in religious studies of a school of divinity is a reliable source for those. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I never try to enlighten editors if they show a persistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. Everyone on Wikipedia knows that editing in the I/P area makes insane demands on any serious person's WP:AGF, commonsense and courtesy, as opposed to making no demands on one's intelligence, but, as someone noted, the reply to the question re RS I posed has met a unanimous agreement that the text in question is RS. One should not tilt against windmills in pursuit of the impossible, as here in trying to pettifog with patently specious objections.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, when you come here to a noticeboard, you are going to have to explain yourself, regardless of your (irrelevant) personal opinions of other editors. It is long established that there is no such thing as a carte blanche "reliable source" in a vacuum. A source may be reliable for one thing, but not another. That is why the instructions at the top of this page explicitly say that you must supply "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example:

text

. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

You, and a couple of other editors who commented here, seem to not understand that basic concept. Alternatively, if they do understand it, they (and you) need to explain how an expert in ethics of religion can be used as a source for contentious issues related to Holocaust history. And, contrary to your false claim that there is unanimous agreement the that source in question is reliable for the text it is being used for, the only editor who properly examined this question according to the requirements (source, author and statement it is being used for ) -Rhoark- said this is NOT an RS for those statements is not an appropriate use of this source. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, thats not what Rhoark said. He or she said The author and journal seem perfectly suited to the topic area He or she brought up another issue, not the reliability. But thanks for putting words in another editor's mouth moments after complaining about words being put in yours. nableezy - 18:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I've amended my statement. Are you going to respond to the question I asked you? Bad Dryer (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think its already been answered by any number of people here. A well qualified historian writing an article in a peer reviewed journal that is specifically related to the topic of the article is a reliable source for that topic. Or the author and the journal seem perfectly suited to the topic area. Thats kind of a basic concept, if you need more explanation I can try to dumb it down for you. nableezy - 20:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't think it has been answered. To be sure , people have been making assertions, as you are doing above, that this is a reliable source, but they haven't explained why or how. Take for example your assertion above that the source is 'a peer reviewed journal that is "specifically related to the topic of the article ". The topic of the article is Amin Al-Husseini, who was 'a Palestinian Arab nationalist' , and more specifically, the source is being used to evaluate his actions during World War II in the context of the Holocaust. I am very interested in learning how the Journal of Religious Ethics, is "specifically related to the topic of the article' ". There no need to dumb anything down - just a need to answer the question. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I said the article is specifically related to the topic, not the journal. That would be foolish to think that there is a journal dedicated specifically to the study of Amin al-Hueseini. As far as why, well because thats what the policy says. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This is a peer-reviewed journal published by Wiley and edited by professors at Florida State. I dont think any of that is in dispute, and it fits exactly what the policy says is a reliable source, under the heading scholarship. The article is specifically about the topic of the subject of our article. nableezy - 04:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If this thread is going to continue, i ask BadDryer to please be civil, and please listen more closely to Nableezy. I hear heavy contention here that is not needed, and not friendly. This should be a collegiate place. SageRad (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For what claims is he used? Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You can see how he has been used by checking this revert and all that it excludes.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The author and journal seem perfectly suited to the topic area, but were mostly used to repeat rumors of which the source itself is apparently skeptical. That's undue. Rhoark (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The author analyses the origin of the rumours. What source is skeptical? The phrasing is completely oblique.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me that the source does support the claim in the article's content. The claim is not that Nazi's and Bosnian Muslims share those four traits, or that Germany had not colonized any Muslim people, but rather that Husayni said these things. The source certainly does that that Husayni said these things. The source supports the claim. It's another matter whether the source is reliable (i am included to think that it is on quick look), and it's another matter whether this content is due or WP:UNDUE. I happen to think it may be due, though i'm not very familiar with the topic area or the article. Another question is whether this source agrees with most other sources that may speak to this question, or if it's an outlier or significantly minority view. Another question is whether it's pushing a point of view or is rather neutral. It seems of historical note what sort of memes Husayni used to form this alliance of strange bedfellows, though the context is complex, but let's separate these questions out, in a spirit of generosity to each other. One thing at a time. SageRad (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether he's reliable for historical facts outside his area of expertise (which is Islamic Literature) and the area of study of the journal this was published in (Journal of Religious Ethics). For example, al-Husseini's role in the Holocaust, who supplied the information about him and and what he allegedly did, and other general stuff like that. All this unattributed and stated as fact in the encyclopedi'a neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure experts in RS are required. Any old fool could tell this is a reliable source. Brustopher (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

