Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:10, 12 August 2011

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Archives

Index 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, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Full stripping of unsourced articles

Hi, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it usually works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled and we commit to improve the content over time. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of local myth, for example, have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have all their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content otherwise looks reasonable then I think such stripping on a large scale would be disruptive. However, there is a lot of unsourced cruft and speculation out there, especially in less-visited articles; if the text already suffers from other flaws (ie. It doesn't look plausible or neutral) then I won't be shedding any tears. Is this activity confined to a particular subject area?

Sadly, we're not going to build a better encyclopædia by leaving flawed articles with long-term tags. It would be nice if those favouring deletion could put more effort into finding sources first, but removing unsourced content will often be better than the status quo. If any other person really mourns the lost text they always have the option of going back and find a source for it. I realise some may not like making that effort, but building a high-quality encyclopædia inevitably takes more work than just building a big pile of text. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that stripping entire articles is a bit drastic, although you're right--a strict interpretation of the policy is removing all unsourced content, even if all the content is deleted. I've found that articles that are poorly sourced need improvement in all areas, so the solution is for editors to dedicate themselves to these articles. I've also found that those of us who are committed to doing that are few and far between on this project. The temporary solution is tags, which should alert the reader that the article they're about to read is crap. My advice is be part of the solution, not part of the problem, and work on these articles to bring them to a higher quality. Christine (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We occasionally have to strip libelous content very quickly, especially when there's a complaint, and it's good to have a policy that allows for that in these situations. But it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing. – Quadell 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all helpful, thank you. Quadell, or anyone else, do you have a policy page link that suggests something along the lines of "it's only acceptable to remove content. It's better to tag it, and it's best to add sourcing"? The articles I'm thinking of are around myth/folklore, no BLP or liable involved, in an local area I know absolutely diddly squat about. I'm not sure when uber-zeal becomes 'disruptive editing'. Cheers Span (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would challenge any assumption that simply putting up a label saying "this content is flawed" - without actually fixing the content - is inevitably better than removing the flaw. Tagging has its place, but it's not a substitute for solving the problem; removing unsourced content is a solution. (Adding a source would be a better solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What's missing is the time dimension. The addition of tags establishes a start-date for a good-faith cleanup. Straight-away slash and burn doesn't do that. Of course, it is still better than having to use AfD: there's a preserved history. Is there an easy way to bot-notify all prior contributors to an article that it's been put on notice? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb for articles I'm involved with editing is that if someone adds uncited material and I can't supply a citation for it myself, I give it six months tagged as needing a citation before I remove it. (Assuming, of course, that there's no BLP or other issue that requires immediate removal.) That's long enough to give other users plenty of time to fix it if they can, but short enough that it doesn't turn into indefinite retention. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So it seems from the above there would be support for an editor whose main role was working through non-BLP articles, stripping out all long standing unsourced text (say extant 6 months+), reducing the content to basic lead information. Is that so?Span (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "no" on two counts. First is the removal of "all unsourced text". This suggests that all text must be sourced, which is not the case. Second, this suggests that the editor would be removing content without even a cursory search for sources, and while such removal is acceptable (I'm not opposed to it), it's not preferred (I don't support it). cmadler (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the content has been tagged for 6 months and nobody else has found a source, then taking it at face value I could hardly object. However, I would be concerned about pointiness, and if the deletion is selective in any way - maybe it only covers certain types of content or certain articles - I would be concerned about a hidden agenda (or, at least, an agenda which hasn't been mentioned in this thread).

I would prefer that sources were added, or if an agreeable source can't be found then I would prefer that the text be changed to fit what sources do say - however this can be quite slow work. Those who care about WP:V cannot work as quickly as those who just want to put lots of text into blank spaces. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the article, it's very possible that no one is actually working on it. I've got articles in my watchlist that have had {{refimprove}} templates for years. But no one is actively working on these articles. The fact is that we simply don't have enough editors to try to fix everything. Fortunately, we don't don't have a deadline.

A common practice is to 'draw a line' in the sand as far as new content goes. So if someone adds something new to the article without a source, I'll usually try to find a source and add it myself. If I can't find one, I'll add a {{FACT}} tag to it. If, after a few months or year or whatever, no one has added a source, I'll remove the statement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles". No, this is incorrect. WP:V only requires that material be capable of being sourced, not that it be sourced. IOW, verifiable is not the same thing as being verified. For example, if I were to write that '"Germany is a nation in Europe", the only requirement is that a source exist somewhere in the world that supports this material. I don't need to necessarily need to cite it because it extremely unlikely to be challenged. If someone is blanking material simply for not being cited, I would explain to them the difference being verifable and verified. Ask them which material in particular they think is actually wrong and why. If they can't actually indentify which material is wrong and why, it sounds like the editor is being WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE. If they cannot be reasoned with, I would report them to WP:ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V requires that ""all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". If the content had previously been tagged by somebody else, I think that's a pretty clear challenge. Hypothetically, if anybody were deleting really obvious stuff like "Germany is a country in Europe" or "The sky is blue", that would be disruptive, but it's unlikely that the deletion is of such extremely obvious content. Hard to say without more case detail - who is deleting what?

Requiring a would-be deleter to demonstrate that content seems wrong is, I think, putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. We can't build a high-quality encyclopædia by giving a free pass to any content which passes a "meh, it looks plausible" test. bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of articles have {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} templates. That doesn't mean that anything specifically is wrong. If there's a particular issue with material, then the {{verify source}} can be used. If someone is deleting out unsourced but valid material soley for the lack of sources, they they either don't understand our policy on verifiability and/or are being disruptive. As for burden of proof, see WP:PRESERVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We still seem to be arguing about subtly different things (for instance, I had in mind things like cn tags rather than a whole-article tag). I would like to emphasise, again, that it's difficult to have a detailed discussion without knowing the details of the case.

As an aside, WP:V contains neither the words "capable" nor "verifiable". If we're going to haggle over policy detail, I think it's best to stick to wording that's actually in the policy. For instance, "that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". That's good, clear wording and I cannot fathom how somebody might conclude that it's "incorrect'" to remove unsourced content. bobrayner (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I was responding to the original question which was about "Full stripping of unsourced articles".
2. Sorry, I guess I should have used the term "verifiability" rather than "verifiable". Either way, my point's the same.
3. You need to read the entire policy as a whole. I see this a lot, editors inadvertently focusing on a couple of select phrases while missing the big picture. To put a fine point on it: Only material that has been challenged (or is likely to be challenged) actually require cites. If you find material that is both unsourced and you honestly believe is wrong, that's one thing. But challenging material simply for the sake of challenging is WP:POINTy and WP:DISRUPTIVE and that's what the OP seems to be about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you're right that verifiable doesn't appear in the policy. The reason for this is that the word was changed to attributable as part of a (failed) attempt to merge WP:V and NOR into a single policy called WP:Attribution.

But Quest is 100% right: the policy requires that it be possible to supply a citation. That is the plain meaning of the -able suffix, and it is the meaning that the community uses. The policy does not require that anyone have already typed up the name of the source into the article. And the only community-approved solution to the presence of verifiable encyclopedic material that is one of the four types that must have an inline citation is to boldly add the citations yourself, not to delete it on the grounds that the other editor didn't get it perfect on the first try. (Non-encyclopedic material, such as errors and trivia, should be cleaned up in compliance with the last half of PRESERVE, which is titled "Problems that may justify removal".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no cut and dried solution to dealing with an article that is virtually unsourced. One thing I advise is checking for copyvio - quite a few of these are just lifted from elsewhere. Checking isn't necessarily easy so you have to be careful you aren't looking at a copy of the article. If there's no obvious copyvio problem, then a general template may be the first step. If you are at all familiar with the material you may find some unsourceable stuff, or obvious OR or pov - not unusual in unsourced articles, but that's a different issue also. I try to add a couple of sources if it looks easy to do so and I'm interested in the article. Then there's the time scale. If the article looks like a real problem, 6 months, let alone a year, may be too long and I see no problem in removing anything obviously dubious earlier - but only if you try to source it first and fail. Having said all that, there are times (not many) when the best thing to do is turn it into a stub almost immediately (but do try to ask at an appropriate Wikiproject if there is one, or if others have edited it recently, definitely discuss it with them). Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your responses. Span (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For non-copyvio, non-libelous, purely unsourced-but-sourceable material, don't forget a full reading of WP:BURDEN which lays responsibility at the adding editor's feet, but also advises it has always been good practice to try to find sources. In other words, no rampaging without good faith effort at sourcing. This is a hard pill for many eager deleters to swallow. --Lexein (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sovereign Independent

Is this site reliable for this addition to the Zeitgeist: The Movie article? In addition, another editor pointed out that it features articles like this, and I myself became a bit suspicious by the tone of their About Us page. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the other editor, and it looks like a conspiracy website, carrying 9/11 truth material. I'd say it's not RS - something which Nightscream has already decided, given that he's deleted the material added sourced to Sovereign Independent. Obviously, I support that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look reliable to me. I note that the web site devotes itself to the kinds of things mainstream sources refuse to print, which should set off alarm bells right away. Also, the article is written as an editorial. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Vsevolod, I had not removed it, I just summarized it. I did, however, just remove just now. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes - sorry, my mistake - I was going by edit summaries. (And btw, thanks for signing for me a day or so ago...(>_<)...)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail in race-related matters

I have edited an article about Anjem Choudary, I included some detail from the Daily Mail, another editor on the article talk page Talk:Anjem_Choudary insists the Daily cannot be used. Is the Daily Mail an acceptable source on wikipedia? Other editor is reverting claiming justification under BLP that Daily Mail cannot be used --Hemshaw (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the article being used, and to support what content? Generally, it is my present view that the Daily Mail is a reliable source; it is published, and has editorial oversight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Mail is published, and yes, has editorial oversight. It also has a reputation for making crap up. A tabloid newspaper, with pretensions to be otherwise. I'd be very wary of using it as a source for anything contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article states that the publication is the second most purchased paper in th UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no automatic correlation between popularity and truth. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope opposition to this source is not because the paper is right of center, as indiciated in the wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also per the article Tabloid, the meaning is meant for the size of the paper used. How does that impact the reliability of the content? The tabloid article list the Chicago Sun-Times and the San Francisco Examiner as prominent tabloids in the United States. Does this mean that their content is less then reliable? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an intersting word. It has two distinct, but historically connected meanings. The second sentence of the lead of Tabloid says ""tabloid journalism", which tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, and TV and celebrity gossip is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers". That's what's being discussed here, a greater interest in popular (not necessarily accurate) content, rather than factual, in depth news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid is frequently shorthand for a paper that reports on stuff we don't consider important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So this example is something that "we don't consider important"? Sure the way it is presented maybe be more glammed up, but that doesn't mean that within it isn't some useful information that can be used to support content within a wikipedia article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If something is 'important', it will also be reported in sources with a better reputation for objectivity. Why use a tabloid (in the 'sensationalist' sense) when you can find better ones? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for presenting that example. I have big problems even with the headline, especially the first and fourth words. It unnecessarily sensationalises stuff. I also wonder what the third paragraph (and do note the tabloid rule that one paragraph equals one sentence) has to do with this item as news. It provides added colour, but is also blatantly guiding the reader in how to think about this. It's a lot more than news reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage supported is "When younger he was known as 'Andy' and was proud of his Pakistani origin". I would question whether a newspaper, especially one that is middle market, is a good source for a WP:BLP for events that happened thirty years ago. And something that does not make the quality papers is probably not weighty enough for inclusion. TFD (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of others, here is the 'Daily Mail' source being cited: . Rabble-rousing bigotry of the worst sort, full of weasel-words and insinuations - so entirely consistant with the Daily Mail's usual standards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, swilling and leering are not really objective words. I also love the line "He also mixed with hook-handed demagogue Abu Hamza..." That's a gem, straight out of the tabloid journalism textbook. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that the Daily Mail is right-wing; you'd get few left-wing British wikipedians seriously challenging The Times as RS. It's that the Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid, whatever else its pretentions might be. Best to be avoided if at all possible.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers. The claim that it has more libel cases than other papers is inaccurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's reliable. Like I said, editors wish it wasn't, because it covers subjects they don't feel worthy of an encyclopedia. That said, it is sensationalist, and shouldn't be used for controversial BLP info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine, you seem to be saying some people don't like it because it covers sensationalist topics, which you yourself admit it doesn't cover so reliably.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Peregrine Fisher's point is that the Daily Mail falls under our policy as a reliable source, but that it is also sensationalist. As such we should not use it for BLPs for anything that is controversially. I agree with that, and I agree with Andy the Grump evaluation of this particular article. I note that the article contains a wide variety of statements that are inflammatory and the tone is very far from objective. For the purposes suggested by the OP, I think this article does not meet our standards of reliability, and we shouldn't use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the approach we should be taking. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail where it comes to anything contentious about BLPs and even more so if we can't find a reliable source saying the same thing. (I'll also note that I wouldn't trust some of its stuff on Atlantis, etc either, someone there seems in love with that sort of cult archaeology stuff). There are times even with the most reliable sources that we have to take a more finely grained approach and focus on a specific article or writer. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mail doesn't make everything up, of course. It's just that if you can't source something controversial in the Mail to somewhere better, you should always be a little concerned, especially where it concerns immigration or science.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Second most purchased paper in the UK, it must have some reasonable adherence to factual content." Ha! You clearly don't read the Daily Mail or live in the UK. Span (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a very good source for what the Daily Mail has said and that is about it. Even then, its notability is debatable if it doesn't appear anywhere else. To reiterate a point made above, very few Misplaced Pages editors will argue against quality right wing British Newspapers like the Times and the Daily Telegraph, who tend to check facts and separate leaders and columns from news. The Mail may stay the right side of the law and the now obviously flawed watchdogs most of the time, but their position on race and other issues is well known. For the benefit of US editors it is usually said that in the US newspapers strive for neutrality and TV news is often partisan and that in the UK it is the other way around (not entirely true but it is useful), so imagine the Daily Mail as having the same veracity as say an opinion piece on Fox News. Although that may be unfair to Fox.--SabreBD (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope the above statement by Spanglej is not a personal attack, for now I shall assume good faith.

Perusing these page particularly, I have seen multiple attacks against Fox News, and Wall Street Journal, and other right of center leaning in their opinion content, stating that they are not reliable sources within their news content. Those attacks very much are, IMHO, part of IDONTLIKEIT.

Imagine if editors were out to say that the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and New York Times were not reliable sources because their commentary/editorial content were left of center. The community would not stand for it; so it shocks me when it is allowed to continue against right of center reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for this board is to determine a consensus of editors whether a source is a reliable source. One does not need to source whether a source is a reliable source. Here we are to look at a source, match it up against the guideline of what makes up a reliable source, and form the consensus.

Would it matter if Blog X had hundreds of other blogs saying that it is a reliable source, or one strongly political leaning journalism professor?

No, not really.

That being said, on contentious BLP articles it's always best to find multiple reliable sources on contentious content. Therefore, the question that should be raised in the article in question's talk page is, is the content supported by more than one reliable source, that isn't a reproduction of the same source (i.e. multiple papers posting an AP article)?

If the answer is yes, then it should be kept; if the answer is no, then per BLP the content should be flagged, or removed until it can otherwise be supported by multiple reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are merely asserting that the Mail meets WP:RS? Fair enough, that is your opinion - which seems to be in the minority here. The material being cited is contentious, and the reliability of the source is questionable. WP:BLP policy is clear - in such circumstances, the material should not be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, I can't help but notice that you seem to be making an issue of whether a source leans right or left. POV of a source is not generally an issue of reliability, as it is expected that source will have a point of view. People sometime try to make an issue of it in the case of Fox, WSJ, or NPR, but those arguments generally bear little weight outside of those areas in source that are opinion pieces, and in those cases generally the problem is solved by attribution. In BLPs the bar for reliability of sources is very high, and in this case the article in the Daily Mail simply does not meet that bar, at least in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. The language of the article in question is clearly inflammatory, and thus inappropriate for a BLP. If the information is truly important, it will have been covered in other sources, and I suggest you hunt such down. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand BLP policy, and please re-read my last posting. I stated quiet clearly, that per BLP policy that contentious content should be supported by multiple reliable sources to ensure accuracy.

That does not mean that the Daily Mail is any less a reliable sources even if the wording is inflammatory or sensationalized; even if this opinion is in the minority.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Mail website. WP's Daily Mail article shows a recent front page. My attempts to view nationalenquirer.com in the usual way are greeted with the retort from 209.81.89.177 that "The content of this website is not available in your area", but I can read its headlines this way; it's closer to the Mail than is the New York or even the London Times. Yes, the Mail does energetically pursue such issues of our times as which celeb is dating which other celeb, and which hairstyles they are sporting, and which swimsuits they have worn where; for all I know, it may be a reliable source for this area. However, for celeb-unrelated matters, see this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that in this particular area (race/immigration) the Mail has been shown to pervert its sources to suit its political ideals, so it should not be considered a reliable source for this type of reporting. Since the tidbit in the article in question is precisely one of this kind, it follows that another, less politically biased source must be found. (And heaven forbid we cite any of their columnists as sources of facts, see Melanie Phillips, for a sample). FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is perfectly fine for factual matters. I know some "dontlikeit" but the fact is that the number of libel suits against it is similar to the other UK papers -- even The Times errs. As for adjectives used? All the UK papers use stronger adjectives than Misplaced Pages likes. Opinion columns should be treated like opinion columns from any source, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Mail is not 'fine for factual matters'. They frequently report things as facts that aren't. Hoary has already linked this . Have you read it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. It depends a lot what the facts are about. See the article in New Statesman linked by Hoary at the end of his post above for some shocking examples of "fact reporting" in the Mail in the area of immigration. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not directly related to the area under discussion at hand here, but the Mail's Phillips on evolution: "For many, the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far -- not least because, by the standards science itself sets, it fails the test of evidence. It is merely a theory. To go even further, as some scientists do, and make the leap from evolutionary theory to the claim that this somehow explains the origin of life itself clearly fails the test of logic. Scientific knowledge may have dealt a serious blow to religious belief, but science does not fill the gaps in our understanding of existence. It does not explain the irreducible complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together." Note the "subtle" writing that starts with "For many" but then 99% endorses that view, leaving 1% for plausible deniability of merely being "journalistic" reporting of others' ideas. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The London Evening Standard

The article in question now quotes only the Evening Standard for the questionable stuff. At the time of the article this was a struggling tabloid that belonged to the same Daily Mail and General Trust, sold for £1 to Lebedev soon thereafter. It does not strike me as more reliable that the Mail itself for this story. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Ironically, the only non-tabloid source here is Johann Hari's quote in the Independent. But then, he's not exactly squeaky clean either, being known for changing quotes from his interviewees. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And the concern is less than theoretical. One of Hari's other terrorism-wannabe interviewees complained about it: . FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, seems to have copied stuff from the Daily Mail before . FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lonely Planet