what exactly makes an academic journal dedicated to Religious Ethics a reliable source on the History of the Holocaust? Bad Dryer (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The page seized up and was flooded by reverters the moment I added that source. Since there is no sign of commonsense policy application and numerous blow-ins are reverting Sells, the appropriate place to get a neutral assessment and consensus on him is here. So wide input would be appreciated. Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note this source is now being used in various BLPs, such as here and here. Is this guy now also an expert on current events, or are we extending his Islamic Literature expertise only to the Holocaust? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If a qualified academic historian publishes a history article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it is a reliable source. Everything else is basically irrelevant. Once we start deleting peer-reviewed professional literature because we don't like what it contains, the outlook for the encyclopaedia is very bleak. Incidentally, a summary version of Sell's article also appeared in the rather-right-wing Jewish magazine The Tablet; that is also a citable source but with the journal version at hand we don't need it. Zero^talk 00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So any "qualified academic historian" (regardless of specific field) published in any peer-reviewed academic journal (regardless not only of field, but of discipline), is a reliable source for any historical event? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Operation Camel's Nose Into the Tent - Status: Probing.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, when you take an academic whose body of work is in the area of religion, who has a chair in a university dedicated to religious studies, and use something he published in a journal about ethics and religion as a source for historical fact unrelated to religion, you are opening the door to much worse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Not Sells, who writes on thought, poetry, Islam, religious violence, Bosnia as an historian, more or less as Bernard Lewis did. We quote him more or less as we quote Lewis. If you actually read the article you might learn that Husseini was an Islamic religious figure, whose thought and actions are intimately related to his milieu, which is what historians study. Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeating the silly comparison with Bernard Lewis as if that will make it true. Lewis is a historian of the Middle East. Sell's main focus is Religion and Literature.

You have now used Sell to make a point about Alan Dershowitz, a living person, with information so outside Sell's areas of expertise, it's not even funny. But no worries. As I've told you guys before, I don't care what the rules are, as long as they're applied equally to everyone. If the consensus here is that anything and everything published by an academic in a peer-reviewed publication is considered a reliably sourced, that's fine. Just don't be surprised when it happens somewhere you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs)

(a) Um, both literature and religion have histories, and historians study them. Sells is a historian of both, that's why he got an endowed chair. If you can't grasp that ask any University graduate to spell it out for you. (b) I did what every editor who actually reads sources and contributes by adding information in them to the construction of articles, note several useful remarks relevant to other articles in Sell's paper. I duly added them. Sells quotes Dershowitz's book, and then comments on one of D's theses. So I added both the remark from Dershowitz regarding Palestinians and Husseini, and Sell's comment to the criticism section. This is absolutely normal for anyone who actually contributes to articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, literature and religion have histories, and if Sells was being used as a source on history of religion and/or literature, I don't think I'd have an issue with it, even though I doubt he qualifies as an "historian". But he's not. He's being used as a source on the history of the Holocaust, a topic he doesn't seem to have any qualification for. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the reference to "Operation Camel's Nose..." etc. SageRad (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, two of you have repeated that a dozen times. All other editors disagree. Let's wait for more external input.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Sells is the John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature at the University of Chicago's divinity school. His about page at the university says: "His work on religion and violence includes: The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia; The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy, which he coedited and to which he contributed; "'Armageddon' in Christian, Sunni, and Shia traditions," Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence (2012): 467-495; and "Finhas of Medina: Islam, 'the Jews', and the Construction of Militancy," in Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation of Sacred Texts, ed. John Renard, (University of California Press, 2012): 101-134." He is about as eminent a scholar of the history of religion and violence as one can find. Husseini, the subject of the Wikipedia article in question, was a prominent and important religious figure in Jerusalem. He published a peer reviewed article about Husseini's connection to the Holocaust (an act of violence if ever there was one) that is being objected to. Sells' CV speaks for itself. Any objection to his reliability as a historian, commenting on Husseini, is beyond insane. Trying to disqualify his use as a source on a website that cobbles together endless second-rate news articles and partisan sources in its articles, should be grounds for an immediate topic ban. That it won't be, and that this type of gamesmanship is tolerated, is why serious people don't contribute here.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dan Murphy. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sells is obviously reliable for matters relating to Husseini, for the reasons given by Dan Murphy. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like he is eminently qualified. I think you'd need a time machine to be more qualified. Objective3000 (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Are there other sources that contradict the claim being sourced here? Is there any reason to believe that the claim in question is POV pushing, and that the Sells source is unreliable because it's a POV source? Why is this question being contested in the first place? If these are concerns, then let us open up the questions honestly, instead of dickering about whether a scholar in a divinity school can write reliably about history, and let's name the issues explicitly if there are any. SageRad (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• reliable source. demands that someone be a chair in Amin al-Husseini's Islamic Fascism During the Holocaust to be considered a reliable source on Islamic Fascism during the Holocaust is just ridiculous. Well qualified academic in a reliable source without any indication of this particular information being a claim that is outside of academic mainstream (and even if there is opposition to his position, he is significant enough that not including his interpretation would be WP:NPOV violation of not representing the major viewpoints) and a big WP:TROUT to Bad Dryer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you having fun yet erecting these strawmen in order to knock them down? I did not suggest that he needs to have a chair in Amin al-Husseini's Islamic Fascism During the Holocaust. But I did suggest, correctly, that the peer reviewed journal being hailed here as proof of reliability, should be an academic journal devoted to history of the Holocaust, or to history of World War II, or at a minimum to history of Europe, rather than you know, being a journal of religious ethics. And similarly, I would like the good professor to be an actual historian of the Holocaust, or of WWII, or of European history, rather than, as he describes himself on his CV - a " Professor of the History and Literature of Islam," WP:TROUT right back at you.

I concur with No More Mr Nice Guy - if the consensus here is that an academic, regardless of field of expertise, is a reliable source for any materiel he publishes in an academic journal, regardless of journal focus, that's fine. It opens the door to many things I would have liked to use but have refrained form, apparently based on a misunderstanding of reliable sources. I will refer back to this discussion as support for the above position. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

'I concur with No More Mr Nice Guy - if the consensus here is that an academic, regardless of field of expertise, is a reliable source for any materiel he publishes in an academic journal, regardless of journal focus, that's fine.'

No, that is not what the consensus is affirming. Anyone knows that, as Kingsindian often points out, evaluation of RS appropriateness is contextual, and not an iron rule, for the simple reason that RS scholars -experienced editors should recall many examples-can err even in their own areas of specialization. The consensus here is that Michael Sells's field of expertise extends to writing about an Islamic figure, known for preaching religious reasons for violence. He is an historian with a published and much cited record for studies and a book, on ethnic conflict and religious violence, and that is sufficient. Only 4 editors deny his qualifications extend to this area:13 affirm that they do. That doesn't translate into the reading both you and NMMGG are making, which is a distortion of what most editors are arguing.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Sell's article is being used to support statements related to religious reasons for violence? We both know that is not true. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I suggest no such thing. Learn to read what I write.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "Sells's field of expertise extends to writing about an Islamic figure, known for preaching religious reasons for violence." - but that's not what we're using him for. You have, as one example, used the Sells article to introduce negative commentary about a living person, in order to accuse them of preaching discredited narratives. Does Sells' expertise extend to that? Bad Dryer (talk)

As I said 'learn to read'. I also wrote:

He is an historian with a published and much cited record for studies and a book, on ethnic conflict and religious violence, and that is sufficient.</blockquote

It is a rather dull predictably abused gambit in rhetoric to cherrypick and niggle to death perceived last minute implications that that might give one leverage in an otherwise spent argument. Henry Laurens, Bernard Lewis and Michael Sells are all experts on Middle Eastern history, societies and culture, and we use them in the article when there is a nexus between that, and WWE2/the Holocaust. Your rhetorical gizmo is called 'grasping at straws'. The consensus is obvious, and you dislike it. To insist is to waste your time, and what is more important, that of other editors. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that because he may have written something relevant in a different venue, he is automatically a reliable source for anything and everything he writes in an unrelated publication, like derogatory commentary about living persons. I believe that is an incorrect reading of WP:RS, and in that sense, yes I don't like the emerging consensus. But that said, as I wrote earlier, if that is the consensus, so be it. Just don't come running here to whine about an economist being used to debunk Palestinian's claims of poverty, or a professor of English or an historian of New England economy criticizing the scholarship of a Pro-Palestinian academic. That would be rather outrageous hypocrisy. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you two give it a rest? This is an informal forum: Brad Dyer is free to interpret the consensus here however he wants, but don't be surprised if other people don't share your reading. Try using that argument "because he may have written something relevant in a different venue, he is automatically a reliable source for anything and everything he writes in an unrelated publication" in any future discussion (linking to this one) and see if people share your reading of the consensus. My guess is that people will reply: "fat chance". Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure people will be quick to disavow the views and reasoning used here when it comes to views they don't like. Hence my prediction about the forthcoming hypocrisy, you proven case in point already having been presented, above. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop the hypocrisy accusations. The attempt to extract some leverage from a failure to convince anyone of your thesis, by opening up the floodgates with deductions that this thread means 'an academic, regardless of field of expertise, is a reliable source for any materiel he publishes in an academic journal, regardless of journal focus,' is wholly unfounded. No one said that, it is not implied. What this said is what everyone save 4 predictable editors said, i.e. Sells is an historian, and competent in the area he is used for.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I will call a spade a spade. Sells is an historian of Islamic literature. That's his own self description, on his CV. He is being used to state, unattributed, in Wikipedia's voice, contentious claims about the history of the Holocaust, and about living people, two areas that are quite clearly outside his area of expertise, published in a journal of religious ethics. I can and will use the logic presented here in support of such usage to justify similar usage I have in mind, in areas you will no doubt find less palatable. And if you come here to whine about it, I will point out your hypocrisy. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Retorsive threats to 'get back' at perceived enemies, vindictiveness, claims of hypocrisy (WP:AGF)when your reasoning re RS here is totally at odds with your reasoning re RS here. 14 people say you, the other chap and someone else are plain mistaken. It's called WP:CONSENSUS and serious editors, while reserving their right to disagree, do not make threats, which is only evidence of hissy resentment.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As you are fond of telling others, learn to read and comprehend what you are reading. In the argument you linked to above, I was sourcing facts to the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces' National Defense College, described as "an expert on the Israeli security establishment" talking about an IDF security operation, published by an academic press in a book deducted to "the history of Israeli security operations" . This is clear relevancy to the topic . If I was trying to cite some Israeli professor of Yiddish Literature (as you are doing here, in citing a professor of Islamic literature on historical events related to the Holocaust on on BLPs) , then your analogy might have some validity, but as it is, you come off as some illiterate per-schooler. I recognize what the consensus is here, and will abide by it. I'm not making any threats- I am explaining to you what the natural consequence of such consensus will be. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And indeed, I looked at that page, and endorsed your judgement that the contested source was more than acceptable. I don't make judgements based on antipathy or animosity to editors or sources.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Zero citation in ISI shows that he is not a recognized expert Search in ISI database produces only four publications on political/religious subjects by this author (MA Sells) since 1998 (and five publications in 1995-1996). All of them have zero citation. Probably this source is OK for religious subjects, but the author is not a recognized expert in anything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"The author is not a recognized expert in anything." Astonishing. Blech. (For the ideologically driven folks here...