Is there a reason to consider Lonely Planet guides questionable sources? (See this edit's summary.)  --Lambiam 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that for the material being cited (the meaning of the Armenian word Kaçkar), they would necessarily be seen as reliable. Travel guide writers aren't necessarily experts in the languages of the area they describe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Lonely Planet reference. In fact, we do not need an English language source for a simple translation. Anyone with an elementary understanding of Armenian can confirm that "Խաչ քար" means "cross stone". In general, there is no requirement that we use English language sources – it would create an unacceptable systematic bias. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. – In fact I have undone all of Kuzanov (talk · contribs)'s edits here and on the Georgian Misplaced Pages. This does not seem to be about sources but about some kind of ethnic pov-pushing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, how well do you speak and read Armenian? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask. Is there some text you would like me to translate? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, some of us don't have an 'elementary understanding' of how to write Kaçkar as "Խաչ քար". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a more relevant point. The article claims – now supported by the Lonely Planet source – that the Turkish name of the mountains, "Kaçkar" is derived from the Armenian name "Khachkar" (Խաչքար). This requires more than language skills, but I believe we can trust Lonely Planet on this part of the etymology. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my take on this: Unless the source in question is patently not reliable, the editor who removes sourced content should bear the burden of bringing a better source. If they cannot do that, but just remove sourced content, in my opinion they are just destroying other people's contributions. Lonely Planet has good books and although they may not have the scholarship of secondary sources for language issues, they usually rely on such sources. Unless someone has a better source to prove the contrary or to prove the same, a reference from Lonely Planet should not be removed. Divide et Impera (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We should not use travel guides as sources for linguistics, history, etc. If there's no better source than LP becomes even more questionable. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lonely Planet's guides are not reliable sources at all. It's contents are based on user contributions to their website. It's for adventurers travelers that don't mind having to deal with some misinformation, and not for writing an encyclopedia.

And yes, we need a reliable source for that translation. It's not uncommon for misconceptions to appear in what some place's names means or where did they come from. --damiens.rf 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Dougweller & damiens:Of course better sources exist, but how would wikipedia be improved if we'll have to wait that someone brings scholars citations? Secondary sources in history and geography are niche and relatively expensive products. A minority of people have access to those publications and the wikipedia improving process will subsequently get delayed. And why could people delete valid contributions just because they are sourced by LP? As I stated above, LP can safely be deemed a tertiary source, to be used if there are no other sources that say otherwise. Furthermore, LP is owned by the BBC, which is RS. Do we have to remove references from BBC altogether now?

I would expect that someone become fastidious when an article is about to reach B or Good Article status, but what is the point to stay there and remove referenced content when the article is just a stub or start with 2-3 references?

It is easy to remove material, much more complicated to find a book and source the contribution. It seems like allowing people to delete perfectly valid contributions will give free hand to all of those who don't add content, but simply delete what doesn't please them. Let's not forget that content is the most valuable piece in wikipedia: let's preserve it with more care. Divide et Impera (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a deadline. --damiens.rf 22:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Damiens.rf that Lonely Planet is not a reliable source for a translation. To me this is a simple issue--if an editor does not speak or read Armenian, I don't believe they can evaluate the google translation. A much better source for this kind of translation would be a dictionary, and I expect that most major uni libraries would have one at hand. I disagree that BBC's ownership of LP has anything to do with either's reliability, our policies do not base RS decisions on who owns the source. The notion that the editor removing badly sourced content bears the burden of finding a better source is not supported by any policy of which I am aware, in fact, we have WP:BURDEN which puts that burden on the editor wishing to restore content. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a dictionary would be a much better source. And not only does the BBC's ownership not have anything to do with this issue, I'd also note that there are parts of the BBC website that I would consider a reliable source and other parts that I would not want to see used. (I know we are not talking about the website, but I'm just pointing out that the BBC name doesn't automatically give everything using it an imprimatur of reliability). I try to find sources whenever I can, but I will remove stuff that is both dubious and badly sourced where appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. You managed to convince me that a dictionary would be a more suitable source that Lonely Planet. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MarksFriggin.com

Can this site be considered reliable for paraphrasing and quotes of Howard Stern and guests on the Howard Stern Radio Show? It summarizes shows daily, it's commercial, so accuracy is in Mark Mercer's interest, Stern expressed approval of it as "a rundown of the show that is absolutely staggering", "it's almost a transcript" on January 25, 2006, and it has been cited by several news publications and listed (minorly) in two books. --Lexein (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Still looking for an assessment. Thanks.--Lexein (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, since it's clearly a fan site. Where do we need quotes from Stern's show? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, it's just another media outlet, and primary source, where Stern or guests say things about themselves - that's what I'm talking about, and Marksfriggin provides (secondary source) independent verification of what was said. That's my meaning. --Lexein (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would we need quotes? Stern may like it, but the guests? There are BLP issues here and I'm not happy about using a fan site, even if Stern or others do like it. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotes are occasionally useful when guests or Stern talk about projects they're in; useful stuff in Production sections of film, TV, and book articles. (I'm not talking about gossip, only primary source stuff). Hm, what BLP issues? I'm talking about quoting (or paraphrasing) what Stern and guests directly say about themselves, not what one says about another, or gossip. Where I've spotchecked Marksfriggin against recorded audio of the show, his quotes or paraphrases have been dead on. It's like quoting/paraphrasing people on any TV/radio/podcast show where audio is recorded. What's the difference, as you see it? Believe me, I'm not a reckless editor: I would only seek to use Marksfriggin narrowly where it supports a person's statement not documented elsewhere in the media, and not for controversial subjects or where BLP would be an issue. --Lexein (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to recorded video, I would suggest citing the source directly. Spot checking to verify the web site is kind of ORish. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

problematic source

This subject is of a controversial nature. John Corapi is a Roman Catholic priest, but more of a televangelist personality. Over the years he has made some grandiose claims such as being able to bench press 400+ pounds as a teenager in the 1960s, holding a black belt in karate, being a Golden Gloves Boxer while in High School, serving as a Green Beret in Vietnam, being an accountant, millionaire, drug addict, etc. Most of the claims are trivial and easily debunked as there are no reliable sources. For example, he is not listed by the Golden Gloves Association and the nearest venue where he could have participated was 100+ miles either way. However, his actual Army service record shows no Special Forces training, no helicopter crash, no Vietnam service, etc. The Army has no record of any Special Forces Team being "completely wiped out", either. Yet, Corapi gave an interview to an author including these claims and more (visions of the Virgin Mary, Mother Theresa asking him to speak instead of her, being ordained by the Pope, etc.). Are we to write falsehoods as truth because the source is "reliable"? The work is not particularly scholarly and contains no footnotes or end notes or any other sources. The main focus of the book is a medical malpractice lawsuit with which Corapi was involved. My instinct says, use it to source the specifics of the lawsuit, but not the fantasies that the author repeated without fact-checking. Am I off base here?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Mike, you mention a particular book. What is the name of the book? Who is the author? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My, bad. The book is Coronary by Stephen Klaidman: Stephen Klaidman (2008). Coronary. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9780743267557.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The sheer number of these claims seems to move them into the realm of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". That said, this published book does seem to be the best source we have so far, and the fact he makes these claims is certainly highly relevant to the article, just leaving them out would not be helpful. So I'd recommend writing "In interviews for the book Coronary, Corapi states that ...". Don't specify that these claims are grandiose, just write them. Klaidman seems to be a former NYTimes and Washington Post reporter, so I'd believe Corapi did in fact make these statements to him. If we have similarly reliable sources that say the statements are or aren't true, we can add that too. Otherwise we should leave it as his statement for the book. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would the following be a reliable source for refuting the claims? I wouldn't use Corapi's actual service record (which is the linked document and source for Bendell's refutation); just Bendell's commentary about halfway down the page. I've been uncomfortable with using this site due to its look and layout, but see that POW Network is used as a source in at least 20 other articles. Bendell does layout the "translation" of the military record very well. For example: According to an analysis of Corapi's military records by retired Special Forces Officer Don Bendell, Corapi attended Basic Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in 1967; Administrative schools at Fort McClellan, Alabama and Fort Knox, Kentucky and went on to serve as a clerk-typist in west Germany. Corapi mustered out of the Army in January, 1970 as a Stenographer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No! That's a personal web page clearly made to attack Corapi. Even if we have an article about the author of the page. For highly controversial statements attacking a living person like the ones made on that page, we need highly respectable sources, not personal web pages. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel even stronger recommending that if I knew exactly how Klaidman phrases these statements in the book. Are they stated as facts: "Corapi was a Golden Gloves Boxer" or as statements from an interview subject "Corapi says he was a Golden Gloves Boxer" Corapi: "I was a Golden Gloves Boxer"? I'd like to hope it's the latter, in other words that Klaidman doesn't vouch for the truth of these statements either, merely that Corapi made them. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Boxing thing comes from an older version of Corapi's bio(since deleted) Here is the quote from the book: "He signed a commitment to serve in the Special Forces, but in a helicopter accident in the Canal Zone he he reinjured a shoulder that he'd originally hurt playing football and ended up in Heidelberg as an administrative assistant." Corapi's actual military records show no training of any type beyond the Army's "secreterial school", no orders to Panama, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood, then, didn't you write that these claims came from an interview given to the author the Coronary book? I thought that meant they were published in the book. If they're not backed up by a reliable source of some kind (at least stating that Corapi made the claims), we shouldn't write them. If all the book says is that he served in the Canal Zone and was injured in a helicopter accident, I wouldn't hesitate to write that, that's not an extraordinary claim like being a Golden Gloves champion, a millionaire, and a Green Beret. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, these claims came from him, in sermons, on his website, etc. Most of them have been debunked and the story has devolved over the years. For example, originally he was telling people that he was a Green Beret who served in Vietnam and his whole unit was wiped out and that he was spat upon in the airport, etc. When people looked into his history and saw he was a clerk-typist in Germany, his biography changed on his website to say he was a Vietnam-era vet and went through Special Forces training. As more of the story gets out he changes it. For example, there is no record of him ever selling real estate in Los Angeles, where he claims he made millions. He's built his career on lies, unfortunately there is this one source where he makes these claims that is not self-published or a blog/forum/taped sermon, etc. I wanted to leave it out, just saying he was a clerk in Germany; other editors want to include the whole sordid mess to show his pattern of lying/deceit, etc. Then we have a follower or two who want to say he sailed the seven seas and wears a chestfull of medals but it was all top secret. I guess my point is, the canal zone/injury is complete fiction; this makes me distrust the source with regard to pretty much anything else other than the medical malpractice lawsuit where Corapi got a few million, such as him being a millionaire realestate agent to the stars, drug dealer, pulled over in a ferari with enough dope to send him to prison for 40 years, and seeing visions of the Virgin Mary. Interesting to note, every chapter in the book has footnotes/endnotes, except the chapter on Corapi. The article is heating up because Corapi's order found him guilty of misconduct (living with a prostitute, sexually harassing female employee, drugs, and having millions of dollars in cars, boats, etc while supposedly taking a ow of poverty) and he is trying to walk away from the priesthood.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Johannes von Ronge