)Dan Murphy (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am not telling that Michael Sells is not notable. Perhaps he deserved a WP page. I am only telling that no one uses his recent publications (during last 15 years) for referencing, judging from the standard ISI database. Therefore, using his recent work (dated 2015) for referencing in WP is probably not the best idea if there are other and presumably better (more highly cited) sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me. That is not a reply but WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Zero noted the difference between your ISI database argument, and what Stephan Schultz cited from Google Books, which comprehensively shows how frequently all of Sells' work is cited, making your inference invalid, based as it is on data re scientific publications, not a humanities' citational database. You just ignored the point, and repeated yourself.Nishidani (talk) 13

33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, if indeed you ever read it, you didn't understand the word 'zitiert' in German (=cited) in Stephan Schulz's remark above, which covered all bases, let us know. Click on it, and if you can keep a straight face in insisting that 'no one uses his recent publications', well, there's no helping Wikipedia's pretense to sanity.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually ISI has 14 of his publications, but anyway ISI is a newcomer in the humanities (as the S=science in the name hints) with very weak coverage so far. Moreover there is a warning there that only citations from the Web of Science Core Collection (overwhelmingly science journals) are counted. Nobody who understands the citation business (and it is a business) would use ISI to judge a historian. Zero^talk 00:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, he kinda seems to be cited since 2000. nableezy - 21:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Google searches are misleading. Some of that are his own publications (yes, there are many of them), many are publications by other people with the same name. Actually, the ISI search retrieves a lot of publications by other people with exactly same family name and initials. I am not telling this is not an RS by WP standards. I am only telling than none to few people referred to publications by this author during last 15 years based on the standard ISI search where his publications are present. This is usually an indication that the work has not been widely accepted by the scientific community. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, but he is not a scientist and acceptance by the scientific community is not relevant. It is clear from Scholar that many of his books and articles are well cited. The difference is because ISI is very weak in the humanities. Zero^talk 01:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. Who am I to judge? The author holds an endowed chair at a top university, and has published a paper related to his area of expertise. The editorial board of the journal notes the names of various notable scholars who we can assume have reviewed the paper prior to its publication to determine that it fits within their purview and is academically sound. If there is material that runs into WP:REDFLAG, then there should be further discussion on the talk page. - Location (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: The reliability of a source depends on many factors, among others, the author, the place it appears, how much is it cited, etc. The author is a well-regarded historian in the Divinity school, the journal is peer reviewed, but a religious rather than a historical journal. It seems to be relatively new, so I can't find any citations to it. I would like a better source for it, but it is by no means inadmissible. I hope this is not another of the petty disputes where people argue with Nishidani for the sake of arguing. The claim on the Hajj Amin Al-Husseini page seems to me banal, is there some dispute over the claim itself? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Compare this interpretation of a source contested by other editors, with the remarks by the same editor who, above, adopts a diametrically opposed position. As good an example of incoherent application of policy depending on whether one likes or dislikes a source.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Obviously reliable. Just make sure to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  None of the materiel in the is currently attributed, It is presented as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, and used for 4% of ALL the reference in that article. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Obviously WP:RS. I agree with My very best wishes that this does not seem to be a particularly influential scholar, but that is not an WP:RS requirement. Jeppiz (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, in WP environment sourcing is everything. By quoting source A by author X a participant essentially repeats views by author X. If there are numerous sources in the field, it makes a lot of sense to select sources very carefully. I prefer using books that became classic in the field, whenever possible. My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Highly reliable. Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable - Based on the discussion here alone, a highly reliable RS. (Disclaimer: I have not touched the article in question, so hopefully an objective voice).Zezen (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hypocrisy test, take 1

On a closely related topic, Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world, a claim was made sourced to a book published by Cambridge University Press, and written by an actual historian of the Holocaust, who currently holds the Hillel A. Feinberg Chair in Holocaust Studies at the University of Texas, Dallas. The material was removed today with an edit summary that says "Patterson's book is popular junk." [1]. The editor who did this is, surprise surprise, someone who has commented above (not 3 days ago) that "If a qualified academic historian publishes a history article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it is a reliable source. ". I invite comments on the double standards being employed. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And so what? I don't agree with that user's removal of that book, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether Sells is WP:RS or not. Jeppiz (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So now User:Zero0000 is also an hypocrite? This is quickly degenerating into an hypocrisy-waving jihad.

Both you and NMMGG, losing the argument, have claimed by way of recompense, that the verdict here allows any scholar with an endowed chair to be cited for anything, implying Sells lacks direct competence for the subject he analyses, something 15 editors reject. This is a good example: you claim editors are hypocritical for accepting an historian with profound competence in Islamic studies when he comments on an Islamic figure involved in the Holocaust, who has competence in German, Arabic and does archival research but don’t accept a Holocaust specialist commenting on that Islamic figure and Islam, who happens to know nothing of the culture, society or languages, and for that book did no original archival work on the Islamic figure.

That one is accepted and the other rejected for this topic is not a trace of hypocrisy, but of familiarity with the literature. You cite David Patterson, who has an endowed chair in Holocaust studies, but knows nothing of Islam, for his A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad, Cambridge University Press, 2010

To note just one problem in that disastrously incompetent screed, Patterson quotes 17 times, for key facts on the life of the Mufti, a book by David G. Dalin and John Rothmann, Icon of Evil Transaction Books 2009, with an introduction by the ever present Alan Dershowitz. That book earned Dershowitz’s hyyperbolic eulogy, and was slammed for its blithering incompetence by numerous historians, Benny Morris and Tom Segev, for example. That Patterson simply ignored what his fellow historians, specialists in the area, dismissed as trash meant that large swathes of his polemic rest on discredited claims. Sheesh, Rothman is a talk show host and Patterson should know better than to cite him for historical claims on the Holocaust.

For that reason Patterson in turn got some devastating reviews, such as that by Jonathan Leader Maynard, A Doubtful Genealogy The Oxonian Review Issue 15.3 14 February, 2011

Patterson’s misguided contribution to the debate, founded on an utterly absent methodology and frequently lapsing into mendacious and polemical tactics, all the more dangerous an intervention. . . bedevilled by the persistency of poor interpretive method.

And by Sanford R. Silverburg, 'Review,' in Digest of Middles East Studies, Spring 2011 Vol.20, Issue 1, pp.109-112.

Patterson's work . . will be subject to strong criticism from those whose expertise is Nazi-Muslim relations.

I,e. Patterson is out of his depth, and has dropped all scholarly caution in stepping out of his field. Sells, by contrast, to verify poor claims, went and trawled through the relevant archives, rather than relying, as does Patterson, on second – and third-hand reports in a popular genre of literature by discredited non-historians.

As User:Zero0000, User:Kingsindian and myself keep repeating, RS is always contextual, even with the best scholars. They are generally accepted, but never if the books they write are known to be defective or full of frequent factual errors. This would apply to Sells as well, if anything ‘factual’ quoted from him turned out to be flawed in the view of other competent scholars.