I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on Johannes von Ronge has his name wrong according to every source I can find that hasn't scraped its information from WP. See, for example, many sources from Google Books: . See also all the entries in Worldcat: . According to all those sources, his name is Ronge, not Von Ronge, and there is no umlaut over the o. The German Misplaced Pages also has him listed as Johannes Ronge. It appears that there have been several attempts to fix this, to no avail. Can someone provide some guidance here and make a definitive determination as to his correct name, and if it's currently incorrect, provide a fix? TIA 75.13.69.146 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly a determined attempt to make this fellow into Johannes von Rönge, and a parallel attempt to make his wife into Berthe von Rönge. Berthe suffers from lesser notability and so it is difficult to find sources with a correct name. All the reliable sources I found call her husband Johannes Ronge. All these articles sources have been removed in the current version. This includes several two encyclopedia articles available in Wikisource. His brother-in-law Carl Schurz calls him Johannes Ronge when he writes about him. This remake effort even extends to fabrications in Wikisource. When I checked the sources for the Whittier and Rossetti poems there, they both called him Johannes Ronge, in one case this source was an original manuscript. I corrected the article, maybe twice, and fixed Wikisource once. I don't plan to make another attempt. I appreciate the attention the problem is getting. From my point of view, this is just sophisticated vandalism. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 8 and 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, how to we fix it? If no one here knows, we can take it up at the move board. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt

Another editor recently added the following sentence to the article on Mein Kampf in the Arabic language: "Regarding the Arabic version of the book, an employee of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house said, 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd.'" The source they cited was this AFP article from 2007. The issue I have is that it isn't clear to me that the employee quoted in the source is talking about Mein Kampf itself, or the fair more broadly. The relevant passage from the source is: "The fair also has its darker sides, with anti-Christian polemics advocating conversion to Islam as the only solution to a flawed religion and of course plenty of editions of Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' for sale. 'It makes up a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd,' said Mahmud Abdallah of the Syrian-Egyptian Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi publishing house." That publishing house does publish Mein Kampf, but the word "It" (in "It makes up a big part...") is grammatically ambiguous IMO, as the employee could be talking about Mein Kampf, or they could be talking about the fair itself.

So, my question is whether or not that AFP article is reliable for saying that the employee of the Dar al-Kitab publishing house was saying that the Arabic version of Mein Kampf is "a big part of our success, especially among the 18 to 25 crowd." Thanks. ← George 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page over there, the writer sandwiched the quote in between lines about Mein Kampf. It is more than reasonable to read "it" as "Mein Kampf" in this scenario.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A mention of our "Sales of Mein Kampf in Egypt" debate here may well be helpful to bring in the recourses of other editors. However I would prefer not to continue the debate over two forums. So I would respectfully suggest we invite interested parties to join us on the relevant talk page and move on from there. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't really a RSN issue, I don't think (no one is questioning that AFP is reliable, it's just that some users are trying to put their own spin on the AFP content), but I've weighed in at the article's talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks Roscelese. I don't doubt that AFP is a reliable source, I'm just not sure if it's reliable for the sentence being cited to it. If anyone is interested in weighing in, the discussion is here. Outside input is always welcome. ← George 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Article in Malayala Manorama

Citation used: Malayala Manorama, P. Kishore (25 July 2011). "IT Growth Slows". Retrieved 25 July 2011.

Article: Technopark, Trivandrum

Statement: As of financial year 2010-11, Technopark accounts for about 47% of IT exports from Kerala.

Talk page: Talk:Technopark,_Trivandrum#Reliability_of_Newspaper_Report_as_Reference

Malayala Manorama is the highest circulated regional language newspaper, with more than 19 lakh copies a day, with edition from all major cities in Kerala and major metros Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and also Baharain and Dubai. The article in question is a researched article by their business editor, and gives precise numbers.

Is it a reliable reference? DileepKS(talk) 05:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A regional news paper report can be used for reference in wikipedia articles. However if there is a better reference, we should not stick on the newspaper reports. Here in the article in question, we have OFFICIAL REPORT from GOVERNMENT PLANNING BOARD. Hence need not use a regional newspaper reference. Also, the 2011 export figures are not announced by the government yet. The regional newspaper might have speculated the figures from uncites sources. So, need not rely on regional newpaper since an official report is available. And wait till the government announces the IT exports for 2011.
Please see the figures reported by various news papers. Even a newspaper "Hindu" is contradicting with "Hindu business".

Even the report from Hindu (the reference you provided) is not matching with the IT exports published by Kerala IT mission.

Since we have the information from Kerala Planning board, which says 75% of the software exports of the state is from Technopark, why are you insisting to go with inconsistent newspaper reports? The report from the government planning board supersedes all news paper reports. I hope you too concur and go in harmony with this. --Samaleks (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I could not understand the newspaper citation, as it was in the local language. But, going through the article and its talk page it is advisable to use the report from the Government regarding the state's IT exports. Please wait till new export figures are officially announced by the government. Local newspaper report may not be accurate to the last decimal all times. So, going by the context of the article, use the citation from government. --Freknsay (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources for violence in Bihar, India

The following is a paragraph from Yadav

Bindeshwar Pathak wrote in 1992 of "the violence that has now become an existential reality in Bihar", much of which has centred on issues regarding land and has pitted caste against caste. The roots of this violence can be traced to around 1970. There have been numerous massacres on both sides and it has become politicised by the involvement of Naxalite groups. Yadav landowners have been involved in this violence and have, for example, been assisted by Maoist groups in their caste war against the Rajputs. Suruchi Thapar-Bjorkert has said that " backward-caste leaders like Lalu Prasad Yadav, caste has entered into the legitimate domain of mainstream politics", and quotes Arvind Narayan Das, who believes that "they feel that they rule Bihar as a caste, even the weakest Yadav flexing muscle physically and metaphorically."

MangoWong keeps removing it from the article on the grounds, amongst other things, that the sources are not RS. To make those sources easier to pick out, they are:

• Ghosh, Srikanta (2000). Bihar in flames. APH Publishing. pp. 4, 9. ISBN 9788176481601.
• Pathak, Bindeshwar (1992). Rural violence in India. Concept. pp. 59–60, 67, 98. ISBN 9788170223191.
• Thapar-Bjorkert, Suruchi (2006). "Killing Fields". In Yuval-Davis, Nira; Kannabirān, Kalpana; Vieten, Ulrike (eds.). The situated politics of belonging. Sage studies in international sociology. Vol. 55. SAGE. p. 142. ISBN 9781412921015.

The Das quote also appears in this book, although I have been unable to locate Das's original book (it is on p. 506 of a work written by him and published in 2000 but I cannot find that work at GBooks).

There are at least two recent talk page threads regarding this, here and here. Only the latter of those raises the RS issue

I am fed up of arguing about RS with MangoWong and so am bringing it to the wider community. I am afraid that there are likely to be a lot more of them coming here. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that Sitush could have made an effort to defend his/her sources on the article talk page before bringing it here. All of these sources look off topic for the Yadav aricle, and the material looks all cherry picked and an exercise in giant generalizations from individual incidents. I had tried to get Sitush around to defending his/her sources and material, but find myself here now. If someone is going to bring things here before defending them on the article talk page....-MangoWong (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a dispute about the reliability of any individual source (most of the sources cited state the opinion of their authors and are automatically reliable for that), but a WP:SYNT or WP:UNDUE dispute. Wrong noticeboard for that issue. Frankly, something like WP:INDIA can probably help you more, because most other Wikipedians have no idea whether such-and-such Indian is worth citing in that article or not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well FuFoFuEd. There's a technical issue too here. Sitush seems to want to use a quote from a certain A. N. Das. I did try to investigate who this guy is, but could not find much. I had requested Sitush to establish whether this Das was a professor and what his field was. Sitush seems to be refusing to do that. I had also investigated the other sources and material and.... Let's leave that since you have said that this may not be the most useful venue. Does it fall upon me to establish that Das is a professor and establish his competence on the issue?-MangoWong (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop wriggling, Mango. You queried the reliability of all the sources. It is quite likely that every time you do so in future then I will raise the matter here because there is no talking to you, is there? You simply do not understand the policies but perhaps this way you will learn (with my apologies for wasting the time of everyone else). We have confirmation that they are reliable for the purpose used, so now we can go back to the talk page and sort out your other issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Das at GScholar (note the N. and sometimes even Nayaran). Not that it matters, since the paragraph specifically says that it is Thapar-Bjorkert who quotes Das, and Thapar-Bjorkert is reliable per the analysis of FuFoFuEd. This guy was in fact an academic but it is not necessary for people to be professors etc to be reliable - you are misunderstanding WP:RS and, as FuFoFuEd says below (& I have said before to you) there is a competence issue of sorts. Numerous people keep trying to explain, across numerous articles, but you will not listen. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So, from now on, you would be attacking my competence in anything I do or say. So that you can do things like these , put in rubbish refs like , and falsely claim that I deleted links from the Dennis Rader article , even when I did not. No buddy, I am not going to let you do it. And FuFoFuEd did not seem to have said anything about the reliability of the sources for that article. Per WP:BURDEN I think you still have to establish WTH this A. N. Das is.-MangoWong (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Steele