Reply by all means, but I've wasted enough time correcting or responding to irrelevant remarks, and, as the above indicates you don't assume good faith in anyone who consistently disagrees with you, so you are not a valid interlocutor.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Zero did make the comment which Brad Dyer attributed to him. I think it is false and rather simplistic, because reliability depends on many other things than simply the author and the venue of publication. So, yes, Zero0000 did misspeak on this occasion. On the other hand, his practice is rightfully different than his simplistic statement. He made a case for unreliability of the source in this instance on the article talk page, and that can be answered there. Nishidani also gives some valid points in their statement. This has little to do with the Sells discussion because even if we discount Zero's contribution there, the consensus is basically the same. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A book by an academic published by a reputable press is an RS. In view of the later controversy about the content, the article could peafec his views with 'Pattersonwrote.. and then cite the debate.Martinlc (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did say "If a qualified academic historian publishes a history article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it is a reliable source" and I did write that Patterson's book is junk. I stand by both sentences (though the first is misleadingly worded), but to explain why that isn't a contradiction I need to describe my sourcing philosophy. I interpret the wikipedia definition of "reliable source" as a minimum standard. Sources that pass the threshold are by default reliable and can be used in articles. But that is (i.e. should be) only the start of the story. The correct way to write articles, especially on controversial topics, is to use the best sources available for that topic. No other path is consistent with a desire to make the encyclopedia as good as possible. For this reason I'm not satisfied for a source to pass the official threshold. If an academic author is highly controversial, or receives terrible reviews from other academics, I won't use him/her. I'm proud to have the highest sourcing standards you will find in the middle-east section of wikipedia. Sells' journal article seems to be a perfectly good piece of archival research and no adequate argument has been presented that it isn't a fine source. Patterson's book on the other hand received about the most damning reviews I've ever seen for a book published by an academic press, is pointedly ignored by other historians bar the islamophobic fringe, and anyone with experience of serious history writing will immediately see that it isn't an example. Basically Patterson did no research at all but just reported as factual every anti-Islamic or anti-Arab claim he could find in other secondary sources. He even cited material to internet hate sites. Wikipedia should be ashamed to cite such a book, and the fact that it technically passes the "reliable source" rule should not be used as an excuse for including it. Zero^talk 23:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's statement and approach to reliability, though mine differs in various ways. Indeed, I alluded to this before, when I said that their practice is different from the rather simplistic statement they used above. I remember them saying that they don't use Ilan Pappe or Efraim Karsh for reasons of them being too polarizing, even though they are perfectly good sources, who publish in perfectly good venues. Reliability is always in context, and even university presses can put out all sorts of trash, and one way to determine their quality is the reviews and citations. Ultimately, there is no mechanical procedure for reliability, it is always an argument which needs to convince other editors. The author and venue are but one step in the argument, which can often be enough for relatively banal statements. People who want to reduce this procedure to simple recipes to be followed strictly are bound to be disappointed. another way of thinking about this is that Zero's statement can be read as following WP:ONUS: even if the source is verifiable, people may give an argument for exclusion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

BLPSELFPUB question

Just would like clarification if karenroseberryforsenate.wordpress.com is considered a reliable source for adding Karen Roseberry to United States Senate election in California, 2016#Potential_2 per WP:BLPSELFPUB. It seems to be, but just would like a second opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say not reliable for the addition of this information. If this were an official website, or verified by an independent, secondary source, the opinion might be different; but I do not see how this can be verified as the true work of the person named.
I would also be inclined to say not noteworthy for a majority of the information in the article. Lists of potential candidates are a little too close to what we are WP:NOT. We could do better by only listing the running candidates. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Ryk72. FWIW, I agree with your "NOTNEWS" comment and would post at the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Comments are requested at Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System#FAR? as to whether documents uploaded to romhacking.net by the main author of the article constitute reliable sources. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Documents at romhacking.net are self-published and therefore unreliable. They would only be valid to use if the author is an established expert. As the author is a Wikipedia editor, answering that question would be outing. The claims these documents are used to support would probably be better spun out to Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyway, looking at the broader context of improving to FA. The documents could also be used as external links per WP:ELYES #3 or WP:ELMAYBE #4 Rhoark (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

United Ireland

I was watching a show that is based in Ireland. My knowledge of the Island is pretty slim so I clicked through several articles until I happened upon this one. One thing I noticed immediately is that this article stated that there was "strong support" for a United Ireland within the United States, and used this article as a source. This is a sneaky claim, as State legislatures only speak for their state. There is a stink of POV pushing all over this article, and a derailed review to verity the claims in the article match the sources is needed.Which Hazel? (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is that anything connect to Niall O'Dowd is definitely POV-pushing. Quis separabit? 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Five Gospels, Robert Funk, the Jesus Seminar

The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?
Robert W Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar
HarperSanFrancisco, 1993

Topic: Historical Jesus, especially on the Jesus page

Funk was a noted expert on Jesus' parables. John Dominic Crossan (one of the top names in contemporary historical Jesus research) was the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar. The Seminar includes other "name" scholars in the field and dozens of experts from various fields. The books that the seminar created include thorough reviews of the gospels, including summaries of scholarly thinking on many issues. Given the controversy around applying critical scholarship to Jesus as a historical figure, it's no surprise that editors object to books from the Jesus Seminar. Given that the Seminar represents many experts and several top thinkers in the field, I'd like it to be considered an RS. Given its breadth, I'd consider it a tertiary source. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what it could be considered a reliable source about, other than a primary source for the outcome of the Jesus Seminar. The length of the criticism section in the latter's article (which if anything is abbreviated) should be a clue: it represents one minority, popularized opinion. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It is unquestionably a reliable source for the perspective it represents. The perspective it represents is unquestionably a significant one that is owed due weight. That means describing its conclusions as well as putting it in context as to how well accepted those conclusions are. Rhoark (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Difficulty confirming source used in several articles.