MangoWong recently removed a fair amount of content from Edgar Steele in this series of edits. Much of it relates to claimed unreliability of the website of The Spokesman-Review. I raised the matter on their talkpage here, as a subsidiary point to something else. Is The Spokesman-Review RS? - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. There's a paper edition and editorial staff, appears to be reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The links are dead now, but that's not a reason to remove them. MangoWong did not seem to have removed any text, only footnotes in that diff. Btw, The Spokesman-Review has an article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked three of the spokeman links, none were dead, but one was malformed. I agree, however, that that removing a deadlink is not the best practice, better to tag it a such and give others a chance to fix them, if you cannot yourself. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks. I can fix deadlinks etc but there is so much flak flying around regarding MW that I thought it best to get some sort of input on their claim of the paper being a dubious source before taking things any further. I have quite a long list of problematic edits to go through, unfortunately, and am likely to be pestering various noticeboards in order to deflect warring etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have strong views about Spokesman-Review. I had deleted it only because it looked like a second rate source to me. I have searched the archives of WP:RSN for it and could not find a single mention. Another thing is that the Spokesman-Review appears to be operating its net version of the paper through blogs. Looking into its web address, I spied a …../blog/…. Even then, as I said, I do not have any strong views on this particular source. I had invited discussion on this on the article talk page . But my invitation has been removed inexplicably. I still can’t understand why that comment was removed. ?????? (Any guesses???) I think this issue could/should have been discussed on the article talk page first. Anyway, it does give more confidence to get opinions from the RSN. I have no problem if the Spokesman Review be reinstated. However, I have also deleted a number of other links from that article. I am not very sure, but maybe someone seems to think that all of the sources should be reinstated. Since we are already here, it might be worthwhile if I could get a review of those sources/links too . My reasons for deleting them can be found in my individual edit summaries. Some of them looked like advocacy groups and some of them seemed irrelevant in the sense that they were linked, but were not saying anything that the article says. And why are folks talking about me removing deadlinks? I myself do not like to remove deadlinks unless I see some other problem with them. One may note that Sitush may seem to keep saying funny/sinister looking things about me. I am having a content dispute with Sitush on some other articles. So, one may look at comments from both of us in that light…..MangoWong (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you should spend some time investigating a source before you just delete it expecting others to defend it. Most if not all newspapers have blogs today, blogs written by very staff of the newspaper, and usually just as reliable as the rest of the newspaper; see Blog#Blurring_with_the_mass_media and WP:SPS. As for www.splcenter.org, see Southern Poverty Law Center. If you continue in this "delete first" manner, you'll likely find yourself in trouble for WP:COMPETENCE issues if nothing else. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you seem to critique me a bit too strongly, I take your comments seriously and am likely to go easy on blogs etc. from now on. I used to have a "shoot at sight" type attitude towards blogs. But I will relax it now. Thanks.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note: I just noticed the deletion of your comment now: it looks like I made a mistake; either that, or the server somehow messed up, but that usually only happens when edits are within one minute of each other. Apologies, then, since It was likely me messing up. I'm going to re-add your comment now. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Official websites of football clubs as exclusive sources in articles on said clubs

I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, so I'll try for here.

Several teams (examples include Barca, Madrid, and Inter) use the official club websites as sources, and have done so for years.

Not only that, but they have turned those 'official' sources into exclusive sources for some sections of the articles. In seasons past I have inserted match results into articles using non-official sources, only to see them changed. The official sources are also the only ones that are allowed to be used for transfers. In both cases, these official sources might be slower or contain less information than reliable third party sources, and yet the other sources get shut out.

Should we continue to use 'official' club websites at all? They are not neutral third party sources by a long shot. True, they're only used to source raw numerical information in most cases, but there are other sources, reliable third party sources, that can be used.

If we do decide to continue to use the 'official' sources, is there consensus for disallowing their exclusivity?

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on an article talk page? It would help to know what the reverter's concern was about the use of non-official sources. I consider a website to be a reliable source for factual information about that website, so I see no problem with the use of 'official' club websites for such information. But prima facie I see no reason not to use unofficial stats, at least until the official ones are available. Brmull (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This affects most of the top flight clubs (that is to say, almost all of the ones that actually source match results). I don't remember the reason that was given back during the 2010-11 season, but I do remember that it came across as being bullshit. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that the official sites should not be used for fetching information for the article. Offical sites of the football clubs may contain peacock terms to describe the club and may contain exaggerated contents. Care should be taken in maintaining the NPOV. Unofficial sites can also be used, if it is a valid source. Discussing in the article talk page is a better idea, as the scenario differs in each article. --Freknsay (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that independent reliable sources are preferable to "official" sources. As Freknsay pointed out, official sites may use peacock terms, but beyond that, "official" sources may go so far as to include or omit informaiton based on the light in which it portrays the club. FYI, we've been having a related debate at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#Head coaches who never coached a game (that's American football). cmadler (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For something like match results, its not a huge deal -- both sources are likely to be accurate. However, a reliable third-party source such as a newspaper is preferable both as a matter of principle and as a practical matter (the club has an incentive to lie about an embarrassing result (granted few clubs would be foolish enough to try that) and a newspaper's very raison d'être is being accurate about these things, and general failure to do so would imperil its existence, which isn't true of the club. However, an unreliable third-party site auch as a fan blog is, in my personal opinion, worse than the club's official site. Herostratus (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about fan blogs, we're talking about BBC sports and those sorts of sites. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see why the club website should be the only reliable source, by definition. In the last two or three months I've seen a couple of arguments along the lines of "Doesn't belong in the article until it's on the club's website" which is pretty frustrating when there are other seemingly reliable - and far more independent - sources on a topic. bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• An WP:Independent source is almost always preferable to a source that is closely connected to the subject. Good sources should not be banned merely because someone likes to use a fan club as a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Birthday Massacre

I've been looking at The Birthday Massacre, making some minor edits, and I am struck by the plethora of video interviews used as references--besides tons of MySpace and other websites. I've placed a refimprove tag on the article, but there is so much of it (and so little other referencing) that going in to edit is a gargantuan task. Does anyone have any suggestion, or is anyone feeling the spirit move them? Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are multiple references to the same information in many places. Avoiding this alone will cut down the numbers substantially. --Freknsay (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifehacker

Is Lifehacker considered a reliable source for software? Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't read it, but based on its reasonably well sourced Misplaced Pages article, I would say yes. Did they publish something specific you find questionable? FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find anything questionable. I just used it as a reference in a software article that I started. The website is referred to as a blog so I wasn't sure about reliability. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Publisher" on a Weebly site

This is really about a "further reading" section, but this is the closest noticeboard that I can find, as the issue does deal with reliable sourcing.

I've started removing Weebly blogs when they fail appropriate guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:ELNO, and so on. I removed one book from Corset and Neo-Victorian whose publisher site was a Weebly page. The "publisher" happens to be the sole author, meaning these books are self-published. Since the book is not about the author, they cannot be used under WP:SELFPUB. According to WP:Further reading one of the considerations to be taken when adding a book is whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source. This book does not meet WP:RS. The only purpose for including it would be to advertise this and other rather expensive books by this author, which is not what Misplaced Pages is for.

The book in question is "Waisted Curves" from Aegis & Owl Publishing/Sarah Chrisman.

I removed the book, and was reverted and told my edit was unconstructive. I removed the book again, pointing to appropriate guidelines on the reverting user's talk page, and he reverted me again, calling me a single purpose account (even though I've been here since 2006 and have worked on a variety of articles). Could we get some consensus here? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Um... First, WP:RS does not ban self-published books... it merely limits their use. Second, WP:Further reading does not require that the books, websites, etc. listed pass WP:RS. Third WP:EL explicitly allows "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The same applies to print sources under "Further reading".

As for WP:NOTPROMOTION... you say that the only purpose in including it is advertising... Hmmm... is that just your opinion, or do we have some evidence to suggest that the editor who added the book to the "further reading" section has some sort of connection to the author? Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And this book does not fall in the limits of when self-published works are allowed (the book is not the subject of the article giving information about itself). The book also does not fall into any of the other examples for appropriate books that the "Reliable" section gives (such as historical documents). WP:ELNO #5 excludes "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." My rational behind removing weebly sites (which are technically blogs) is #11, excludes blogs and personal websites except those by a recognized authority.

I would like to be clear that I am not accusing Andy Dingly (who reverted me) of having any connection to the author or using the site for advertising. However, its placement (by whoever) matches the MO of other advertisment based additions I've seen in the past. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Already addressed here: User_talk:Andy_Dingley#.22Unconstructive.3F.22

The editor is carrying out a 'bot-like bulk edit removing any content that pattern-matches a URL indicating that a web site (of any content quality) has been hosted through Weebly. This claims justification through the no-blogs policy of WP:ELNO.

The page here Neo-Victorian is one of four pages that cited this book. It's a relevant text on some aspects of neo-Victorian life, specifically the wearing of corsets and "traditional" Victorian costume in everyday life. I consider it an appropriate cite on two of these pages, including Corset itself. However I don't see it as sufficiently relevant to the historical aspects of costume, so I haven't re-added it to Victorian fashion or Victoriana, from where it was also removed.

If this book cite didn't include a URL, there would have been no issue here. The editor is auto-removing on the basis of the URL, not on the basis of content. It is simple camouflage to start changing their story after the fact.

This book is self-published. That is not the same thing as WP:SELFPUB. If the book has relevant content (and I've read it, the editor in question here hasn't) then it is a reasonable cite (and if it doesn't, then it isn't). This is nothing to do with the publisher's chosen web platform. Nor is the publisher's site a "blog", as WP:ELNO quite reasonably cautions against.

Finally, the idea that a book is unsuitable under Further reading because it's "too expensive" is simply farcical. Particularly when this is not a terribly expensive book, and for a hand-bound book these days it's positively a bargain. Some readers (and with probably quite a large overlap to neo-Victorians) simply appreciate quality and judge this by slightly more subtle means than regexing a URL string. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that those article do not cite the book at all, it's just advertised in the further reading section. It's inaccurate to the point of misrepresentation to say that they are citations. And you are twisting my words: I said that it was inappropriate to advertise these books which happen to be expensive -- we're not here to make a profit for others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, the entire point of an "External Links" or "Further Reading" section is to list books and websites that weren't used as cited sources (in fact, if we used them as citations, we are not supposed to list them again under FR or EL). Is your objection to listing the book itself, or are you really objecting to the inclusion of a link to a website that sells the book ... if the latter, what if the book were listed without including the URL link? Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But external links and suggested further reading materials are supposed to be held to similar standards to reliable sources, with exceptions being offical pages, historical documents, stuff by the article's subject, etc. This book is none of those. The only difference between this and linking to my friend's Star Trek fansite in the Star Trek article (for example, it's not happened) is that my friend wouldn't be making money off of its inclusion.

I came across this book because I'm sorting through inappropriate linking to the Weebly site. However, even if the link to Weebly was removed, this book is essentially a print version of a random Neo-Victorian fashion fansite. Just because the author is charging more than a most fansites does not change that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

'This book is none of those.'

You know nothing of this book, nor of the subject matter of the articles connected to it. All you have done is to reduce editing to a scripting process, assuming that anything and everything using a particular web platform is "bad" and must be expunged. How do you think that "decisions" made on such a robotic basis are really defensible? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, you are wrong here... external links are not held to similar standards as reliable sources... WP:EL explicitly states that it includes "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Thus, the bar for ELs is set at knowledgeable sources, not at reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To Andy: So, was the book written lauded and hailed during the Victorian era? ("historically important publications") Or are the articles are about the book itself? ("creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article") Or is it a "seminal, but now outdated, scientific paper"? Or is it somehow by Neo-Victorian fashion itself? ("Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). No, it does not qualify as any of those things. And it fails as either a citable source (self-published and not written by the subject of the articles) and as an external link (advertising, not a selfpublished work by a recognized authority). How is it defensible to include it?

To Blueboar: WP:ELNO #5 excludes self-published sources except those by recognized authorities (the author of this book is not a recognized authority on the subject), and #11 excludes links that are full of advertising (this link in particular is nothing but "buy these books!"). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We just had a similar discussion on DRN, turns out that See also entries are not required to be sourceable in the same way as material in the article body, and I would argue the same holds for external links. WP:ELNO is a guideline, not a policy. I believe that that appropriate criteria is whether the link is would be reasonable interest to readers of the article. I have not looked at the link targets, so I cannot comment on the relative spamminess of the links. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The page (linked here) is just an advertisement for the book and other books. I'd think that was spammy enough to get Vikings chanting. And again, I've pointed out that the book does not meet the other qualifications that WP:Further reading gives (historically important works, seminal but outdated scientific works, creative or primary works that the article is the subject of); and it fails WP:ELNO #5 and #11. While they are guidelines instead of policies, reasoning based on the guidelines is more in line with overall site concensus than going against guidelines because an editor feels my actions are "robotic" based on ill-investigated assumptions that lead him to call me an SPA (again, despite working on a variety of topics here for five years). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I do hear the vikings singing, and I'll have spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam, but easy on the eggs. I'm not sure this is the right venue, however. Do we have a spam related noticeboard? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the original reason behind this was that the book is being included in two Further Reading sections, and the closest thing for that was this board. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the book relevant? It's a relevant text on some aspects of neo-Victorian life, specifically the wearing of corsets and "traditional" Victorian costume in everyday life., same as it was further up the page, same as it was when you first deleted it.

"the original reason" was that you dislike Weebly as a web platform (check your contributions history). Since then you've changed your reason every time you post to a different page looking for support. Now you still haven't heard the answer you wanted, so you've switched to edit-warring.

This book is a good source in relation to neo-Victorian costume. I wouldn't see it as adequately valuable for Victorian fashion. (you do realise there's a difference?) If other editors think that it's not relevant to the articles it's still in, then I'd have to recognise that we work by consensus here, but I'm not hearing that anyone else (Has anyone else actually read it?) thinks this. Your "reasons" though flip around every time you post. Incidentally, if you think that I'm just "Soft on Spam", then take a look at my contribs history. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the book being referenced, or the web site where the book is being sold? We do not have to include a link to the latter to reference the former. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two reasons to include the web site - whether you're not going to buy the book, or whether your are. This is a rare book, so few people will have bought a copy. The web site gives them some idea of the content, if they're not going to have it. As it's self-published, this is also the only source to buy the book, if you do want to buy it.

As an aside, the "standard reference" for women's costume, especially for this time, would be Norah Waugh's book. This is out of print, rare, highly sought after, and sells S/H for around six times what this "rather expensive" hand-bound book does. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The book is not being referenced in either article, and it is inaccurate misrepresentation to pretend otherwise. It is only in a "further reading" list. The whole thing is bookspam, which is just one more reason (not a different reason, but an additional reason) not to include it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know -- any cite of any book is liable to possibly lead people to buy it, if it's in print, so is inherently promotional. I guess one question would be, is the book a piece of crap that a person who doesn't really know what he's talking about wrote off the top of his head and mimeographed, or is it any good, or at least arguably any good? If it's any good, why not include it? If there are better books that the plaintiff can point to, that's different and we can talk about including them instead (or maybe in addition, unless it's a matter of the list being too long). Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that (as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread) the book IS NOT BEING CITED. It is only being included on the grounds of "if you're interested in this topic, you should buy this book." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

NOT BEING CITED (in the Misplaced Pages article) is not by itself a sufficient reason to remove a book from WP:FURTHER. The question to ask here is whether this book is a good reference on the topic(s) at hand. I decline WP:COMPETENCE to answer that part, but those who apparently know about this should focus the discussion on that issue. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ian, although I happen to agree with you, we are SOL because Misplaced Pages does not have a coherent policy on this issue, unfortunately. In the absence of a policy pretty much anything goes in the "Further Reading" section provided that the author/publisher is not also an editor of the article. Brmull (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about linking to the book, we're talking about linking to a web site promoting the book. What requires us to provide a link to where the book is sold, rather than simply listing the book without a link. There seems to be nothing of informational value on the web site in regard to the article topics, and including the link seems to violate the guideline WP:LINKSPAM. I would propose that we simply list the book, and drop the link.

Also, FuFoFuEd raises a good point, I would also suggest that unless an editor has the book itself in hand, adding the book as a further reading entry is inappropriate, as without having read it, there's no way an editor could have evaluated whether or not it has value. For all I know, the book could be excellent, or a steaming pile. Or do we judge book's by their covers? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's cited/referenced/recommended by other reliable works (potentially more accessible) is a good criteria. (See section below for a counterexample.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Other works that mentioned the book are not in the article. The only information the mention of the book is adding to the article is "you can buy this," which is advertising, plain and simple. The only information the book would be adding to the article is "Sarah Chrisman wore a corset and people thought she was weird or neat." The website (which I've provided links to twice in this discussion) does not give any information about the subject appropriate subjects except that you can buy this book (about this woman's day to day life while she happened to wear Victorian fashion) and other completely unrelated books.

According to the site: "Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live a Victorian life in modern-day surroundings? What is it really like to wear a corset twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week? How do modern people react to finding a "time-traveler" in their midst? Waisted Curves: My Transformation Into A Victorian Lady is the fascinating, true account of a twenty-first century woman learning to live a Victorian life."

It is not a scholarly source about neo-victorian fashion, but an autobiography. It is not a reference work, but entertainment. We might as well link to Star Trek fanfiction in articles about individual planets and stars. The articles are not about the author, so it is inappropriate (for these reasons as well) to include this book. That I have to point this out makes me wonder how many people in this discussion have actually looked at the link (again, here it is).

This is partly why I began to remove Weebly sites: I've found in the past that like many self-published sources they are often either promotional when they aren't unreliable (in the case of other links I've removed) or uninformative (as was the case here as well).

As for it being self-published, that means there was no editorial oversight, noone worried about taking the fall for an inaccurate book being published. That is the another rationale I've seen behind removing self-published works. Despite the (pointless) accusation of me constantly changing my reasons, listing multiple reasons does not mean that I am changing my reasons, but elaborating on past ones and adding additional ones. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"unless an editor has the book itself in hand"

As mentioned before, unfortunately I don't have it to hand right this moment, as when I bought it some time ago it was as a gift for someone else. However as someone who does have a certain degree of real-world interest in neo-Victorian fashion and Steampunk (I organise festivals about it, I sew, I even sew corsets), I would hope that my opnion might count for something more than just pattern-matching the URL. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that I'm not just pattern matching the URL, as I've already shown you. It matched the MO of other inappropriate links in other articles I've worked on over the years.