I was attempting to check for out of date URLs and found an unlinked reference, but cannot seem to confirm its existence. The reference reads: "Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 1993. p. A.7

It can be found supporting The San Diego Union-Tribune noted "the news report found seven U.S. churches - all with ties to Jack Hyles, it said - involved in sex scandals." in the article Preying from the Pulpit.

Three articles (Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana), and Hyles–Anderson College) contain an identical claim attributed to to the source and two others: [the Preying from the Pulpit news series] examined fresh claims of sex abuse in five different fundamentalist churches where church workers who molested children were traced back to Hyles-Anderson College.

There are a few things that trigger my skeptical circuitry. I find the wording of the title to be odd. The San Diego Union had merged with the Tribune prior to 1993 to form The San Diego Union-Tribune and quote is attributed to "The San Diego Union-Tribune". There appears to be some copy-paste in which content may not have been checked. I searched for the article, unsuccessfully, and that is sufficient to raise the concern that there is at least one significant error in the citation if it exists. I ran a search that was more than superficial, but which I do not consider exhaustive. While there is a reasonable chance that I'm the source of my own difficulties, I figure that this is important enough to warrant another opinion. I also realize that there may bigger issues which make one source into a minor detail, but this is the one I've been attacking futilely and sometimes cleaning up small details clarifies the bigger issues. If confirming the source is not an RSN issue, can you refer me to the appropriate forum? Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Is a government site a reliable source for non-controversial claims about its actions?

The section Israel#International humanitarian efforts was largely supported by this. Recently some editors began tagging the section as WP:SELFPUBLISH. There are no sources contradicting the claims and it's possible to find independent sources supporting each of the claims, but perhaps this is a wasted effort.

Can the section be considered properly supported just by MFA's site ? “WarKosign” 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE can be used as long as the "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." The content about Israel's international humanitarian efforts is clearly self-serving if not an exceptional claim as well. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, governments are not reliable sources for their own actions and intents. They're in the business of defending policy with all the spin it takes.

Remember WP:42. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the possibility of spin, this sort of source could be used, although third party sources are preferred. In this case it appears to be WP:UNDUE for the page about the country.Martinlc (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Intents - probably not. Verifiable facts - I believe they usually are. Discovering government lies is a good subject for journalists and historical/political researchers, so as long as nobody disputes a fact I think it's reasonable to accept it. For example, large parts of NASA's New Horizons mission are supported by nasa.gov and nobody seems to object. “WarKosign” 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

They are easily reliable, but also primary and biased. Their uses and contexts have to be scrutinized. Rhoark (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Journalists and historical/political researchers not objecting to the content is a poor argument for a source being reliable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with those adding or restoring material, not the other way round.

Regarding the NASA example, it depends on the particular case in question and its context. As Qwertyus has stated, government websites are not reliable sources for their own actions and intentions as they operate to defend their policy.

In addition, this particular subject is not included within articles of other nations. The section appears to give an editorial POV to the article, and in absence of independent, reliable, third-party sources it is self-serving, disproportionate coverage therefore WP:UNDUE. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to dissent here and say that this is probably fine as a source for straightforward, factual details, particularly when those details appear to square with accounts in independent RS, as is the case here. The Israeli government website puts a political spin on this that would obviously be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but there is no compelling reason to doubt the facts themselves. The WP:DUE question is a separate matter that I won't venture an opinion on.TheBlueCanoe 04:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because the content is presented as factual doesn't make it factual. The impartiality of the source itself makes it doubtful and we don't just blindly AGF with such sources. The content could be partially correct but the claims could be exaggerated. For example, here it states about the Haiti earthquake that "Israel was the first country to set up a field hospital" but this isn't supported by the corresponding sources, I presume this is originally from the MFA website. This could also possibly be the case of the claims regarding the tsunami in Japan.

To assume that because some of the content appears to be accurate then all of the content is accurate appears to be WP:SYNTH. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You're misreading the source. The Argentinian field hospital was already deployed in Haiti. The Israeli field hospital was the first one to be deployed after the quake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Air_Force_Mobile_Field_Hospital#cite_note-9 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are authoritative sources on 'International humanitarian efforts', World Food Programme, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, International Organization for Migration, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, ... these are infinitely preferred to WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. If the authoritative sources are silent, it's a hint to me that the WP:SELFPUBLISH are WP:POV (except for breaking news, since many of those orgs aren't exactly nimble). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway the point is moot now, several editors found independent sources for every single statement that was originally supported by the governmental site. IMO this effort could be spent doing something more useful. “WarKosign” 15:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The section header is misleading. The claim specifically about 'first field hospital', later tweaked 'capable of complex surgery' is a complex claim, and looks wobbly. I believe government sources must be avoided for reasons mentioned above by Qwertyus and others. Most of the facts are simply picked up in scholarly works on each country, and they are the secondary sources we should be using. I would note however that there is a danger here. One cannot just single out Israel's mfa in this regard - I note that no one is challenging the articles on Canada, the United States, Great Britain, etc., which use a few government sources. The extreme caution about using government sources should be applied across the board. To have to raise this only with regard to Israel leaves, in my mouth, a sense of distaste for obvious reasons. But the argument against mfa citations is, for all that, sound. Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Media-Vision magazine (a Russian publication) as a reliable source

Is the Russian publication MediaVision magazine a reliable source? An article from the magazine can be found here: http://mediavision-mag.ru/uploads/06%202011/65-67%2006_2011.pdf This article states that Robinzon Kruzo (1947) being filmed in color is just a myth. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Malini Agarwal

Her personal website is being used by experienced users in Bollywood articles. How much reliable is a personal website. --The Avengers (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input about the inclusion of a high school in a political biography article

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong place to post this. An editor and I are having a disagreement on the article Ted Deutch about whether the article subject's high school should be included. I've added a half-sentence reference to the "Early life and education" section, as well as a category identifying him as Liberty High School alumni, but the editor has repeatedly reverted it ([2] [3] [4] [5]). In the talk page, he says that it's "silly trivia of no importance" and "not important enough to include in his article", with which I obviously disagree. I'd like to gather more input to determine a WP:CONSENSUS as to whether this information should be included, so any feedback at Talk:Ted Deutch#Inclusion of high school would be appreciated. I was hoping to keep the conversation there, not here on this noticeboard, so it's all in one place. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Where's the reliable source that is needed to meet WP:V and WP:BLP? --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.tedforcongress.com/about/ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Ted_Deutch.html http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf?/base/news-2/127277328951760.xml&coll=3 http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/rep_ted_deutch.html take your pick. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sourcing looks fine. You might want to look at WP:GA articles for similar people to decide on if it is worth including, but that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wired re: time travel

Wired (magazine) is a generally a reliable source, but a generally-reliable source is not always a reliable source. In the case of the article List of films featuring time loops‎, this diff uses a rather poorly-researched article that makes a contradictory claim: the film Looper features a time loop and a grandfather paradox. Unfortunately, these two options are mutually exclusive. Either the character keeps reexperiencing the same events and time "resets" with each subsequent pass (Groundhog Day), or the characters can change time. In Looper there is no repetition, there is a grandfather paradox. The claims made in the previous sentence can be cited.

Many Wired articles are reliable, but this particular blurb in this particularly poorly-researched article is not. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not ones that don't make mistakes (all sources make mistakes), but ones that correct them when they do. Report the error to the editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As the article doesn't seem to touch on distinguishing between the types of time loops, which to me is a vague-enough term that an average person would readily use to group both causal loops and grandfather paradoxes, I would agree for the purpose here that it's not a usable source. Particular when other RS articles go into depth on describing the exact nature of time travel in the film. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

BrightRoundCircle are you suggesting that the film Looper does not have reliable sources, because it is not a time loop film? Have you tried looking for sources or is your intent to have your version of the article retained so that your view prevails? The time it took to set up that chart on the talk page could have been used sourcing those films if you disagree with its status. What about Primer and 12 Monkeys which were sourced and removed. I agree with MASEM we need to specify the types of loops if sources can be found. Deleting content instead of tagging for improvement is not the way to go. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember commenting on this list before (AFD?) where I did suggest that because of the common use of what a "time loop" means by the population at large, which includes strictly repeating time loops (Groundhog Day) as well as casual loops and grandfather paradoxes, even though "time loop" more precisely means the Groundhog Day-type scenario, that it seems perfectly reasonable to add one column on this list to explain the type of time loop , and/or separate into different tables on the same page, as long as one has a source to indicate the proper time loop type, as above with the Atlantic article on the Looper. Otherwise, you are going to have people continually adding films they think have a time loop (which I would include 12 Monkeys and Primer in) even if they are not meeting the exact definition of a time loop. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, different sources may have different criteria used to define some pop culture trope, such as time loops in films. Just because one source doesn't agree with another source (or sources) doesn't suddenly make it unusable. It means that the definition may not be as stringent as some purists might like it to be. When someone disagrees with another source, it doesn't make their opinion "poorly researched". It means they have a different opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)