You may want to read User:Misza13/Nobody cares about your credentials, Misplaced Pages:Credentials are irrelevant, and Misplaced Pages:Ignore all credentials. Your personal interest means squat diddly, and it is pompous to assume that you having enjoyed the book justifies spamming a work sold as an autobiography, not a reference work, which has no editorial oversight. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked at the link. It starts off with a paragraph about how well made the publisher's book are, then the rest of the page is selling the book itself and other books. "Now available, exclusively from Aegis & Owl Press! Order your copy today, hand-bound in your choice of cloth, silk or leather!" We should not be linking to a page whose obvious purpose is to sell the book (and other books, as I said). Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is my concern as well. Andy Dingley, I am glad to hear that you have had the book in hand. I still believe that linking to the sale site for the book is inappropriate, since there's basically no information on that site about the topic. Ian.thomson has a point that the work is basically autobiographical and that none of our own experiences and knowledge are reliable source, even if the thought is expressed more harshly than one would wish in a cooperative effort. That being said, I think a link to the book alone is allowable under our policies and guidelines. But I would ask if there are not better resources we could point to, perhaps this, which do provide direct access to a significant amount of data on the topic? I found that particularly interesting as I did not realize that I was engaging in a neo-victorian activity by shaving with my grandfather's straight razor these last 35 years... --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Found something: The book was originally added by the user Sorcha Ban, whose only actions were to add the book repeatedly. As we see here, "Sorcha" is another username for the author. This was a case of spam by a real SPA, nothing more. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. If the book was added by someone who is connected to the author or the publisher it's definitely not appropriate, and this evidence you presented is pretty convincing. Brmull (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead

The lead to Transcendental Meditation movement includes the following phrase: "with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests." The source for that is a book titled The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe by Lynne McTaggart .

This is what the source says:

Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. Many of the studies have been published in impressive Journals, such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures. A recent study, the National Demonstration Project in Washington DC, conducted over two months in 1993, showed that when the local Super Radiance group increased to 4000, violent crime, which had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year, begun to fall, to 24 per cent, and continued to drop until the end of the experiment. As soon as the group disbanded, the crime rate rose again. The study demonstrated that the effect couldn’t have been due to such variables as weather, the police or any special anti-crime campaign.

The source says nothing about the TM movement beyond this single sentence, gives no evidence, quotes, citations or anything to support this passing assertion which is taken out of context. Given that the assertion is unsupported and taken out of context, is this book a reliable source, as used? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the statement is reliably sourced, and I think that's dubious, it should be removed from the lede because it is not discussed further in the article. The reader has no idea what this ominous-sounding statement is referring to. Brmull (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I may have been the editor who wrote that. The material can certainly be expanded on in the text if that's the problem.

• ...the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests...
• ...with concerns that the movement was being run to promote the Maharishi's personal interests.

That's a reasonably close paraphrase. I don't see any assertion that McTaggart is not a reliable source. I'm not sure why this noticeboard was chosen, but I don't see the sourcing problem.   Will Beback  talk  09:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead should be a brief introductory to the article. This information fails to meet that criteria. I think its unconvincing. --Freknsay (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's no reason to delete text, just to move it.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly a book that purports to give "a compelling presentation of the theory that there is a measurable life force in the universe" strikes me as unreliable for any purpose outside an article about itself or its author, Lynne McTaggart. Or maybe Jedis exist? FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

An article in the Sunday Times described the book as "a triumph of pseudoscience" and clarified that "about the only thing experts agree on is that quantum effects do not support homeopathy, extrasensory perception or any of the other nonsense in The Field." If there are any worthy facts in that book, I'm sure other more reliable sources have them as well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a Google News search for "Maharishi" and "scam" easily find less dubious and less vague sources you could cite instead (Statesman Journal) "Many TM teachers and students claim the technique has changed their lives, yet some scientists, scholars and former TM practitioners criticize TM as a deceitful money-making scam." FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular sentence is unreliable because it is an anomaly. The paragraph is about something entirely different and that isolated phrase is an unsubstantiated statement by the author. Thus,the source is unreliable in the way it is being used. As, I think, Brmulls says, the sentence is just left dangling there. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't require reliable sources to have footnotes. I've never heard of the theory that a passage in a source can be unreliable because it is an "anomaly". Are you saying that no one else ever accused the Maharishi of having interest in personal gain? If so, that's incorrect. That's one of the reasons why the Beatles and the Kaplan brothers broke with him.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

McTaggart is also used as a source in another TM-related article, TM-Sidhi program

• In regard to "Super Radiance", author Lynne McTaggert wrote in her 2003 book, The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, says that despite ridicule "largely because of the Maharishi's own personal interests, the sheer weight of the data is compelling." She also said that "Many of the studies have been published in impressive journals such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution, the Journal of Mind and Behavior, and Social Indicators Research, which means that they would have had to meet stringent reviewing procedures".

If we're going to consider tossing out McTaggart than this passage should probably go too.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They are two different articles and the source is used in differently in each, so I suggest we stick with the subject at hand. This thread is about an unsubstantiated single sentence in the lead of the TMM article. As far as I can read, most people feel it is not appropriately placed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the same topic, the same source, even the same paragraph. As for whether there is sufficient material in the body of the article to support inclusion in the lead, that can be fixed by adding more material to the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of references in the DSM

I'm having a discussion at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#DSM_references about the DSM. The book does not discuss paraphilic infantilism at all, and I've removed all references to the DSM-IV-TR from that page. Bittergrey (talk · contribs) has replaced them with no justification in complete error since the DSM fundamentally does not verify the text. This is an extremely simple matter, I photocopied the page range specified and read them beginning to end, there is no discussion of paraphilic infantilism. Page 572 does mention infantilism within the context of masochism but the two are different paraphilias. However, the removal has already been reverted once without justification or evidence I'm wrong, so this will hopefully head things off. It's very simple - the DSM-IV-TR does not discuss paraphilic infantilism, so it should not be used as a citation in the text. That's how I see it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if we can wrap this up before WLU wastes too much of this boards' time. In response to the claim "Page 572 does mention infantilism within the context of masochism but the two are different paraphilias." That page lists infantilism as a type of masochism (302.83) quite explicitly. In terms of categories, they are both reported as masochism (302.83). For brevity, DSM doesn't repeat the types of masochism in every location where it discusses masochism. While not as verbose as other sources, the DSM is a consensus document from a national body of professionals, available in most US libraries. A more reliable source is difficult to imagine.

Six minutes prior to WLU's post above, he asserted "I've read them all , paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear.". This would directly contradict his statement above, and document that most of his debating about the DSM preceded a careful reading of it. At this time he had already repeatedly modified or deleted references to the DSM.

I suspect that concerns about DSM have nothing to do with the true conflict here. WLU was at 3RR before raising any issue with the DSM. He also replaced my request for a third opinion to try to make it seem that this is strictly a formatting issue. He then gamed 3RR(28 hours - ) to avoid waiting for that third opinion.

WLU and I do have a past. In terms of RSs, I've had to clean up one time when he cited a Misplaced Pages printout, for sale though a diaper company, as an RS. That past round, the only edit war he could pick on this particular article was with a bot.

My motivation is simple: The DSM isn't an easy read, so I believe references to it should be very specific. Page numbers do take up some space in the article, but not that much. BitterGrey (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• BitterGrey, is it your belief that the "infantilism" mentioned in the DSM in association with masochism is exactly the same thing as "paraphilic infantilism"?
• WLU, I see exactly one sentence in the Google Books snippet on infantilism, which says "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism'). Is that all that the DSM says about the specific subject? I ask, because BitterGrey seems to have found scope for fifteen inline citations to the DSM, thirteen of which contain information not contained in the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The DSM defines infantilism as a masochism, in the paraphilias section. The paraphilic infantilism article here was initially titled simply "infantilism."

As for WLU, his contradictory statements about the DSM show that his reading of the DSM isn't the soundest: WLU@infantilism: "I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear" And six minutes later: WLU@RSN "Page 572 does mention infantilism..the two are different paraphilias.".

WhatamIdoing, can I take your involvement here as an indication that you ARE involved in this (which means someone else is soon to be involved too)? Basically, we've got an editor who gamed 3RR (4 edits in 28 hours) to avoid waiting for a third opinion, after replacing my request for a third opinion to try to make it seem that this is strictly a formatting issue. Then he goes on to delete material after dismissing RSs that he clearly did not understand. WLU has not been willing to discuss why this is so important to him all of a sudden. Last time it was so important to him all of a sudden, you and I had recently had a debate, and now we have recently had a debate again. BitterGrey (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes WAID, that is the sole occurrence of the word infantilism within the DSM according to google books. I've photocopied and read all six of the pages formerly cited in the paraphilic infantilism article. None are relevant to paraphilic infantilism. The closest you could say would be what applies to this set of paraphilias would have to apply to paraphilic infantilism specifically. I don't think that's valid at all. The sentence found on page 572 is within the context of masochism, as in one subset of masochists may enjoy being forced to wear diapers. It is clearly a subset of masochistic behaviour, not an independent thing. The only citation I would support would be along the lines of "some masochists may enjoy being forced to wear diapers" and in retrospect that should be included. You can't legitimately say everything that applies to masochism applies to infantilists, not by any means. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, do you now accept that the position you had on the DSM when edit warring to remove the detailed references - "The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism, period... I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear" - was wrong? Debating what the DSM has to say about paraphilic infantilism is pointless if you won't acknowledge that it is, in fact, mentioned. 'Google deep' readings don't cut it with DSM - all the more reason to include detailed references. BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism. It discusses sexual masochists who are infantilized as part of their sexual repertoire, not infantilist. The phrase "paraphilic infatilism" does not appear in the book. I've photocopied and read all six pages cited, the word "infantilism" appears exactly once, as a behaviour of masochists. You can't apply everything said about masochists to paraphilic infantilists merely because "infantilism" appears once. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

From not appearing at all to being mentioned once? At least that is progress. At this rate, your position will have moved to be indistinguishable from (but still somehow in conflict with) mine in about one or two weeks.

By the way, I'd be more than happy to discuss the DSM with anyone interested in discussing it. BitterGrey (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated, a single sentence on infantilism appears on pg. 572 of DSM-IV TR ('The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism")'. This appears on the entry on Sexual Masochism (302.83) which takes up about one page (c. 350 words). It appears as part of list of masochistic acts that may be sought with a partner (these are: bondage, blindfolding, paddling, spanking, whipping, beating, electrical shocks, cutting, infibulation, being urinated or defecated on, being forced to crawl or bark like a dog, being subjected to verbal abuse, forced cross dressing, hypoxyphilia or sexual arousal through asphyxiation). This entry on infantilism as one of a long list of acts illustrative of potentially masochistic behaviour is identical to that in the previous edition of the manual (DSM-IV: 529)

In the article a number of statements reference the DSM-IV TR.

(1) In the majority of cases, it does not interfere greatly with a person's work or casual social life. It is characterized by the seemingly uncontrollable desire to wear diapers, due to reasons other than medical necessity, and/or be treated as an infant - Ref DSM-IV TR 572-73.

This is problematic because, according to the DSM-IV TR one of the two criteria for the diagnosis of Sexual Masochism is that it causes 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning' (p.573). Thus, if an individual enjoys "infantilism" but does not suffer from social, occupational or other impairment in function one does not, according to the DSM-IV TR have a paraphilia (likewise a "transvestite", according to the DSM, that is neither distressed nor socially or otherwise impaired is not a "transvestite" regardless of whether they cross dress or not). DSM-5 is going to change this approach in recognising that the paraphilias are not necessarily disorders and thus by distinguishing between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder (e.g. tranvestitism and transvestite disorder). Paraphilic disorders would indicate that the sufferer was distressed or impaired or harm to others .

The DSM IV-TR's reference to diaper wearing and being treated like an infant is in the context of behaviour that is humiliating to the individual.

(2) The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, indicates that a majority of infantilists are heterosexual males. - DSM IV-TR 568

The relevant passage from the DSM states that except for Sexual Masochism the paraphilias 'are almost never diagnosed in females'. Male sexual masochists outnumber female sexual masochists by 20 to 1. This statement, therefore, is almost certainly true but it would be better to get a rs that specifically talks about infantilism in this context rather than having to deduce the fact from the general statement in the DSM.

(3) DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention. - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

The pages referenced cover the Fetishistic (569-70) and Sexually Masochistic (572-73) paraphilias. Neither ABs nor DLs are referred to. It seems clear that ABs are being treated as Sexual Masochists and DLs as Fetishists. It may be a reasonable argument to treat these categories in this way but one would have to find a source for it. Also these pages of the DSM do not talk about the self-image of either paraphilia.

(4) Neither includes a sexual preference for children. - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

Again, this is a discussion of Sexual Masochism and Fetishism. ABs and DLs are not mentioned. There is no indication of a sexual preference for kids, but the writing here is deceptive as ABs and DLs are not the focus of these sections.

(5) There is no singular, typical behavior for paraphilic infantilism, but a wide range of thought patterns and behaviors. Some fantasize about being free of guilt, responsibility, or control, whereas others might not. Some act indistinguishably from a baby at times, while others practice in a way that would probably not be noticed by passers by on the street. The desires and tastes of paraphilic infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood. - DSM-IV TR 572-73

While the previous instances might indicate a creative reading of the DSM through the extension of a discussion of the broad paraphilias to certain behaviours/acts indicative of these conditions, this section has no basis in the source material. It is pure invention.

(6) Although there is no typical AB/DL, the interests of AB/DLs tend to fall along a spectrum. This can be called the spectrum between infantilism and diaper fetishism - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

Pure invention. No basis in the source.

(7) On the adult baby side of the spectrum is an interest in roleplaying as a baby or small child, called infantilism.- DSM IV TR 572-73

Pure invention. No basis in the source which only talks about the desire for humiliation.

(8) On the diaper lover side of the spectrum is an urge toward wearing diapers for sensations of comfort or sexual stimulation. Diaper lovers commonly focus on diapers as fetish items, or sexually charged objects - DSM-IV TR 569-70

It's a reasonable discussion of fetishism but the source does not talk about diaper wearing or diaper fetishes but only about fetishism in the broad sense with a limited set of examples. It's a misrepresentation of the sources as the articles reads as if the DSM specifically addresses diaper lovers when it does not.

(9) Infantilists have a desire to be infants themselves, those with a diaper fetish have a sexual interest in diapers, and neither include a sexual interest towards children - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

On the assumption that another rs can support the (reasonable) contention that diaper loving qualifies as a fetish one could then say that the DSM gives not indication that either Sexual Masochists or Fetishists are not defined in regard to a sexual interest in kids. The other statements are unsupported by the source.

(10) Many published cases are only tangentially related (other sources) to infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with the basic paraphilias - DSM-IV TR 568

Not sure what is meant by this as it is clear that any reasonable definition of diaper loving or adult babies that relies on the DSM would have to consider them as behaviours associated with broader paraphilic categories (fetishism and sexual masochism).

(11) There is a strong tendency for AB/DLs to be male. Estimates range from 10 to 20 males per female AB/DL. - DSM-IV TR 568

As above, the reference here is to gender ratio among the Sexual Masochists. The ratio given in the DSM for Sexual Masochists is 20 to 1.

That's it. I think the DSM has been misrepresented to imply that it directly addresses infantilism when it does not. Some stuff has just been made up. FiachraByrne (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is an army publication a reliable source?

I'm having a bit of a problem at User talk:Nathan2055#Sir. I'm not sure whether army publications are a reliable source in this case. Thanks, Nathan2055 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of Army publication? Assuming this is not a NPOV/notability issue, are we talking about publication from the unit itself, or publications from Center of Military History or the Pentagon? If it is from the unit itself, then it is a limited used primary source. If it is the latter two cases then it is definitely reliable (if you discount the POV issues). Jim101 (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer is: it depends. Please provide adequate details as requested at the top of this page. (I can give you an example where the answer is "no, not really".) FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The publications are from other sources (Institute of Heraldry, US Army Center of Military History, Fort Drum Garrison Website, Bagram Airbase, etc.). I think that it's reliable. Thanks, Nathan2055 17:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Fourth United States Army only cites gov't publications, it seems. If it's not from the same battalion/unit/squadron, what have you, gov't documents qualify -- Misplaced Pages:Secondary does not mean independent. Also, credible gov't organizations (as opposed to private groups claiming to be part of the gov't) usually effectively auto-qualify for notability (or so I was told when I used to tag new articles for deletion).

afterelton.com/user/19

This op-ed appears unreliable - closer to a blog post , Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight the posters details are here - http://www.afterelton.com/user/19 - I am also worried about the large excessive chat discussion in the external after the blog post that discusses our BLP article excessively - imo not the type of discussion content that we should be linking to our articles about living people without an extremely good reason of benefit to our readers which this desired addition clearly does not have. Please be aware - the discussion regarding our article in the comments of this external have attracted a lot of WP:SPA to the related Misplaced Pages discussion. - please read the extensive chat discussions related to wikipedia before commenting, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be user-generated content, which isn't allowed. That pages's author is refered to as a "user" by the site, not "author" or "writer." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the author is identified by the site as an "editor", and this does appear to be a professional blog. What's going on in the comments section does not affect whether the source is reliable. Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to his page, he is a published novelist that became an editor for After Elton in 2005. That doesn't sound like a "user" to me. Silverseren 01:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Absent any information making the user's opinion specifically notable (in which case it would still have to be labelled as an opinion), the claim is "contentious" quite clearly, and stronger non-involved sourcing should reasonably be required. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally the WP article we're talking about is Luke Evans (actor). Brmull (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. Michael Jensen is not a particularly successful author - "Frontiers" ranks at #1,174,130 which is not exactly indicative of a major author. 'Firelands" is not as popular. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We're not discussing writing an article about Michael Jensen. Silverseren 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that we're not quoting the writer's opinion, we're quoting the comment he received from Evans' publisher, which is notable. Silverseren 01:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

According to our own article (AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com), "Michael Jensen has been the editor in chief of AfterElton.com since November 2005". AfterElton is owned by Logo whose parent is Viacom. So the question here isn't really about "user generated content" as suggested earlier, it is about a piece written by the editor-in-chief of a Viacom-owned website, quoting the BLP subject's publicist. While there are good reasons to handle all issues relating to labelling someone's sexuality with care, this issue has been needlessly turned into a polemical dispute. I think both sides need to step back. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Those thinking about wading into this should be aware of the frighteningly big debate at BLP/N. This doesn't mean you shouldn't get involved, but bring a flack jacket if you do.BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Bendell, Don (01 August 2007). ""Father" John Anthony Corapi". POW Network. Retrieved 09 August 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
2. Ghosh, Srikanta (2000). Bihar in flames. APH Publishing. pp. 4, 9. ISBN 9788176481601. Retrieved 2011-07-12.
3. Pathak, Bindeshwar (1992). Rural violence in India. Concept. pp. 59–60, 67, 98. ISBN 9788170223191. Retrieved 2011-07-12.
4. Pathak, Bindeshwar (1992). Rural violence in India. Concept. pp. 98–102. ISBN 9788170223191. Retrieved 2011-07-12.
5. Thapar-Bjorkert, Suruchi (2006). "Killing Fields". In Yuval-Davis, Nira; Kannabirān, Kalpana; Vieten, Ulrike (eds.). The situated politics of belonging. Sage studies in international sociology. Vol. 55. SAGE. p. 142. ISBN 9781412921015. Retrieved 2011-08-07.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution