Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:24, 11 November 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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

After Midnight Project

Just to let you know. After talking to an informed source via Derek Gallegos( band manager),After Midnight Project has been disbanded.

Salim Al-Hassani and muslimheritage.com

After noticing today that muslimheritage.com is being widely used across Misplaced Pages, I came across this thread about its employment. Can we do something about this with a bot or something? Also, the Salim Al-Hassani—is this not little more than a puff piece? I also note that he's behind the extremely dubious 1001 Inventions exhibitions (i.e. every claim made in this official trailer alone—the camera obscura, flight, surgery, astrolabes, clocks, etc.—is blatantly pre-dated by a non-Islamic source). After the massive Jagged incident not long ago, it would seem to me that some sort of bot may be appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the article. It is phrased somewhat positively, but seems ok overall. Sourcing is a mixed bag, but I checked that many of the claims are supported by reliable sources, and none seems wrong. Notability is not a question. The "1001 Inventions" exhibition is shown by major museums and has won prices. Thus, while you may have doubts, without reliable sources criticising it, neither should we. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Schulz, click any of those articles I link to; camera obscura, aviation history, surgery, astrolabe. They blatantly and demonstratably contradict the claims made by this "1001 Inventions" exhibition; we cannot simply use this as a source when it's blatantly wrong and misleading. These are by no means reliable sources, and they shouldn't get some kind of pass because the exhibition and its creator are famous. Rather than attempt to push a serious concern off without doing the necessary research to understand the situation, please step to the side until someone else who is willing to put the time in may appear. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I should note that I have been asked to contribute to this debate, but anyway, with that disclaimer: as your link to the previous discussion shows, bloodofox, it has been previously agreed that muslimheritage.com is not a reliable source, especially with regard to scientific history, and specifically with regard to claims of "being first". I've had to try to pin down some of the references used by the 1001 inventions exhibition, and I've not been wildly impressed. In one case I looked at, no page reference is given for an 800 page work! When I tried to pin it down how this 100 year old source (not exactly modern scholarship) supported the claims that the medieval Islamic city of Cordoba had public lighting and litter collection, I didn't have a great deal of success. The source said that the city was well lit and kept clean, but I could find absolutely nothing to support the assertion that there was public litter collection (as opposed to, say, efficient street cleaners). According to other Wikipedians, the "public lighting" in Cordoba was essentially half a dozen lamps in the main square, provided by the local ruler. I should check the other source given, which has page references, but in any case that source is not anything as helpful as a history of medieval Cordoba by a specialist in that area; it's a book on "The Mind of the Middle Ages", which apparently mentions Cordoba in passing. So in both cases, the 1001 inventions assertions are not well referenced, and to the extent that they may be true, 1001 inventins seems rather slanted to give an impression of a more advanced society than actually existed. The suggestion of it being first in these areas strikes me as nearly impossible to prove, given our incomplete knowledge of the ancient world (and the fact that writers rarely bother writing about litter collection). I'd be surprised if a reputable ancient scholar would be prepared to make such a claim without much more conclusive proof. Cordoba was certainly an advanced city for its time, but to say it had public litter collection and public lighting (with bad referencing) gives the reader the impression of weekly bin collections and public lights on every street, which as far as I can tell wasn't the case.

In terms of the specific question of using a bot for muslimheritage and 1001 inventions, I guess a bot could at least find all the references for checking, but I'd be wary of it doing automated deletion or whatever, at least until a significant sample of the references had been checked by a human.--Merlinme (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree that all these need checking against good historical sources. Gies & Gies on medieval technology have a chapter on the transfer of technology from Asia to Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably most ancient cities had street cleaners. There is some story about an emperor of Rome having mud stuffed down the toga of an official who was in charge of keeping the streets clean because they were muddy. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

As always WIkipedia has something about it, aediles were in charge of street cleaning. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit more on why Muslimheritage.com is unreliable: It was previously discussed at RSN#18 and RSN#27. In summary, muslimheritage.com is unreliable because, among other things, it releases a lot of non-peer reviewed work, has no clear review board or process, sometimes publishes articles with no author attribution, and has published a number of works with numerous citation problems, including the Arslan Terzioglu article mentioned in your RSN#27 link and 'Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times' discussed on my talk page User_talk:Dialectric#Problem_Source:_Islamic_Medicine:_1000_years_ahead_of_its_times. As to the cleanup process, fortunately muslimheritage.com as a string is unique enough that wikipedia's special search page will pick up most (all?) instances of it. I've used the search to remove the site when it was used as a sole reference for a number of claims in history articles. Dialectric (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Use Special:LinkSearch to find external links: this shows 296 occurrences of muslimheritage.com (which includes usage in 119 articles). One of the non-article occurrences is this report by Spacepotato, and another, which explain some problems with the site. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Stephan Schulz's statement was clear: "while you may have doubts, without reliable sources criticising it, neither should we". Therefore, any removal of MuslimHeritage links will be reverted as it appears to be a unilateral decision not based on any strong argument. Dialectric linked to several pages where some editors have discovered some mistakes in the works published on MuslimHeritage.com. Issues like failing to note an earlier European invention, and thus reached the conclusion that it is an unreliable and biased reference. By that logic, Dialectric will have to remove any works by any Western academic who has failed to mention an earlier invention by Indian or Chinese scholars. It is also astonishing how an editor in one of Dialectric's linked pages argued for its unreliability, claiming that it "exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias" because one work contrasts the advancement of the Medieval Islamic civilization with the darkness which enveloped Europe during the Middle Ages. In other words, a scholar is not allowed to criticize the European Middle Ages, and it's worse if that is followed by a praise for a non-European civilization, because ridiculing Medieval Europe is only permissible when talking about the Renaissance, otherwise that scholar is exhibiting a strong pro-Islamic or pro-Chinese bias. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Attempts at lawyering like this do not help any of us. It has been well illustrated that this source is deep red on the "unreliable" scale by the various users above who have checked into it here (and those that have done so prior, as illustrated by the unsurprising amount of incidents where the issue has come up before). It must thus be treated as such, no matter what religious beliefs any of us may hold or what cultural sphere we may stem from. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias" was in reference to a specific paper hosted on muslimheritage.org, and not the site in general. That specific paper, Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times link has problems well beyond just an unfavorable comparison of medieval European and Muslim civilizations; I will elaborate on the issues with this paper on Al-Andalusi's talk page. Dialectric (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

bharat-rakshak.com vs pakdef.info

I'll like to point out this previously discussed archive which regards pakdef.info as a non reliable source (calling it a self published website) by some editors while bharat-rakshak.com on the other hand is being widely quoted on wikipedia. Note, that both are military consortiums of Pakistan & India and have articles on military histories of the two countries. Either both these sites should be considered unreliable or both should be allowed to be quoted since they have similar mission statements and similar objectives. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Try to be moderate instead of saying 'Either both these sites should be considered unreliable or both should be allowed'. You cant argue that 'since PakDef is a Non:RS' as not all sources of same kind are reliable, some are not but some are. There has been an extensive discussion about it here .

To quote from the discussion-

'Please also note that the BR links are permanent and verifiable references and sources and satisfies verifiabillity, a key wikipedia policy. It would be advisable not to remove these links from references, because in some cases (like the 1971 war) BR is amongst the few to have an extensive content and recognisable primary work and opinion. In addition, a number of the articles are sourced with permission from Sainik Samachar which is published by the Indian Ministry of Defence'.

Swift&silent (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This matter is already discussed . And it has been considered as a Reliable Source. i dont agree with the statement Either both these sites should be considered unreliable or both be allowed. with just a quick view of the of pakdef.info we find the quote We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website and PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation..this two statements tell us a lot about the non-reliablity of Pakdef. Whereas BR articles are cited and clearly referenced and used by news community also. many of BR articles are news articles. I support Bharat-Rakshak as a reliable source. dBigXray (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the matter of being moderate. We can't overlook policy. Both the websites have very similar motives and have similar content from their respective versions. Whether it has been considered before or not, I'm here to get a consensus about it with respect to pakdef.info. Yes, both sides have to get the same conclusion, whether you agree or not, they are both military consortiums. Almost every news or publishing website retains the right to publish whichever content they say is fit. This is no criteria of judging their reliability in what they do publish. You can not force NY Times to publish your own written article, yet it is considered reliable!

As discussed in pakdef.info articles are also cited, yet it was considered as a self published source. Just because bharat-rakshak.com has "extensive coverage" (which I would call POV) doesn't mean it's reliable and it is also subject to being WP:OR to which Swift&silent is referring to as "primary work". In any case, pakdef.info also has significant coverage, citations and properly gives credits if we are judging on those basis. Also clarifying the selective disinformation by the user above about the mission statement of pakdef.info to be clear, the mission statement also includes this:

"At PMC, our mission is to counter disinformation about Pakistan by providing unadulterated truth."

The claim (from the discussion the user quoted) that bharat-rakshak.com is checked by any Indian military so as to claim it as the official or even endorsed Indian version is baseless. The reason being, a whois on bharat-rakshak.com reveals that the site is hosted outside the jurisdiction of the Indian government in United Kingdom! --lTopGunl (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note that above two users are editors in dispute and not uninvolved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind again to lTopGunl that all cases are evaluated on their own merits. Just because PakDef was declared Non:RS doesnt mean one can say Jane's shall be a Non:RS too!

Bharat-Raksakh is a reliable source as have been discussed in great depth and here . Swift&silent (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Those discussions were mostly contributed by involved editors making one consortium as an RS and other not and are certainly not discussed in great depth. I've explained my point above, may be you should let some uninvolved editors comment on the subject instead of you declaring everything as 'done' in your favour. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We have to consider the two cases separately. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Then we should reconsider both & the link given by swift&silent (for bharat-rakshak.com) because those discussions were overshadowed by involved editors only. I've created two subheadings. Keep in consideration the above noted text before commenting on the headings below. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Where was pakdef.info declared non-RS? At the entry started by UplinkAnsh in April 2010, there is only a ONE LINE comment by a "neutral" party, JayJG, stating that pakdef "appears" to be a self-published site. When I posted a pakdef webpage citing several popular aviation-related publications, there was no response whatsoever from a "neutral" party. Therefore, as far as I know, pakdef has not been "declared" non-RS (other than by those who I believe to have pro-Indian agendas). In my opinion, to label PakDef non-RS because it contains historical information from a Pakistani perspective while calling bharat rakshak a RS because it contains historical information from an Indian perspective is not only hypocritical, but racist also. I do understand that many editors may not want to get involved in heated Indo-Pak related disputes such as this one, but such topics very much need neutral parties to be involved. I agree with User:Itsmejudith's point that the two cases should be considered seperately, but they should be considered by neutral editors before anybody starts "declaring" one or the other to be non-RS. --Hj108 (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So far involved editors are the only ones discussing it here. There's no point of referring to RSN if we keep on flooding. I think so many comments will discourage neutral editors to participate since it takes a lot of time to read. We've all made our points, lets wait for neutral input. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the questionable sources section of the policy, both these websites are not reliabale in the Misplaced Pages sense. Pakdef contains absolutely no information on who forms the editorial board for their content and while Bharat-Raksahak.com does provide a list of at least 3 editors over the last decade and a half, we are not provided with information on the reputation of these editors (or what qualifies them as editors). Since the reputation for checking facts for both of these sites cannot be determined and since either do not have editorial oversight (Pakdef.info) or an unverifiable editorial oversight (Bharat-Rakshak.com), we should treat them as unreliable sources. Between the two, Bharat-Rakshak does seem to have two editors who are known for their work in this area but only in a limited way (Jaideep E. Menon, an editor and Security Research Review team member, writes for Rediff.com and Airavat Singh, an editor, is the author or Op Kartikeya). Zuggernaut (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Shifted good faith comment by the user to the main section as a consensus is there to consider both sources separately. About the questionable sources, the section doesn't require the mention of the editorial board. Also an editor commented in the Pakdef section that the website is cited in other reliable sources making it reliable. In addition the website cites and credits the articles and quotations properly where required as per questionable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zuggernaut. Both these sites need to be considered as non-reliable sources as they fail the questionable sources policy. . Information should come from peer-reviewed papers, books which are not self published and clearly neutral sites which have referenced sources. AshLin (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakdef.info

It's a notable military consortium for Pakistan military disclaiming influence of Pakistani government sources and claiming unadulterated POV. The users dbigxray, swift&silent & uplinkansh have been repeatedly claiming it to be a self published source (which it is not). The site has reviews written by other sites like cambridgeforecast.org & . --lTopGunl (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Making pakdef.info as wiki reliable will end up making all wiki articles about Pakistan showing glorious (read as over exaggerated ) past and the loving (read as Biased) present(source: of pakdef.info ). In my opinion the articles of pakdef.info are severely biased and often wrong.not a Wiki Reliable source in my opinion the current status where it is marked as un-Reliable is correct. Others are free to give their opinions on this.----ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming their right to publish as their biasness. This is not on what judgements are based, because all publishers retain these rights. In addition to that, their mission statement includes provision of unadultered truth. Unlike bharat-rakshak.com's publications, their publications are usually not in contradiction with so many other neutral sources.

You should not mislead any potential neutral editor by giving it a current status as the previous RSN on this source was inconclusive with only one neutral editor adding a single line in comments as explained by User:Hj108 above. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

PakDef's mission statement

Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.

We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website

PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

They recently changed it but it shows their bias in a clear light. Swift&silent (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to stuff the ballot box here. Its a military consortium for Pakistan's armed forces, and mission statements like that donot reveal any biasness in the publications by the website. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: that Swift&silent misquoted the mission statement in his attempt to stuff the ballot box, even when quoting in inverted commas the user has skipped the statements like "At PMC, our mission is to counter disinformation about Pakistan by providing unadulterated truth." from the mission statement and only added the reservation of rights sentence. This is manipulation by misquoting to push prejudice into neutral editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Its not Misquoting. An imp line has been highlighted that need to be considered while judging this case. if you are angry with that, you are welcome to Copypaste the whole mission statement, and spam the space here(and overstuff the ballot box) (while a link is already there that leads to the statement, thats needless), Their mission and content of website gives a clear message that the site is purely a propaganda site meant to appease people by exaggerating some points while downplaying others, i doubt if we can accept such a source as a citation on Wiki Articles. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is called misquoting when you quote something in inverted commas and omit sentences at your will. Infact as you said, there wasn't even a need to paste the mission statement as the link is there and editors can see that on the site. Quoting a sentence or even a paragraph is one thing, while using different sentences from different paragraphs and putting them in one and quoting that in inverted commas is strictly another. I hope you know that difference. This is stuffing of ballot box when some one manipulates like this. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Might be of use to editors asking for notability and reliability of the site. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• To all who have bolded their text here: it isn't generally encouraged, as it can look like shouting. Italics work too. Jesanj (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's the reason we haven't got any input from non involved editors yet! It already looks like a heated debate with every one still commenting after making their point. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I took a look at PacDef. I have to say their Mission Statement raises a red flag right off the bat, but let's have a look at the GBooks: 76 hits. Right off the bat, we find one that's a RAND study - but it appears to be citing its forums as an example of web discussion on a subject . Same for the United States Institute of Peace - cited, but also as an example of web chatter. We do have an Oxford University Press book that uses it as a source , while a book by a private security company cites it extensively . Books by Stanford University Press and Cornell University Press each cite it once . My gut feeling here is that PacDef has strong possibility as a reliable source, but the low gBooks hits (noting, as with B-R, that a number are Wikimirrors/reprints and self-published) has me add the caveat insufficent data for high confidence in result - use with caution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The only useful input we got here. :)

Yes, I think even though there is some caution involved but it is definitely not non-RS because of the fact that reliable sources like & quoted it as a reliable source. The site publications are mostly in coherence with other reliable sources. I'll also like to note that Pakistan's online presence is not as much as India and hence it is likely of not having mirrors and self referencing as in case of BR. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The judgement of the neutral editor clearly states that the source is not uniformly reliable and considerable judgement needs to be used when citing pakdef sources. It is obvious that pakdef sources are suspect when used in contesting disputed facts. For such issues, the facts will need corroboration not by pakdef but by other reliable sources. AshLin (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The OUP and CUP books with references pakdef are actually citing articles published in the Defence Journal and News Intelligence Unit, which were cached on pakdef. They don't cite pakdef's original content. The citation from SUP was for missile data point, again not for original pakdef content. So it seems, pakdef maybe cited with caution for content it has cached from other reliable sources or for factual data. It doesn't seem advisable to rely on the site's original content. --Skcpublic (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to have a clear consensus about the Reliability of Pakdef.info, Most of the Articles of Pakdefinfo does not cite any verifiable sources. In the mission statements Pakdef.info have clearly mentioned that they accept Thesis Glorifying pakistan. Anyone who has written Thesis glorifying Pakistan can be accepted by them and published as an article without citing any source below. Using these Pakdefinfo articles as a reference for Editing wikipedia article is bound to create problems for Misplaced Pages editors, as it will often clash with the reliable sources. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• For example there has been by the above user lTopGunl (talk) and the article Operation Chengiz Khan and the site http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/1971war/warinwest.html has been used as a major source. It is important to note that this Pakdef.info article does not state any source or reference for this information. Also Pakdef.info has clearly mentioned that Pakdef.info have nothing to do with the Government of Pakistan, its military establishment or any civil agency.. Even then it gives various detailed information in Their source is questionable and I encourage the Members to give a extensive review about Pakdef.info or else the editors at Misplaced Pages have to be ready to face a number of disputes that will surely arise in future because of the edits on wiki articles based on the thought provoking thesis on Pakistan published on http://pakdef.info/mission.html --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We already got a clear consensus. You are disruptively pushing it long after a consensus was established.Articles on the source are cited and credited. As for the operation chengez khan, you are wrong. The source has credited then Indian air force chief's book for most of its information. You have repeatedly been wrongly framing the issue and forum shopping. Lastly for your point about the disclaimer that it is not related to the military only makes it neutral like the other sources, which too are not related to Pakistan military. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus and by the way, in such disputes there is no timeline for you to enforce. The consensus is to be established by neutral editors and the discussion closed by them, not by a unilateral declaration on your part. AshLin (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Skcpublic, the reference is given to the pakdef and not the mirror content you claim hence citing pakdef and verifying its reliability. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors who are trying to WP:FORUMSHOP here, please note that this is a concluded discussion.--lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

THe article that i have brought into notice does not give any sources or citations. this clearly raises a red flag. also the Discussion is not concluded. dont assume things. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is cited from the Indian airforce chief's book (credited on pakdef as well as separately credited on the article). Yes, it was concluded, you keep coming back day after day to this to repeat your claims. A consensus was already achieved. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

i have checked , it does not cite any sources for it, dont mislead and give wp:OR . The dispute is not yet closed. your repetition of words wont make any difference. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's to your out right lies. :

• "All the preceding passages are from a narrative of events by Air Chief Marshal P C Lal, who commanded the IAF during the 1971 war, from his book “My Days with the IAF.”--lTopGunl (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Its imp to underline that only the source of Narrative (i.e. the quotes) has been attributed. in the next line

the article says

Bomb damage reports except the last one (Bhuj) have been positively identified from the book as relating to the first day of the PAF’s counter air campaign ie 3 December. It would be reasonable to assume that similar levels of damage continued to occur during the next thirteen days as well.

A source which gives information on such ( historically incorrect and) wild assumptions (using the offensive of first day to be a basis for next 13 days), It would be unwise to accept the articles on Pakdef.info as a reliable one, This is just one example that came out because of the wiki article in question , there would be many such instances, that would add fuel to future disputes.Such occurances are not surprising if we look the fact that anyone with a Glorious thesis would be published on pakdef.info . I would request the fellow editors not to go on feelings but to decide logically, as the wiki articles are based on reliable facts and not wild assumptions especially when we are dealing with Important Historical wiki Articles --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you have now come to accept it to be as source that was attributed to the passages in contrast to your previous claim of none (which is an obvious fact that a publication will not simply copy-paste the whole book)... You keep reframing the issue to your own accord. The assumption is not given as a source's assumption but as a damage analysis assumption since PAF didn't needlessly send so many reconnaissance sorties after the first day due to the inherent danger and assumed further damages to be of similar kind as of operation chengez khan. You mentioned a "fact" that anyone with a glorious thesis would be published on pakdef, while the mission statement says it will only publish unadulterated truth. So don't count your own opinion as "facts", All your comments on the article are baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify this again, This Dispute is still active and not yet closed (dont wp:ASSUME) things on your own we only have a view from a neutral user, also the discussion is not a wp:FORUMSHOPPING if you are not interested in an active discussion there is no need for you to comment uselessly to flood the thread and deviate and mislead others from the topic. Please refrain. their mission statement of accepting thesis, randomly accepting and rejecting contents to publish and they produce no sources citation in their articles all these highlights their Non Reliability --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO can we please get a final decision on this important discussion (before it gets archived)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are disruptively trying to keep the topic open, check the difference in dates between your comments. No one wants to drag this already settled discussion anymore. I doubt you understand the meaning of consensus. Its not a decision by a single user that is followed. A consensus has been attained above. Suggest the repetitive comments by above editor be removed and the discussion be tagged as closed. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Stop Giving Baseless alleegations and only comment if you can help the discussions, your allegations serve no purpose here other than flooding the thread which we can clearly see and dont want. As for your Kind Information, i Have already got a clarification that this issue is not yet closed so dont assume things on your own.
• your attempts to move other editors comment in an attempt to make it look older is also not appreciated.
• And Be Warned that your attempts of,Misplaced Pages:Canvassing and trying to influence others to deliberately close the topic will also wont do any good either. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Baseless? You are commenting here after a week. Other than the fact that you're linking good faith (which is to be assumed) and is not compulsory either, you are the one repeating comments here. The user I informed was an already participating editor. I hope you know the meaning of canvassing. My move action can be reviewed along with the consensus including your own comments in favor of that. But I still doubt you know the meaning of consensus. I'll prefer if you don't reply to this comment ensuing a debate on this itself. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• commenting after a week as i was patiently waiting for comments. we already have 5 people against and 2 in support so the consensus is pakdef is Unreliable. And yes i can understand why pakdef is so imp for you because you have been using Pakdef.info quite extensively in your recent edits while completely ignoring the fact that it has unclear sources. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Its tragic that User:Hassanhn5 seeks to attack the editor who opposes his view or that editor's reputation rather than to use logic and make relevant points, especially when the argument appears to be slipping away. I hope he refrains from this behaviour, and sticks to content and rational argument, as it is unethical on Misplaced Pages. AshLin (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking the editor, you should notice his aggressive tone and his repeated misquotes of other editors or statistics outrightly. I've well established any sources that I've provided in my edits backed up with many others. No argument is 'slipping away' here, the comments by the neutral editors are pretty clear here which the user is trying to misquote and calling in editors by mass messaging on talk pages. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Building consensus on the reliability of www.pakdef.info website

Per the questionable sources section of the policy, Pakdef.info is not a reliable source in the Misplaced Pages sense. Pakdef contains absolutely no information on who forms the editorial board for their content. Since Pakdef.info's reputation for checking facts cannot be determined and since it does not have editorial oversight, we should treat the website as an unreliable source in the Misplaced Pages sense. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(For ease of reading I've posted this comment below under your repost of this explanation as well) The only problem mentioned by you is the absence of knowledge of editorial board which only makes it a 'questionable source' and not a non reliable source. Other than the fact that it has an editorial board, even if it didn't it would be balanced by its usage in other reliable sources as being discussed under my comment. Here's the editorial board of the website: Usman Shabbir, Syed Ahmed, H Khan. Other contributors to the website's issued magazine include the famous Retired Air commodore (now writer) Kaiser tufail, M Rauf & Fahad Siddiqui. These can be confirmed from the magazine issued by the website . --lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not the "only problem". We need a good, qualified editorial board AND we need a demonstrated record for fact checking for the website to be called reliable. The following four points show that www.pakdef.info satisfies none of these:

1. The PakDef E-Reporter is a publication separate from the website as it disclaims right at the beginning PakDef (members of the Pakistani Military Consortium) are proud to bring to our readers an interesting and informative new feature, the PakDef E-Reporter. The E-Reporter is another venue aside from the PakDef site and forum for PakDef members to be able to provide Pakistan watchers with an additional source for defence related information. Our publication includes new articles and research briefs on various aspects of defence acquisitions and production along with a historical perspective on the Pakistani Armed Forces.
2. The publication became defunct after producing 3 issues and has not had a publication since March 2007.
3. The credentials of the so-called editorial board members do not measure up to the quality required for such claims. For example, Usman Shabbir's only editorial assignment is Pakdef.info. He has no publications, academic papers, books to his name. The case is the same for the other two. Unless they went to a decent journalism school or academic institution or have held previous positions on editorial boards of well recognized media organizations or are well known for publishing academic quality books and publications in journals, this editorial board is to be treated as bogus.
4. The website also claims that the content for the PakDef E-Reporter comes from forum contributors, not from qualified academicians or well known researchers or journalists. That's not good for establishing reliability. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I gave you an editorial board which you weren't able to find. I Advise you to observe with good faith. The answer to your points:

1. That disclaimer is misinterpreted by you. You might notice the website's to be contacted email address giving the editorial board's top name. As far your interpretation of the magazine is concerned, you only noticed that the magazine is an addition to the website (which of course it is) but you forgot to notice as per the disclaimer you quoted, it is being brought by the member's of pakdef. Published and endorsed by the same website. The editorial board is clearly for the site as well as the magazine by this statement and otherwise.
2. Just because a website is not publishing magazines or even articles regularly gives no reason for it to be questionable or unreliable.
3. I'll like to give mustihussain's argument here that bharat-rakhshak (even when considering them on their own merit) seems to have similar kind of editorial board and seems to be supported by the very same editors who are opposing this one. Other than that, the editorial board is supported by Pakistan armed forces retired officials like but not limited to Air cdr Kaiser Tufail, who himself is a notable person of Pakistan airforce.
4. There are many reliable sources that take content that comes from their article comments which I'll refer as an equivalent to a forum. That certainly doesn't make the 'news publisher' or any other source unreliable. Further more, the forum contributors might be able to provide cited information just like wikipedia. Because wikipedia is being run by 'contributors' it is not unreliable (since the sources are being cited). Other than that you might have noticed contributions of experts (and I'll say again) an air force officer.

All your points seem to be some what same in essence. That's why I guess my replies seem a bit redundant to me like your claims. I've provided you with what you based your argument on i.e. an editorial board. Now your argument seems to be changing to mold with the situation, assuming good faith myself, I'll just say that you should find new basis of your support for 'unreliability'. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: It appears this has been discussed on 11 April 2010 in archive # 62 (and also been commented on 26 October 2011 in the archive for some reason) and the consensus was the website is not reliable. To prevent this issue from wasting our time in the future, I am summarizing the previous consensus as well as adding my rationale for deeming this source unreliable: --Zuggernaut (talk)

Interrupt Note: The RSN was recreated for a reason; previous RSN views included by the editor above were inclusive then due to lack of involvement of any non involved editors (which means these views are only of the involved ones). Other than one user User:Jayjg being mentioned below. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently unreliable as deemed by User:Jayjg who says pakdef appears to be a self-published site. Can you give more information on its reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight? Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He said it only appears to be a self punished source. No wonder that RSN was inconclusive. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unreliable as deemed by User:Wikireader41 who states just because a self published site links to articles from other reputed journals does not make it a reliable source for purposes of WP. anybody could make a website and link it to anything they want. there is no misrepresentation here and your reasoning is completely flawed and you have failed to provide any response to Jayjg request for 'more information on its reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight'. Wikireader41 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Unreliable by User:UplinkAnsh who questioned the reliability by bringing it to this board.
• Unreliable as deemed by User:Skcpublic who says The statement "We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website.*" on the site is qualified with the subtext "*PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation." The editorial policy of the self-published site is thus selective with clear potential for bias, since the editors have no policy or published guidelines on which material meets their standard of acceptance. This is an indicator of a propaganda site, and the site does not seem to meet the accepted criteria for reliability. Skcpublic (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unreliable because after looking at all links on the website (and on the Internet) I could not find who constitutes the editorial board. I could not determine what processes the website has in place to perform fact checking. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Update Reasons why this website does not meet our WP:Reliable sources standards:

• Primary source www.pakdef.info is a mix of discussion forums, accounts of soldiers who fought in the war in the form of books and diaries, and borrowed articles. While looking at the first 10 of the 80 of the books that reference www.pakdef.info, 4 are referring to the comments of Internet users posting in their forum area and all seem to be treating www.pakdef.info as a primary source. Usage of a primary source is out of question for a topic as controversial as Indo-Pak relations.
• No editorial board www.pakdef.info has no editorial board. An associated and defunct publication which produced 3 issues and become defunct in early 2007 does have an editorial board but its membership is below par in qualifications for use on a topic as controversial as this.
• No record or process for fact checking The website is not at all known to check facts. We are not provided with a process it employs to check facts.
• Circular references The website's article on Template:External link with a date-time stamp of Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:19:58 PM matches our article our article of 2 June 2006 word-for-word.

Due these serious issues, we should log the website as unreliable and fix the 250 articles across wikipedia which are affected by this. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The only problem mentioned by you is the absence of knowledge of editorial board which only makes it a 'questionable source' and not a non reliable source. Other than the fact that it has an editorial board, even if it didn't it would be balanced by its usage in other reliable sources as being discussed under my comment. Here's the editorial board of the website: Usman Shabbir, Syed Ahmed, H Khan. Other contributors to the website's issued magazine include the famous Retired Air commodore (now writer) Kaiser tufail, M Rauf & Fahad Siddiqui. These can be confirmed from the magazine issued by the website . --lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary source question can be brought out of the topic by the fact that it is a publishing site and all publishers do publish content from soldiers' war logs and even autobiographies, that doesn't make them primary source as well. In addition this question is being replied to on the top discussion. For fact checking it has properly cited its articles with related reliable references. Editors are free to review. Circular reference allegation can be other way round is other way round. See that pakdef.info is already cited as a source of the article in the external links section . It is more likely that the article was copied into the wikipedia and the timestamp got updated during maintenance/update of the website. Please provide provable arguments. Your argument seems not so well backed by your observation of citations. Also, it'll be a bit easier to reply if you post your updates to a single place i.e. the top of discussion or under your 'unreliability' support comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary the articles of Pakdef that have been cited on wiki do not give any source or citations, we have a lot of such examples, and even if they give some source which they cite, they misquote and often present the changed info in way that suits them and their mission statement, proof below.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles that are not editorials are referred to and appropriate citations are given. I just checked your 'proof' and it seems to be pretty cooked up. The mention of taxiway is there in the Indian airforce chief's book as I said. This puts your credibility of citation review in question. WP:Competence. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(above is another desperate attempt to flood using off the topic discussion)The Ghauri article on pakdef is clearly uncited and with Zuggernaut's great observation in finding the wiki article from which it was copied is appreciated. The time stamps speaks of themselves. the other arguments put forward are also correct and clearly needs consideration in decision. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reliable: has been quoted in 80+ reliable sources, seems to be well in the reliable category on those basis. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakdefinfo is cited in the above books mostly for content it has cached from other reliable sources such as Defence Journal and News Intelligence Unit or for factual data, (as said above by user Skcpublic) for its own articles its clearly Unreliable. And even if it is citing contents from other reliable sources from books etc, it quotes lines out of context and deliberately clips comments and quoted texts in an attempt to support its own policies(mission). for eg this pakdef article has been cited 20 times on this wiki article by lTopGunl the article has used some wild incorrect assumptions (as stated in above discusssion by me) and misqoted its only source a book a number of times. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not it is not a cache, those sources have specifically used the link for the website and can be reviewed. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

1. 80 is a very small number to start with given that we are talking about sources on the military of a nation of about 180 million.
2. The first 3 of the 80 sources that I sampled for closer examination have 1 or 2 references to www.Pakdef.info and they all refer to the forum part of the website. Here's a quick summary:

Title	Authors	Number of references to Pakdef.info	Detail	Relevant in establishing reliability
Securing tyrants or fostering reform?:U.S. internal security assistance to repressive and transitioning regimes	Seth G. Jones, International Security and Defense Policy Center, Open Society Institute	1	Refers to the forum part of the website (thread 5599 of some Internet user)	No
Fortifying Pakistan: the role of U.S. internal security assistance	C. Christine Fair, Peter Chalk	1	Refers to the forum part of the website (same thread as above of some Internet user)	No
The PLA at home and abroad: assessing the operational capabilities of China's military	Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute	1	Refers to the forum part of the website (thread 10207 of some Internet user)	No
Negotiating hostage crises with the new terrorists	Adam Dolnik, Keith M. Fitzgerald	1 (via 4 cites 80, 82, 84, 87)	80. Relates to terrorism, not the Pakistani state 82. Relates to hijackers, planning of a terrorist attack, not the Pakistani state 84. Relates to the sub-standard quality of equipment of Pakistani commandos, Chechen terrorism 87. Chechen terrorism All cites refer to Template:External link	No, mostly deals with peripheral topics such as terrorism, PAN AM Flight 73 Hijacking, School Bus Hijacking, Fokker Friendship Hijacking, etc.
Planning the unthinkable:how new powers will use nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons	Peter René Lavoy, Scott Douglas Sagan, James J. Wirtz	1	References Template:External link for possible surrender of Indian army in Kargil	Conditional if the new link can be found and the contents of the article meet our standards.
Inside nuclear South Asia	Scott Douglas Sagan	1	References an article on Template:External link but www.pakdef.info gives no indication on who the authors are, what the publication date is, what the sources are, etc. The article, however, matches word-for-word our article on the subject of 2 June 2006	No
A World Without War	editors: Arthur Petersen, Juan Pardo-Guerra	1	Refers to the forum part of the website Template:External link	No
Cultivating a landscape of peace: Iroquois-European encounters in seventeenth-century America	Matthew Dennis	1 (in a footnote)	References Template:External link	No, footnote, not a significant reference, dead link, book topic is off subject
The Age of Airpower	Creveld, M.V.	1	References an article without any author or date information (Template:External link	No

Zuggernaut (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 80 is a small no, but thats due to the small internet presence of Pakistan. The no is not dependent upon the nation's population but its internet presence (and thrid party work about the nation's military). You have chosen to display only the few references that pointed to the forums. I'll recommend reviewing the ones put up by The bushranger which are reliable enough themselves. Due to dbigxray's massive talk page messaging this place is rarely commented on by neutral or uninvolved editors, The bushranger is one of them. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about books and academic journals that appear in real life in physical paper and ink format. Most of these also have an online presence so it has nothing to do with the number of Internet connections. I've added two of the sources you want to be listed in the table. Both contain a tiny number of references to www.pakdef.info and are mostly irrelevant. I intend to keep on updating the table regularly until we reach closure. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Including those, even on wikipedia, Pakistan is not a well covered topic. That comes to account for the lack of internet references. Anyway, those that you included do point to the site and are a part of the reliable sources. I guess you should include all four. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

lack of internet references does not mean one can start linking blogs and forums and other unreliable sources as citations, to increase the citation count. this is simply unacceptable. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is citing blogs or forums to any article. This whole discussion is being held to tell if pakdef is a reliable source or not. You have given your opinion of it being a 'forum' (a really good argument too - only if giving statistics which every one can see would be counted as an argument in favour of or against a topic), now you should either add proper arguments or refrain from repeated blaming and taking all my comments in reverse. I'm tired of replying to your aggressive, yet of no use, comments. It is very paradoxical to call this source a forum already right in the discussion where the same is being decided. Get break and let this come to a decision. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unreliable, we have 6 People suggesting Pakdef.info as non reliable source as against 2 Hj and lTopGunl who extensively uses it for his edits on history related wiki articles, and so
• Unreliable. Vide Zuggernaut's discussion, I agree. The few places which contain certain verifiable material or sourced material (from other publications) are not enough to condone the complete lack of editorial responsibility. Pakdef.info needs to be considered a non-reliable source. AshLin (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bushranger has given a fine explanation in the above section. Dibigxray's statistics are completely wrong. Further more, the misquotes you claim are fake. I've verified that it mentions the usage of taxi-track for six days of war. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• exactly thats my point lTopGunl the pakdef article is about Beginning of war on Dec 3, but it goes on to portray the damage done in 6 days as a result of damage of dec3, and it wittingly stats that all these are damage of dec3 (i.e day1) in an attempt to overhype the offensive capabilities of PAF . this is clear mis-information,and this is just one example there would be many more , clearly UnReliable as a wiki source. as for the statistics i assume you want the names of 6 in saying Unreliable(DBigXray, AshLin, Zuggernaut, Bushranger(weak), SkcPublic, Swift&silent) and (Hj and lTopGunl)saying Reliable. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I referred to the quote of the Indian airforce cheif that you fake not to be mentioned. You need to review. It has been properly cited. Other than that, those raids continued for the whole war and are repetitively mentioned in the sources. Read The bushranger's comment again. He did not support for its unreliability. Users, ashlin and swift&silent have been canvassed by you diffs of which can be reviewed. Also I hope you know consensus is not voting/majoritarianism/reader-feedback. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reliable: (Quoted)"I took a look at PacDef. I have to say their Mission Statement raises a red flag right off the bat, but let's have a look at the GBooks: 76 hits. Right off the bat, we find one that's a RAND study - but it appears to be citing its forums as an example of web discussion on a subject . Same for the United States Institute of Peace - cited, but also as an example of web chatter. We do have an Oxford University Press book that uses it as a source , while a book by a private security company cites it extensively . Books by Stanford University Press and Cornell University Press each cite it once . My gut feeling here is that PacDef has strong possibility as a reliable source, but the low gBooks hits (noting, as with B-R, that a number are Wikimirrors/reprints and self-published) has me add the caveat insufficent data for high confidence in result - use with caution. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)"
  • Disagree that this is the right conclusion. Bushranger admits he has absolutely no grounds other than a gut feeling that pakdefinfo is reliable. This vote is actually Inconclusive. Without casting allusions at Bushranger, the language gives the appearance of being a diplomatic attempt to avoid saying that pakdef.info is a reliable source. Under no stretch of imagination can this be considered as a reliable quote. AshLin (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of picking the phrase of your choice from his quotation, let the quotation talk for itself. The fact that he has given reliable references that quoted it tells that he supported the reliability other than him mentioning it having a strong possibility. Lets leave the interpretation of his comment on the neutral editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my intent in my statement was that pakdef.info is likely reliable, but that there is insufficient information to say for sure that it is. If (as has been mentioned) some of its pages are Wikimirrors themselves, though, that's a strike against it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying before editors start picking phrases from the quoted statement of yours. Texts from this site have been copied into wiki by editors which being the case reflects such, its not the other way round (and this is the stronger possibility for consideration which the alleging editor has not considered). This is proved by the external links section of the same revision . --lTopGunl (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Relaible: (quoted) Where was pakdef.info declared non-RS? At the entry started by UplinkAnsh in April 2010, there is only a ONE LINE comment by a "neutral" party, JayJG, stating that pakdef "appears" to be a self-published site. When I posted a pakdef webpage citing several popular aviation-related publications, there was no response whatsoever from a "neutral" party. Therefore, as far as I know, pakdef has not been "declared" non-RS (other than by those who I believe to have pro-Indian agendas). In my opinion, to label PakDef non-RS because it contains historical information from a Pakistani perspective while calling bharat rakshak a RS because it contains historical information from an Indian perspective is not only hypocritical, but racist also. I do understand that many editors may not want to get involved in heated Indo-Pak related disputes such as this one, but such topics very much need neutral parties to be involved. I agree with User:Itsmejudith's point that the two cases should be considered seperately, but they should be considered by neutral editors before anybody starts "declaring" one or the other to be non-RS. --Hj108 (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• "reliable". personally, i would have never used pakdef.info or bharat-rakshak as sources. however, if bharat-rakshak is considered a "reliable" source on wikipedia, then pakdef.info is "reliable" too. as noted by bushranger, pakdef.info should be used with caution, i.e. it's not considered a non-reliable source. i extend this warning to bharat-rakshak as well. after all bharat-rakshak is a "consortium of indian millitary websites", and many articles are written by retired indian military personal. articles from both bharat-rakshak and pakdef.info should be cross-checked with reliable secondary sources. just to reiterate myself, i will strongly encourage editors to find more neutral and solid sources.-- mustihussain  21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We are looking to determine the reliability of www.pakdef.info alone. We should take up www.bharat-rakshak.com separately. Your "if-then" logic is weak and may not be counted towards determining consensus unless you can focus on the strengths of www.pakdef.info. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

your case is even weaker. suggest you remove the votes of the canvassed editors and the "votes" that go a year back as they are unreliable (were these people canvassed as well?). if not, we'll have an administrative issue regardless the reliability of these sources.-- mustihussain  07:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is we can take previous noticeboard discussions in consideration since not much has changed from about a year back. Regarding other issues, please provide diffs. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

that discussion looks very biased, canvassed, and tag-teamed, and i'm totally against it being used here. you're doing a great job with surveying the use of pakdef.info although i'm not sure if i agree with some of your reliability-criteria. still, your table is an excellent starting point for a neutral assessment. this voting business smacks of desperation, and you don't need the votes if you have a strong case. let the facts speaks for themselves.-- mustihussain  14:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The user's I've previously mentioned are canvassed by dbigxray. I can provide diffs if you don't see it already there on their talk pages. This case needs a bit of admin intervention (whether the source is reliable or not). I'll like to add to mustihussain's comment that consensus is not voting as per wikipedia policy. As for this comment, even when we are considering pakdef alone, we can give reference of other already 'accepted' reliable sources to prove a case. In this case, mustihussain referred to bharat-rakhshak incase the editors consider it 'accepted'. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• there has been multiple attempts to mislead the discussion from the topic and Flooding can we just concentrate the comments on Proving the Reliablity or unreliability of the source. to me it seems some users are unable to support the reliability by giving valid arguements so they are talking of irrelevant stuff or even trashing the Discussion.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• User Zuggernaut has done a appreciable job of analysing the source and his points are valid, they gove us a clear picture of the unreliability of the source, Besides these are just a few examples that he found, there would be many more. It would be a big fallacy if we continue to ignore these and keep chanting that it is reliable without a reasoning. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You BOTH are flooding EVERY place you take a dispute too. You BOTH need to post ONCE, outlining your view and arguements. Trying to say that only the other side is flooding when you respond every single time is utter craziness. Ravensfire (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

bharat-rakshak.com

Military consortium run by retired Indian military officers. Its publications are often in contradiction with neutral sources (as seen on Operation Dwarka's talk page. It was claimed on that it is checked by Indian military sources, but as it turns out by running a whois on the website that it is hosted outside Indian jurisdiction in united kingdom, so this claim turns out to be invalid. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The bharat rakshak source is a personal account of a serviceman who served at the site and experienced the bombing, as such it should be treated as a primary source. Contentious material should be sourced from more reliable sources. The bharat rakshak site in no case states that the radar was hit. The assertion of Hassanhn5 that bharatrakshak.com is unreliable because of its Op Dwarka writing (which can supposedly be checked from the Op Dwarka talk page) is untrue. The official history of the Indian Navy states that there was no damage and no radar was hit in the shelling. That not withstanding, both br & pd should not be considered as reliable sources and every inclusion of them as a reference should preferably be removed so that editors go back to better/more reliable sources. AshLin (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If they are to be used at all, each source must be clearly examined and should be totally discounted where disputed facts are being adjuducated upon. AshLin (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since Operation Dwarka has been quoted above. I would like to include that user lTopGunl has included all the contradictions using non reliable sources and redundant citations. I have Raised the matter on the Talk:Operation_Dwarka. The wiki Discussion on bharat-rakshak.com can also be viewed in the above links, bharat-rakshak is a widely cited source by Wiki Editors, as it gives valid citations to its works from books and newspapers, and is often cited by Media. we need to concentrate on Pakdef.info --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

All the inclusions in Operation Dwarka are well cited with sources other than these two and can be reviewed. Just like bharat-rakshak, pakdef is also giving appropriate sources, so we should be concentrating on both as that's the topic of this RSN, and separate headings are there for separate discussion on each. I would like to comment here that if a site has been quoted in so & so other places in wikipedia, it does not become a reliable source, infact the decision here will impact all those citations as well. I think we should let this be fair and let neutral editors add their comments to each section after properly reviewing the sites. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Bharat-Raksakh is considered an respected source throughout. It is cited in most respected publications like

• Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies
• University of California
• Berkeley Institute of International Studies
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
• US military naval manual.

An google book search reveals that Bharat-Rakshak is cited in about 1100+ books - unsigned. Swift&silent (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)]

I think it was dbigxray or swift&silent in the above comment and forgot to sign the comment. Bharat-rakshak directly translates in to 'defenders of India'. May be that rings a bell about propaganda in place because we don't know how they're here to 'defend' India. You just gave a google search link for the site. It is not an evidence for its reliability since it includes search results from forum talks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

yes swift seems to have forgot to sign ], The fact that BR is widely cited in a number Books and news and media is a strong argument in favour of reliability of this source. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 10:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Forum talk doesn't count. Also, quoted among some peers (who also seem to be sister projects) like the "immortal soldier" (seems even biased from the name) don't make it notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

this is an extensively cited highly respected "go to" site for info about Indian military matters. the evidence of its reliability is its extensive use by other reliable sources as mentioned above. The fact that ii is run by Indians does not make it any less reliable than The Indian Express or the The Times of India.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be an involved editor from here ...? I'd rather you clarify. If you were not an involved editor I'd like you to know, in that case, this attempt by User:Swift&silent comes under vigorous WP:canvassing. As for the source, well generally, when any source has contradictions with many neutral sources, we call it Non-RS even if people in so and so country use it for their general knowledge on an average day. Another thing to note is the chauvinistic tone of the site's publications as a trend. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I took a look at B-R. The statement above that "You just gave a google search link for the site. It is not an evidence for its reliability since it includes search results from forum talks." is both right and wrong - while the link given was in fact a common Google search, a Google books search does indeed score 1,120 hits. Now, a number of those will be those accursed Misplaced Pages reprints and self-/vanity-published titles, but checking a couple of those that aren't show B-R given as a source in a U.S. Air Force-sponsored report by RAND Corporation . Yyou also have the United States Institute of Peace , Nova Science , William Stewart , and Oxford University Press citing B-R in books published by them. I think it's pretty conclusive that reliable sources consider bharat-rakshak.com to be a reliable source, and that therefore it is a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

both b-r and pakdef should be used with caution. b-r is a "consortium of indian millitary websites", and many articles are written by retired indian military personal. what is reliable or not should be discerned carefully by cross-checking with reliable secondary sources. all the books you mentioned cite b-r together with additional sources. imo, one should avoid using b-r or pakdef as a sole reference. my two cents.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Its already mentioned multiple times above by various editors that all the sources are judged by their own merit, the results are not based on what the result of other is. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

These webpages for the notability of the graphic novel Dark Age

This past weekend, I covered the New York Comic Con for Misplaced Pages, as I normally do, and two comics creators, Nick and Adam Hayes, gave me a copy of their graphic novel, Dark Age, and handed me a press release, asking if an article could be created on it. I explained to them the site's notability policy required that the books be covered in verifiable, secondary sources, and that a print copy of their press release was neither, but if they could forward me secondary sources for it, I would see if it were possible. Nick Hayes emailed me an iFanboy writeup and 2 Bleeding Cool writeups that I believe would help qualify the book for an article, but I have some uncertainties about two of the other sources he gave me, and need to run them by you folks here.

Grovel.org

The first is this review at Grovel.org. It looks like a good site, but I really don't know how to judge whether it's considered authoritative in the field, aside from the fact that I've never heard of it.

The Font Feed

The second site is this review at The Font Feed. Again, it looks like a respectable site, but how it looks is hardly an objective criterion, I'd imagine. Aside from this and the fact that it's used in the Quantum of Solace and National Punctuation Day articles here on Misplaced Pages (which by itself doesn't make it an rs), I'm not sure how to evaluate it.

Can you give your thoughts on these two sites? Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO????????????????????? Can I get an answer? Nightscream (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If the authors aren't already notable or their new books haven't won any awards, then no - the fact that the books exist (even if reviewed in a reliable source) doesn't qualify them as notable. Rklawton (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's helpful on this noticeboard to post the disputed claims and how it relates to the RS policy without asking us to be instant subject matter experts. If the dispute is whether grovel.com is an RS, from its "about" page there is not enough disclosure to consider it to be one. From fontfeed.com: "FontFeed as a standalone blog dedicated to typography and it officially launched in its new space on 9 September, 2008." So this is a group blog of mixing business and personal interests. It is not RS for reviews of graphic novels. patsw (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First, there is no "disputed" claim, just a question. Second, I was unaware that I asked anyone here to become an "instant subject matter expert". (I was also unaware that having to wait a week for a response was "instant".)

As for the graphic novel, I thought that coverage in RS's qualfies a subject for notability. This one has been covered in several. But now you're saying that it has to have won awards? Seriously? Nightscream (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that patsw was using the awards phrase just an an example of the kinds of things that help establish notability. I might be wrong, but I don't think he was saying it was a requirement, which obviously it's not. That said, I'd agree with Nightscream that nothing is being "disputed" and no one asked anyone to become an "instant subject matter expert."

I wonder if the most judicious course might be to take a "wait-and-see" stance. A couple of write-ups in relatively small hobbyist sites (and not just relatively small, by Entertainment Weekly and The New Yorker standards, but small compared even to Comic Book Resources and IGN.com) seems a bit insubstantial. I think what tips the balance in favor of holding off is that it's self-published; pretty much anyone can publish something himself and get a couple of websites to review it — I'm not sure it's feasible to have an encyclopedia article for every one of the hundreds of self-published graphic novels. We're on no deadline, and encyclopedias take the long view. Perhaps it'd be prudent to wait and see if it gains additional attention or fades away.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

2¢

• I tend to agree "award winning", depending on the award, is one of many things that are needed, but not the sole thing, or even the most important thing.
• Write-ups in (very) small blogs isn't isn't what Misplaced Pages's guidelines look for, though they can flesh out an article in some cases.
• I'm leery of the phrase "not feasible" here. This is an on-line encyclopedia, it should be feasible to cover most things. In cases like this we may not wind up with much in the article, but it can be covered as appropriate. J Greb (talk) 18:55, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I've since been given reviews and reports by Wired magazine, Bleeding Cool, iFanboy and Jay-Z's website. Nightscream (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cite using a TV programme

I have a copy of a BBC documentary that provides information I need. Can I use this as an inline citation and how would I do it. I'm presuming a BBC documentary would be a reliable source of course. I can't find anything in the archives that would help. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You can cite it if videos (download, CD, tape, etc.) are or were available. If it was only broadcast, and you taped it off the air, then it isn't available for verification. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A BBC documentary in most cases would be a reliable source, but if the programme is not publicly available i.e. through iplayer/available on DVD/available through a publicly accesible archive then it is not a verifiable source. Sources have to be accessible in some for or another because every claim on Misplaced Pages has to be verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Cite episode}} can also be used for formatting, as it contains multiple fields which can aid verification for others. As a BBC documentary it's likely to be mentioned on their website, and may even be available on their iplayer service for online viewing, which you can link to as well. Whether or not it's readily available for others to verify does not prevent its use as a source, as unavailable newspapers or print sources are also still perfectly valid. Most, if not all, of these programmes are released on home media by the BBC anyway, which will make it verifiable. You don't have to own a copy, nor does anyone else, as the information is able to be viewed, which is the key. GRAPPLE X 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of BBC documentaries can be found in libraries, so if you can find it on WorldCat, that also makes it verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source. The aspect of access is covered in WP:SOURCEACCESS and was incorrectly stated above: "If it was only broadcast, and you taped it off the air, then it isn't available for verification". This is not the letter nor spirit of WP:V which actually states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." And it is the case for the BBC there are the BBC Archives. In the United States, there is the Paley Center for Media, formerly the Museum of Television and Radio. The availability of sourced content for personal purchase has never been a criterion for verifiability in Misplaced Pages. patsw (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation: ease of access still implies a level of accessibility. The policy states The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source. The policy does stipulate that it must be possible for readers to check the claim. A rare out of print book may be difficult to check, but it is still accessible on some level. The BBC archives aren't, it is impossible for a reader to check them so anything available just via the archive fails verifiability IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Lawrence Lessig part of the Occupy movement?

Does Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" (Discovery / TreeHugger.com) support the fact that Lawrence Lessig is part of the Occupy Wall Street and "Occupy" protests movement, and in particular, does it support inclusion of this section below, which has been deleted as unreliably sourced?

Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle. Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments. Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan, Karl Auerbach, and others.

TreeHugger is an established Discovery Communications blog with a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy, in my opinion. Tackett has a journalism degree. And there are two videos of Lessig on that page, the second of which has him speaking to the Occupy DC protesters using their "human microphone" technique.

This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention. It is unbelievable and petty that people are seriously trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Froomkin and Shane, both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it is a reliable source, although I question giving that much coverage in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What would you trim? Dualus (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources says that Lessig's book and conference were "part of" the Occupy Wall Street protest. There's an ongoing problem with you exaggerating perceived connections; for example, you were going around saying that Lessig was obviously "part of" the movement because he "wrote a manifesto" for the movement, when in fact the book was unrelated to OWS (instead, one reporter happened to mention that it "could serve as" a manifesto). Likewise, you cherry-picked a quote from George Will's sarcastic column ridiculing OWS, and presented it out of context as if it were gushing praise. And after this was pointed out to you, you still edit-warred to re-insert the material in total disregard of the objections raised.

It's fine to discuss reliably sourced connections, but it's not fine to exaggerate them or to imply to the reader that OWS somehow is responsible for, or deserves credit for, anything anyone does that bears any similarity or relevance to OWS. It's also not OK to present sources in a misleading way. I'd like to note that you have also been inserting and edit warring over all of this material without any effort to garner consensus at the talk page, and now have taken the additional measure of making accusations of bad faith against other editors, raising objections of WP:TAGTEAM and saying they are conspiring against you with sinister motives—without any basis whatsoever. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Dan Froomkin says Lessig's book offers a manifesto for the protesters and Peter M. Shane goes further than that. And here is Lessig speaking to the movement on the Maddow show and at Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Dualus, as I already mentioned days ago, when you phrase it that way, you give the very misleading impression that Lessig intended the book as a manifesto for OWS. He didn't, and nobody has said he did. Rather, Froomkin says:

"The protesters occupying Wall Street have been famously without a formal manifesto. But if they wanted one, firebrand Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig's new book about how money has corrupted Congress might be a contender."

That's a very, very big difference, especially when it comes to the question of whether Lessig's actions can be somehow attributed to OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can appreciate that take, Centrify. Not so much an RS question, then, more about whether the link is too tenuous, which it looks like it might be. A question for ORN instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't given thought to noticeboards. That said: It's clear that Lessig is someone whom OWS protesters should admire and who has made many arguments that are directly relevant to their interests. And it's clear that Lessig shows support for the general spirit of the protests. But Dualus seems to insist that the article say more than that and his edits tend to create the distinct impression that OWS is somehow responsible for Lessig's arguments, the conference he held, the book, etc. As yet another example, he brought up the conference at the article talk page, noting that a Tea Party leader co-chaired the conference with Lessig, and suggested that this should be reflected in the article as "collaboration between OWS and the Tea Party". As I said at the time, unless there was a major thread of sources that Dualus forgot to mention, this was an absurd conclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If co-chairing a conference isn't collaboration, then what is? I am happy to ask this question on WP:ORN as well. Dualus (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Centrify's point is that Lessig doesn't represent Occupy. If he co-chaired a meeting with the Tea Party, that is a collaboration between the Tea Party and Lessig. But all that has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, which I why I suggest another board. --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is mind-numbing. Again, as I said several days ago, this is a clear instance of Prof. Larry Lessig collaborating with one Tea Party group's leader — not, it should be clear, an instance of OWS collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it mind-numbing that you continue to ignore Froomkin and Shane, who both specifically say that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. With quotes. (You can't.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, and are replete with support that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. With quotes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

People can read for themselves by clicking on the links. Start with the headline of the first. Dualus (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The headline doesn't support your contention.

And we're not mind-readers.

And I have read the entirety of both articles and they don't support your contention. You've been saying this for days and editing combatively based on this assumption that you're right, but you have not yet bothered to demonstrate that any of these sources actually provide support for the (exaggerated) contentions you're making.

Cite specific article text or drop this argument. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You are plainly mistaken. Readers can judge for themselves. Here are several more sources. Dualus (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we don't consider Huffington to be a very reliable source, see . As for and , I don't think that's enough to support inclusion of the material in the article on OWS--it seems to me that would be UNDUE weight, especially given the question of reliability. It may be appropriate to include that material in the article on Lessig, since he's quoted. But those are not really issues for this board. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The latest version has seven additional sources, including two showing that the protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment, and a Slate piece saying Lessig adds credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Lessig's view on OWS is in Huffington Post

If the Misplaced Pages article in question is either Lawrence Lessig or Occupy Wall Street, or both, then Lessig's view is presented in the Huffington Post. What possible concern about its reliability could exist about Huffington Post presenting Lessig's view? patsw (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am working on replacing the Huffington Post sources with more reputable sources such as . Dualus (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In this context, what are your concerns with Huffington Post not being reliable in presenting Lessing's views? patsw (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The following sources have emerged:

On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published a declaration(ref name=99percentdeclaration>New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group (October 15, 2011) "The 99 Percent Declaration." Retrieved 20 October 2011.</ref> of demands, goals, and solutions.(ref name=duda>Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange</ref>(ref name=lopez>Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider</ref>(ref name=haack>Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian</ref> The protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.(ref name=manning>Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) "Lynch Shares Views on 'Occupy' Movement" Needham, Mass. Patch</ref>(ref name=crugnale>Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) "Russell Simmons: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want Constitutional Amendment" Mediaite</ref>(ref name=niose>Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) "What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want — Constitutional amendment on corporations is a starting point" Psychology Today</ref>(ref>McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" NewsTimes.com</ref>

Critiques of those sources are most welcome. Dualus (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do any of these sources mention Lessig or is this just more synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Asked—and answered. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm depending mostly on this Slate story and Lessig's speech to the DC protesters for that connection, but I will be happy to look for more sources associating the two. Dualus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That story demonstrates that Lessig has made supportive statements about OWS and encourage his followers to join the protests. As I said days ago when you first mentioned that source, there's no problem saying that in the WP article. But you can't use it as the basis for some OR misadventure and make all kinds of claims not supported by any source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution. The discussions linked within the link above provided by another editor shows many reasons that don't hold water for total exclusion and one editor says this: "The HP is reliable only for opinions correctly placed with their authors." So the deletion of the Huff reference and statement from the lede of OWS violates this as it was pulled from the body of the article having used the HP in this very manner. The lede does not require the reference as long as it's in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand there were other sources. That wasn't in dispute. In this context, what are the concerns with Huffington Post not being reliable in presenting Lessig's views? patsw (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a letter from Lessig himself so it's opinion and not fact based.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This particular content dispute really doesn't hinge on reliability of sources. Rather, after starting seven individual discussions of this topic at the article talk page—no particular reason why he had to keep starting new sections—Dualus was determined to press forward but seemed to struggle with figuring out where else to raise the debate, and ended up starting four different noticeboard discussions, as well, as you can see at the NPOV noticeboard. Despite the continued posting, I think this particular discussion is actually moot and should be closed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right. It's not (aside from the Huffington Letter).--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreality Magazine

Is Unreality Magazine considered a reliable source? It looks like a sci-fi/superhero fanboy blog to me, but I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. It is currently being used as a source for an obscure reference to A Clockwork Orange in the video game Conker's Bad Fur Day in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still hoping for a response here. Does anyone have an opinion as to the reliability of this source? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, after looking at the website concerned, it appears to be a self-published blog and so according to WP:SELFPUBLISH it does not meet Misplaced Pages reliable sourcing standards.--Namk48 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! My thoughts exactly. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Halt and Catch Fire

Hi, everyone.

Please view the talk page here: Talk:Halt_and_Catch_Fire#MIPS-X_HSC. There is information that is being included in Misplaced Pages that sounds credible, but in fact it is a joke. I seek some way of being able to confirm that the cited "fact" is in fact a joke. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of the page.

The question is whether private correspondence trumps Chow, Paul (May 1988). "MIPS-X Instruction Set and Programmer's Manual". Stanford, California, United States of America: Computer Systems Laboratory, Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Stanford University. p.65. in supporting or not supporting the phrases, "The MIPS-X was a processor supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Programmer's Manual for this chip describes an HSC (Halt and Spontaneously Combust) instruction, that is only found in a version of the processor designed for the National Security Agency."

The answer is: Chow (1988) is a reliable source. Private correspondence is not a reliable source. The article's construction that the manual describes a hsc is correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The solution would be to have Chow state it was a joke in a reliable published source. Alternatively, he could (or perhaps already has) give the URL of his web site in a reliable published source and then place a statement about the joke on the website. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While this is being sorted out it is probably a good idea to keep in mind that we do not have to use all citations from reliable sources. If removing the possible joke would not distort the article's neutrality, editors should probably agree to remove while sourcing is being checked. If not, then at least consider whether the wording can be neutralized so as not to claim too much about whatever is considered controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

With respect to all who are contributing, I think that we've successfully described the problem but are no closer to finding a solution. I don't think that I personally have the resources to fix it. Can someone fix this? - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited by Sam Vaknin

Citations to Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited are sometimes deleted in Misplaced Pages on the basis that it is self-published. That is not disputed but IMO the fact that it is self-published is irrelevant in this case as the book is commonly cited from other works on narcissism. I have seen quite a few books on narcissism published over the last few years and I would say that more than half either cite Vaknin or list his book as recommended reading. For example:

• Lisa E. Scott, He's So Vain He Can't See You (2008) p. 8
• Frank H. Columbus/Serge P. Shohow, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 31 (2004) p. 5
• Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 31
• David Thomas Narcissism: Behind The Mask (2010) p. 28
• Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality (2005) (can't remember the page number)
• Mary Farrell, Acts of Trust (2010) p. 191, refers to 'Sam Vaknin, an expert on this personality type'
• Alma H. Bond, in her biography of Margaret Mahler also cites Vaknin as a source (p.ix and p. 47).
• Lavender NJ & Cavaiola AA The One-Way Relationship Workbook: Step-By-Step Help for Coping with Narcissists, Egotistical Lovers, Toxic Coworkers & Others Who Are Incredibly Self-Absorbed (2011) Vaknin listed as recommended reading.

It seems bizarre that Vaknin's book is frequently cited in other literature but is not allowed to be cited in Misplaced Pages. Also Vaknin's views are widely sought in the quality media and he is an acknowledged authority and expert, for example:

• Megalomaniacs abound in politics/medicine/finance - Business Day, January 7, 2011.
• "The monster in the mirror", The Sunday Times, September 16, 2007
• "When narcissism becomes pathological", Financial Times, September 4, 2010
• Reality bites after the lights go out - CNN 2011

Vaknin has a huge longstanding reputation as a journalist and editor for serious journals such as:

• International Analyst Network
• Global Politician Editors
• Los Angeles Chronicle

He co-authored a book (Macedonian Economy on a Crossroads) with the later president of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski). --Penbat (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, Vaknin's editing of Global Politician, on online political magazine, and co-authoring a book on the Macedonian economy have nothing to do with his expertise on the topic of narcissism.

Secondly, Vaknin himself has a long history of editing Misplaced Pages, often with sock puppets, all of which involved self-promotion. He has also criticized Misplaced Pages in widely seen essays.

• Samvak (talk · contribs),
• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Samvak, (2nd)‎, 3rd, (4th)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-07-23/In the news#Sam Vaknin, Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 9#The Misplaced Pages Cult, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-06-14/In the news#Is Misplaced Pages a cult?, Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-06-14/In the news# Is Misplaced Pages a cult?,
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive70#Be ready for some POV edits to narcissism articles
• "The Six Sins of the Misplaced Pages" (circa 2006) and "Is Misplaced Pages a cult?" (circa 2010).

Third, this has been discussed extensively in the past, including discussions in which Penbat participated. None of those previous discussions agreed that Vaknin qualifies as an expert and is therefore exempt from the prohibition on using self-published sources. See:

• User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Global Politician
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Narcissism and schizoid disorders
• Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder/Archive 2 (almost the entire page)
• Talk:Narcissism/Archive1#Things change
• Talk:Codependency#Removing content from Sam Vaknin
• Talk:True self and false self#Vaknin and Vaknin (continued)
• Talk:Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury#Comment
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance/archive102#User:Will Beback and Sam Vaknin

Fourth, Vaknin's Ph.D. is from an unaccredited correspondence school, Pacific Western University, and is in the field of the Philosophy of Physics. His list of qualifications/educational background does not include any training in psychology or related fields. While he is occasionally cited by other scholars on the topic of narcissism, that is sometimes because Vaknin is a self-admitted narcissist and a useful example rather than because he is a recognized expert. Being called an expert by lay journalists means little. Even Snopes has disputed his credentials.

Fifth, there are plenty of scholarly sources for this topic, so there is no need to use self-published sources.

Sixth, Penbat (talk · contribs) has continued to add material sourced to Vaknin despite other users telling him that it is not a suitable source. He has added material that is not even published in printed books but is simply posted on Vaknin's Tripod.com website.

Seventh, where Vaknin is cited by published experts we can cite those experts and their views of his theories.

Eighth, Narcissism is a medical topic and sources on it should probably meet not only meet the minimum standards of WP:V, but also the higher standards of WP:MEDRS.

Ninth, Misplaced Pages hosts a large collection of articles on narcissism, including Narcissistic abuse, Narcissistic defences, Narcissistic elation, Narcissistic leadership, Narcissistic mortification, Narcissistic parents, Narcissistic personality disorder, Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury, Narcissistic supply, Narcissistic withdrawal, Collective narcissism, Malignant narcissism, and Healthy narcissism. See Category:Narcissism and Template:Narcissism. User:Penbat has been involved in editing most of these, and he should consider being more cautious about promoting the views of one particular source.   Will Beback  talk  21:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow i cannot believe that User:Will Beback has laid out so clearly how much he has come out in his true colours in the form of a personal agenda against Vaknin and in doing so i find it extremely offensive that he is trying to smear my name in the process. I must say that I find his attitude absolutely disgusting.

• There is a huge can of worms involving past victimization of Vaknin on Misplaced Pages, for example involving years of very sinister activity by permanently banned user User:Zeraeph and her self-admitted sockpuppets. Millions of words have already been written on Wiki discussion pages about User:Zeraeph's sinister cyberbullying activities and it would be very counterproductive to stir it up all over again, for example dredging up highly contentious stuff about Vaknin sockpuppets (what possible relevance has that got anyway)?
• User:Jacobisq, who is currently on a Wikibreak, has used Vaknin citations much more than me on Misplaced Pages. He is a bone fide independant scholar and nothing to do with me. By removing Vaknin citations you are undermining his judgement.
• I am a Vaknin agnostic not a Vaknin believer. But It is impossible to do justice to the field of narcissism without citing Vaknin - he is one of the top contributors to the field. The idea that I am trying to "promote" Vaknin is absolutely disgusting and is a smear in my personal integrity.
• There is no question of undue weight given to Vaknin, for example he barely got a mention in the main narcissism article.
• Why on earth is it OK for many works on narcissism to cite Vaknin but not Misplaced Pages ? That makes absolutely no sense.

--Penbat (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The "past victimization of Vaknin on Misplaced Pages"? That's quite a claim but it is not really germane to whether Vaknin meets Misplaced Pages's standard for granting an exception to the prohibition on self-published sources.

Scholars have different standards than those set for Misplaced Pages editors. Scholars can cite primary sources including personal interviews and original research, but Misplaced Pages editors cannot.

To the extent that Vaknin is cited in published works we can discuss his theories of narcissism. But Misplaced Pages standards do not allow citing a self-taught, unpublished layman, especially on a topic related to a field so closely related to psychological diagnoses.   Will Beback  talk  09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a long and complex story involving Misplaced Pages and Sam Vaknin. My posting above is more the result of using the search function and trying to present the salient points as they appeared than any independent memory or knowledge of these events in the past (with obvious exceptions). On reflection I could have organized it better. My intent is to flesh out the issue for those of us with poor memories.

I hadn't seen this in my search because it's blanked:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph Case Closed on 14:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That was three years ago so I don't think we need to delve into it again now. While it's useful to pull all of the background together in one place, the narrow question here is just about WP:SPS.   Will Beback  talk  10:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are wise to remain focused on the narrow issue as otherwise nothing will ever get resolved here. There is no dispute that the book is WP:SPS but in my view that is incidental. Vaknin has never claimed that he has formal qualifications in psychology and often states that upfront. However it is very clear that he has studied theory by others on narcissism in depth. One of the attractions of Vaknin is that, being a self-confessed narcissist, he gives a rare insiders perspective of being a narcissist. So being a narcissist himself qualifies himself to write about his own condition. Many academics find his view useful to compliment their own more abstract theoretical description of narcissism and like to cite him. Although he does have some views unique to himself, much of his views on narcissism are rooted in mainstream theory. Where citations to Vaknin have been used in Misplaced Pages, a range of other views have often been given as well as alternatives, although Vaknin's views often overlap with others. So the reader can decide which views are the most credible and not depend on any one view. A link to Sam Vaknin is often given with citations so readers can easily read up about his background.--Penbat (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WTH? Mr. Vaknin's BLP appears to be "not good." While he may be a nut, the fact is that he was used as a reporter by UPI () His c.v. makes clear that the "Pacific Western University" which was unaccredited in Hawaii was not where he got a Ph. D. so that sort of BLP violating claim should be redacted from this discussion entirely. The link to PWU-CA given in the article states that it is not affiliated with any other institution. Also the degree is not a "Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy of Physics" (per ) but a Ph.D with a major in Physics. In point of fact, not all physicists with doctorates have a D.Sc., many Ph.D. are around. I do not care how much a nut a guy is, it is wrong and contrary to WP:BLP to make such a claim in any article or discussion on Misplaced Pages. Also any bit about socks is not relevant to his actual status in current discussions. Once the "diploma mill" claim is shown inapt, the rest of Will's arguments fail, alas. Will - you did a lot of research here. But Misplaced Pages does not use what we know as the basis for what we assert in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I believe you are misreading the sources. It's pretty clear that Pacific Western University is where he received his one and only Ph.D. (you linked to his diploma yourself), and that the school had none of the usual accreditations at the time. There's no such thing as a "major" in a doctorate, which may be further reason to question its value. He says his dissertation was on "Time Asymmetry Revisited" - nothing to do with psychology. He also says that he only completed nine semesters as an undergraduate. Combined, that's the extent of this formal education: no undergraduate degree and a Ph.D. from an unaccredited correspondence school in an unrelated field. (If anyone knows of other credentials, please share them). Again, this concerns the exception to WP:SPS. Let's refresh our memory about what it says:

• Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Vaknin has never had his work in this field published by reliable third-party publications. Therefore, his self-published work does not qualify as reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is almost invariably true that a Ph.D. is in a particular major, Will. And diplomas show the "major" or "field of study" for which the degree is given. Almost invariably And it is also clear that "Philosophy of Physics" is not on the diploma, and not in any claim made by the person, and is a red herring of no validity in any article or talk page, and is a WP:BLP violation. Your claim is thus extraordinarily errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether he does or does not have a valid PhD, and in what subject, does not affect whether or not he is a WP:RS. I have a PhD in Clinical Psychology, but only my peer-reviewed articles (and not my own website) would meet WP:MEDRS. But out of interest I did look at Vaknin's online CV. Assuming this is is site - I think it likely - it says there: 1982-3: Ph.D. in Philosophy (dissertation: "Time Asymmetry Revisited") – Pacific Western University, California. He also links to his degree certificate from that page. The certificate says the PhD is in Physics, the CV that it's in Philosophy. Either way he gained it in one academic year which is good going by anyone's standards! (I wish my supervisees would work as fast...) Describing a PhD as having a 'major' is not usual in the UK but then neither do our undergraduate certificates use that term - I assume it's a form of words that is maybe more common across the Atlantic. Either way, all this is moot as it would be my view that only his peer-reviewed articles would meet the criteria for WPMEDRS. Kim Dent-Brown 11:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Vaknin has a Phd is a red herring as if it exists it is not psychology related and Vaknin makes it abundantly clear that he is not qualified academically in psychology and is therefore not trying to deceive anybody. However he has clearly studied the theory of narcissism in huge detail and has credibility as he is able to give an insiders perspective as a self-confessed narcissist so therefore knows his subject in a direct way. I have already made it very clear that he is frequently cited by others.--Penbat (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually "time assymmetry" is far more likely to be a Physics issue than one of Philosophy. As for a Ph.D. in one year - unusual to be sure, but not impossible. I personally do not care if a person is a nut or not - WP:RS does not say "sources written by nuts are not allowed" - the principle of Misplaced Pages is that enough contrasting sources will be found to show other points of view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That gets us back to the clear language of the policy. Has Vaknin ever had his work on narcissism published by a reliable third-party publication?   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: Being cited frequently is not part of the criteria.   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just being tiresome and talking in riddles.--Penbat (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. WP:V, a core content policy, forbids the use of self-published sources with one exception: sources written by "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Is there any evidence that Vaknin meets that standard for narcissism-related articles?   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Personality disorder is a professional specialty for me as a researcher in psychological therapies. I have not come across Vaknin before but using his own self-published material in an article about the man himself would be reasonable if the cite follows the SPS guidelines. However for articles about personality disorders I would not regard his work as reliable. He could be mentioned if third party reliable sources have anything to say about him (rather than merely citing some of his work in passing.) For example if a source meeting the criteria for WP:MEDRS said something about the influence Vaknin has had on theory or practice in the area. But we'd be citing the third party source, not Vaknin. Kim Dent-Brown 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent summary. We are not seeing a PhD from an accredited university in a relevant discipline or a string of academic publications, so "self-publishing by an expert" doesn't really apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback, Kim Dent-Brown and Itsmejudith and the others elsewhere over the years who have stated that Vaknin is not a reliable source for anything connected to personality disorders. Given that these are medical topics, the more stringent WP:MEDRS apply. I can add yet another time when this topic has been discussed with Penbat. As requested by him/her, I analyzed the sources for his expert status here here. I am disappointed that once again s/he continued to claim (amongst other things) that the self-published books of Thomas and Scott are a source that Vaknin is considered an expert. It's good that this has come to WP:RSN and hopefully this can be the end of it. --Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins.net

One thing I've come across is on the Jimmy Carr page, it states that Carr became an atheist due to becoming aware of dawkins's writings and it is sourced by a page from richarddawkins.net. Personally I think this could be a violation of WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:SELFPUB as its asserting a claim on (what is essentially) a personal website and is supposed to have been written by Carr himself (in what appears to be just a reproduction of a magazine interview). I just wanted to check if people agree that this particular example is an unreliable source and should be removed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a reproduction of an interview with Carr in Psychologies magazine. The interview is reliable for Carr's views and beliefs. Better to source it directly to Psychologies, but Dawkins' blog is OK as a convenience link. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Like Itsmejudith said, Psychologies magazine is the source, not RichardDawkins.net, but FYI the latter isn't really a personal site or blog – it's published by a nonprofit foundation set up by Dawkins. joe•roe 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Lizzie Phelan

This has a risk of being forum shopping on my part, but I see significant problems with the Lizzie Phelan article. It is currently up for AFD, with a lot of debate about her notability. None of the information in the article is negative - mainly because the article really isn't about her, she is being used as a soapbox for politics. I think the bulk of the sources are not reliable (lots of radical left "news" sites, but that is just my opinion. Looking to get more eyes on the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Christopher Walken impersonation sources

This is my first time posting on this board, please bear with me if I get it wrong, I've been reading for a couple of months and finally worked up the nerve to start a section.

The Christopher Walken article has a subsection that lists many of the various actors and comedians who do an impersonation of Walken. Every single one has a "citation needed" clinging to the name. I have located clips of some of these impersonations, but they are located on youtube. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems youtube is source(a) non grata around these parts. From what I can gather, the reasoning for this is that youtube is user generated, and thus unreliable, in addition to it being open for audio and visual manipulation, etc... However, the clips I found are pretty clearly NOT manipulated, and for many of them I was able to find multiple clips from different settings. For example, Kevin Spacey: (that clip was uploaded BY AFI, a prestigious film institute, very unlikely they manipulated any clip of their yearly gala) .

Could I use youtube as a source JUST for this specific purpose, the Christopher Walken impersonations? Also, I would only use it if I could find a clip in settings like the ones I linked to above, galas and interviews or talk shows, and would not use any clip that could be perceived as sketchy or iffy.

Thanks in advance, and please let me know if I've put this in the wrong place. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

YouTube is not deprecated. We assume good faith that the Misplaced Pages editor has evaluated the content on YouTube for the inclusion and citatation guidelines. There is no presumption of fraud. If the content on YouTube is factually wrong in its description, irrelevant, or there are other objections, then editors work it out on the talk pages. patsw (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I searched the help desk archives and found this, which is why I was concerned and confused about the acceptability of YT as a source. Thanks for the prompt response, I am going to source that article into submission tomorrow :) --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that Youtube was regarded as just a "host", and that the uploader was considered the source i.e. if I uploaded a clip to Youtube it wouldn't be RS, but if the NY Times uploaded something to Youtube then it would be RS? Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the links. I wrote an essay detailing the use of YouTube videos at WP:VIDEOLINK. For these specific videos, it should be noted that Misplaced Pages is not a repository for every funny video of impersonations of the guy. It appears trivial. I assume a firmly reliable secondary source at least mentions that he is often impersonated without a list of various celebrities. Assume Good Faith applies to editors here and says nothing of uploaders at YouTube. All that aside, most of these videos appear to be copyright violations from uploaders who are not posting from an organization that is considered a reliable source. Some of them are OK and it looks like a few "sources" are provided without links. All could be formatted to comply with MoS but I question the need.

• Johnny Depp - The uploader is not RS. This is probably copyrighted material from DVD extras
• Robin Williams - The uploader is not RS. Appears to be high enough quality to be professionally done leading to the assumption of copyright violation
• Bradley Cooper - The uploader is not RS. CBS is right there in the corner. Definite copyright violation.
• Eddie Izzard - See Robin Williams
• Kevin Pollak - May not be traditional RS but might be acceptable
• Jay Mohr 1 - Appears OK
• Jay Mohr 2 - Appears OK
• Kevin Spacey1 - Appears OK
• Kevin Spacey2 - The uploader is not RS. Bravo in the corner. Copyright violation.
• Kevin Spacey3 - Appears OK
• Rick Castle - The uploader is not RS. Obvious copyright violation from Castle (see description)
• Nolan North - The uploader is not RS
• Nolan North - The uploader is not RS. Associated Press in the corner. Copyright violation.
• Anthony Ahern - The uploader is not RS. The Wedge is mentioned in the description so again copyright.
• Whose Line is it Anyway - Uploader not RS. Copyright violation of a TV show
• Ryan Reynolds - Uploader not RS. Copyright violation of a TV show

Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

gs.inside-games, generation-nt.com and Gamer.nl

I have an article up for FAC and a concern found on the nomination is if three sources, gs.inside-games generation-nt.com and Gamer.nl, are considered reliable. Can someone answer that? GamerPro64 00:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What are your concerns (or the concerns of others)? The principal that applies in the absence of articulated objection is WP:AGF. patsw (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The concern is that it there is uncertainty of the three sources being a reliable source for video games articles. So I'm asking if someone can verify it they are or not. GamerPro64 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My question then is, what is prevents you from verifying that yourself? patsw (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do that. I originally asked at WP:VG Sources but with not much response. Because of that one of the delegates suggested to go and ask here. So would be possible to determine if the sources are reliable? GamerPro64 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the instructions given on Misplaced Pages: Identifying reliable sources unclear, or difficult to apply to this case? patsw (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it says in the lead that, "For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." So I'm here asking if these sources are reliable so I just want to know if they are or not. GamerPro64 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Gamer.nl is reliable, it has an editorial staff that makes the news content. GS.inside-games also appears to be reliable, because it is published and written by a gaming corporation that seems to have some affiliation to Nintendo. Generation-nt.com also appears reliable for gaming news. It is published by GNT Media and has an editorial staff. Hope that helps. Silverseren 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Need a Reliability check please

Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:CrownP/draft

Sources

cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=585085%7Cpublisher=Pharmacy Choice|accessdate=21 October 2011

cite web|title=Blue Cross of California Appoints Josh Valdez Senior Vice President, Network Development|url=http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=1852&cha=14%7Cpublisher=Hispanic PR Wire|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games.|url=http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/health-care-facilities-hospitals/5153373-1.html%7Cpublisher=AllBusiness.com%7Caccessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://pressrelated.com/press-release-aveta-inc-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico-inc.html%7Cpublisher=Press Related|accessdate=21 October 2011

cite web|title=JOSH VALDEZ APPOINTED TO HHS REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE POST|url=http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010917a.html%7Cpublisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services|accessdate=27 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games|url=http://www.businesswire.com/multimedia/home/20050607006105/en/1191710/Josh-Valdez-Named-Man-Year-Hollenbeck-Youth%7Cpublisher=Berkshire Hathaway|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Man Of The Year|url=http://www.hollenbeckpbc.org/pdf/New_Press_Release.pdf%7Cpublisher=Hollenbeck Youth Center|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Of Blue Cross of California Appointed to Advisory Council of The National Institutes Of Health|url=http://www.lexdon.com/article/josh_valdez_of_blue_cross/105429.html%7Cpublisher=Lexdon Business Library|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=The Latino Coalition Honors The Most Influential Hispanics|url=http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/the_latino_coalition_honors_the_most_influential_hispanics/%7Cpublisher=Havana Journal, Inc|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Appointed to State Health Policy and Data Advisory Commission.|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Josh+Valdez+Appointed+to+State+Health+Policy+and+Data+Advisory...-a0146751865%7Cpublisher=Free Library|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Aveta names Josh Valdez president of MSO of Puerto Rico|url=http://www.poandpo.com/who-is-promoted/aveta-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico/%7Cpublisher=Histerius%7Caccessdate=21 October 2011

Sites

http://www.pharmacychoice.com

http://www.hispanicprwire.com

http://www.allbusiness.com

http://www.pressrelated.com

http://www.hhs.gov

http://www.businesswire.com

http://www.hollenbeckpbc.org

http://www.lexdon.com

http://www.havanajournal.com

http://www.thefreelibrary.com

http://www.poandpo.com

Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CrownP

Alex Jones, Mathaba, Pravda, and PressTV

User:Jagged 85 has been attempting to add material sourced to Alex Jones, Mathaba News Agency, Pravda.ru, and PressTV to pages such as Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya. To me, these sources are blatantly not WP:RS, as they espouse viewpoints far from mainstream, in WP:FRINGE-land. However, he does not seem to see this. I am having difficulty explaining myself further, as I pretty much have taken the gross unreliability of these sources for granted, so I brought the matter here to gain input. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They all look bad. Alex Jones is the definition of fringe, Pravda.ru is a propaganda site for the Russian Communist Party (See the Russian front page where they're rather more upfront about their allegiance), Mathaba TV is of course not RS, being the mouthpiece for the Gaddafi regime. I don't know enough about PressTV, but it certainly looks dodgy. Andrew Gilligan resigned from it, saying that he did not want to "shill" for the Iranian government.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC

+1--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any conversation on the talkpage about this, by the way. It might be worthwhile starting a discussion there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right, the lack of talkpage discussion was a bit improper. However, this matter is fairly open-and-shut, in my opinion. Discussion has been started here; starting another thread would be wholly unnecessary. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If your previous claim that nationality has nothing to do with it really is true, then what alternative Libyan/Russian/Iranian news media would you consider to be reliable? It seems to me that the only reason why you consider them unreliable is mainly because they are based in, or funded by, places like Libya, Russsia, and Iran, countries that are known to have not-so-good relations with the West, and that they must therefore be anti-Western state propaganda mouthpieces. That's almost like saying UK or US state-funded or party-affiliated news media (BBC, Fox News, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc.) must be pro-Western propaganda mouthpieces for the UK or US governments and are therefore unreliable. Besides, didn't I also post a YouTube video actually showing the march on Libyan television? What makes you think the march is some fiction cooked up by the Libyan/Russian/Iranian governments? If you can provide more details (not related to nationality) why those sources are really unreliable, and provide any alternative reliable news media sources from those same countries, then I will gladly concede the argument. Jagged 85 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't be so silly. Pravda.ru is not a reliable source because it is a propaganda arm of the KPRF (did you not read the strapline on the Russian homepage?), a hardline nationalist (inter alia anti-American) political party. It's not a reliable news source. What possessed you to think it was a good source I've no idea (I presume you checked out its providence before you came here to accuse editors of prejudice). If you want Russian media sources, these days Kommersant is (in my opinion) reliable, and judging by reports probably Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Novaya Gazeta, and Vedomosti as well. I wouldn't use Russia Today, as it can be a little off the wall at times, and RSF has criticised it for peddling propaganda. It's always a little difficult to say who's particularly clean because of the reassertion of Kremlin influence over the media since Putin came to power.

As for the official mouthpiece of a totalitarian state, such as Mathaba, it really takes an inordinate amount of naivety to think they don't cook things up ever. If you want a good Arab-based news source, Al Jazeera is excellent. Better than the BBC a lot of the time, especially in matters like this.

As for PressTV - it's the government-run broadcaster for, according to Reporters without borders, the country holding the record for the most journalists held in prison. As an example of the problem, PressTv has been censured by Index on Censorship for broadcasting an interview with an opposition journalist recanting under duress in an Iranian prison. We really shouldn't be touching it. I don't know much about other good Farsi news agencies, but then again, it's not clear at all why it's important to have Iranian sources as opposed to, say, Czech, Nigerian or Indonesian ones.

And as for Alex Jones - do you not know who he is? He is fringe. That's the point of what he does - tell people things The Man doesn't want you to know. If he were ever what the men in dark suits call a "reliable source", he would have sold out.

I note with curiosity and (to be honest) amusement that you don't accuse editors of anti-American prejudice for rejecting Alex Jones as a source. It doesn't sound as cool as accusing someone of anti-Russian sentiment, I suppose. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources are even remotely reliable, by any standards, and certainly not by Misplaced Pages standards. Even if "Pravda" meant "verifiability", not "truth", it still wouldn't meet WP:VERIFY (and yes, that's a bad joke based on the many jokes made over the years about the laughable meaning of "Pravda"). First Light (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on the editorial oversight of its news reporters and fact-checking not the editorial position. I think pravda.ru probably meets rs but note that the article cited appears to be an opinion piece by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, who writes opinion pieces, which would mean it is not rs for facts. Even if we used this source, we could only say that Lizzie Phelan claimed that 1 million people demonstrated in support of Gaddafi. You should be able to find other sources that report her comments. TFD (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

bdfa.com.ar for Argentinian footballer BLPs

Hi all!

From the above:

1. <ref>{{cite web|author=BDFA |url=http://www.bdfa.com.ar/jugador2.asp?codigo=3834 |title=Ficha de JOSE CEBALLOS - (perfil, ficha, profile, stats) |publisher=Bdfa.com.ar |date= |accessdate=2011-10-28}}</ref>
2. link to root page
3. Many. Some examples: José Luis Ceballos, Claudio Arturi & Amilcar Adrián Balercia
4. Not supporting specific statements, these are being used as ELs and are being given as a reason to avoid BLP Prod - would like this confirmed!

Thanks! Nikthestoned 15:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

BoxRec

Is this website () a reliable source for boxing statistics? Frankly, I can't tell how the site works or who is responsible for it. It also seems to somehow link with Misplaced Pages in both using information from Misplaced Pages (nothing wrong with that) and keeping track of what it perceives to be Misplaced Pages problems (odd). Although I don't think it matters much, the Freeda Foreman article uses the website as a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone want to offer an opinion on this source so we can "fight" about it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's considered reliable for modern and prominent boxers. Relatively speaking it's probably considered as the most reliable on-line source for boxing records but of course that's not a relevant criterion. It also has biographical info on some boxers but afaik this is an open or semi-open wiki so it should definitely not be used as a source. Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you then accept BoxRec as a reliable source for Freeda Foreman's record?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If it uses information from wikipedia, don't we have a WP:CIRCULAR problem? bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Neck rings

The article on Neck rings accurately states that the removal of rings does not pose a health threat. However, the article on Femininity claims that the removal of neck rings causes the neck muscles and head to collapse. Both statements are supported by sources. The argument on the Femininity article for keeping erroneous information is verifiability, not truth. Please comment on how to resolve this issue to reflect accurate information. Thanks. USchick (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The source used in Neck rings is not reliable, whereas the source used in Femininity is. The source used in Neck rings also does not say that removal of neck rings poses no health risk. The source used in Femininity may be incorrect, but it is necessary to find superior sourcing in order to demonstrate that. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Neck rings source is unreliable and doesn't even support the assertion. I'm not happy with the source used in Femininity, either, because although it supports the assertion and it's probably a usable source (a book), I have no idea what the qualifications are of the author for making such a statement. This would be better coming from a doctor or health professional than from a femininist.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

These sources might be considered: , , . It appears to me that the both of the sources mentioned in the OP ought not to be used, the first because it is not reliable, the second because it is wrong. The wrongness of the sources should be demonstrated, not just asserted, though. --FormerIP (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "in the OP", but I don't think the three sources you've identified relate sufficiently (some not at all) to the health issues of removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources referred to are this and this . The sources I have suggested contradict the second of these: "Removing the coils is said to be harmless for all but the oldest women who have worn the heaviest rings since childhood"; "Contrary to popular belief, the women’s necks are not abnormally long and do not snap when the rings are removed". --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for your explanation, but I stick to my view that better sources are needed for health claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Better sourcing is always better, of course. But the immediate issue is whether to include material in Misplaced Pages that is demonstrably wrong (i.e. the question is about what standard of sourcing we need to exclude information - and the answer ought to be any sourcing that is as good as or better than the sourcing proposed for inclusion). --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My question is about using common sense to determine what the source actually says. The article clearly states that women are removing their rings and continue to lead normal lives without their necks snapping. Is it necessary to have a medical source confirm this? More sources: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization “Originally, about 50 of us wore coils in this village,” Ma Hu Htee said, “But now only 23 still wear them." Children's bioethics p 59 USchick (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely the citing of any source (accurate or not) is good enough if the reliability of the source is such that an article written without bias can state that "According to X: a is 1 whilst according to Y: a is 2" where X and Y have both been published and have some measure of authority (even if accuracy can be challenged). Example: According to The Bible, Man was created by God whilst according to Geneticists, Man evolved from amoebas. That statement is unbiased and it's sources are not de facto correct but nevertheless the statement is sourced and provides insight into the subject ("How Man came about"). As an encyclopaedia we are not expected to state the truth but report on the facts. The facts are that two different sources tell two different tales. I suggest editing both articles to cite and report both sources and to not worry about which is right. fg_c 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good on the surface, but sometimes it's a bit more complex than that as it depends on what the source is, what the source actually says, and what is the basis of the source. An imperfect example. A source says two men got married in England. The source uses the word "married", but, in fact, it's not possible for two men to "marry" in England - they can only form a partnership. The source is some gossipy rag but not per se unreliable. It's just using the term "married" very loosely. I realize Misplaced Pages is all about verifiability, but we don't throw all of our common sense out the window as editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose a simpler way to express my reasoning would be: Misplaced Pages can without doubt state that "source a" has stated "issue a" without affirming or denying the validity of "source a"s claim. I come down fully in favour of finding out what is undeniably true/fact/accurate (and thus good sources) but where the evidence is not clear or available, any source will do if the Misplaced Pages article(s) is(are) written without bias. For the article to claim that "Two men married each other in England" we would need a source with indisputable quality and accuracy. However, we could have the article state "According to "source a" two men married each other in England" then follow with a statement derived from other sources leading the reader to question the validity if they so chose e.g. "Although according to "source b" same sex marriages are not legal in England". In the specific case of the neck rings and whether or not it is safe to remove them, there are simply conflicting sources and we (I don't anyway) don't know which (if either) is true/fact/accurate so, it would solve the issue in the interim (until better sources were found) to rewrite the articles to be utterly unbiased, clearly stating both/all sides of the argument. I'm a bit of a noob here by the way and am speaking as an interested party not an expert. All I have said should be viewed as purely my opinion. I would be very happy to be pointed at WP policy that clearly defines this subject if that definition contradicts my naive nonsense. fg_c 01:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Too impractical for me to cite to a source that says two men married in England followed by a source that says such a thing is not possible. I simply wouldn't use the erroneous source. Not sure what I would do (if it were up to me) on the neck ring stuff. I'd have to go back and revisit the articles and the sources, which I'll leave to others. In some ways, one connection between the same-sex marriage example and the neck ring question is they both have sociopolitical overtones, which, in my view, muddies the waters. I dunno about being a newbie - I think your "naive nonsense" is pretty good, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

My last on this (although it was nice chatting) since I am no expert (thanks for the flattery btw, right back at ya ). I feel that for a Wikipedian to choose which source to use based on un-sourced knowledge leaves us open to turning any/all pages into works of unbridled fiction. First we choose not to say "subject 1" because we can't find a source or we don't like the source. Then we choose to rewrite the article to support what sources we do like whist ignoring the difficult or ugly ones. It would (in a dark distant future) end up with all articles being technically "original research". The conflicting sources regarding neck rings should either both be mentioned or neither should be. To deny a point of view because we either don't like it or think it's wrong or it seems a bit fishy is poor style. The article needs to be written to include the conflict without any suggestion that either source is right or wrong. The fact is that the sources make conflicting claims. The truth is erm...no idea. State the facts and we can't go wrong. If sources come to light that change the accepted facts then the article gets rewritten. Think how Galileo, Einstein and Darwin were thought to be unreliable. It's a good job they weren't ignored. No sources should be either (within reason). fg_c 00:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Just saw this fg_c 00:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fred, there's a difference between real-world controversy and a particular source just being factually wrong. It's great for WP to report controversy, but we don't need to report error. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a notable real-world controversy. The sources themselves say as much: Contrary to popular belief, the women’s necks are not abnormally long and do not snap when the rings are removed. It's worthwhile reporting that there is such a popular belief, and it's wrong. If we can use the other sources as examples that the popular belief made it into print, so much the better. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between a real-world controversy and a popular misconception. I don't see any problem with mentioning something along the lines of "although is is sometimes inocorrectly stated..." in the article if it can be sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you're splitting hairs. In nearly any controversy (at least!) one side has a misconception. What we've got are two sets of sources, one which says X, and one which says Y. We don't need to "decide" which is right, we need to give both sets of information. Sure, the fact that the second set specifically says the first set is wrong makes a stronger argument, but we can give that argument, and let the readers see it. We don't need to make up their minds for them. We shouldn't assume they're stupid; what we can see, they can too, we just need to let them. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, this is much better than edit warring! USchick (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as the Femininity article goes, the question of reliability is moot because it's not a notable fact for that article. "Feminity" is a very broad topic and unless we want a near-book-length article we don't want to get into this level of detail. That section of the article properly points to Body modification as the main article, and it is there (or even just in Neck rings) that this level of detail should be covered. Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The relevant assertions in the Neck ring article are

• When the coils are removed, there is no health danger.
• The only concern is that the neck muscles are atrophied, and are understandably weaker than the rest of the body.
• here is no proven medical concern for the removal of the coils.

this source is cited in support. Source reliability questions aside, (those concerns can hardly be set aside here, though) it doesn't look to me as if that source supports any of those assertions.

The relevant assertion in the Femininity article is:

• The Padaung of Burma and Tutsi women of Burundi, for instance, practice this form of body deformation .

Two supporting sources are cited. Pages 24 and 25 in the first cited source support the assertion re the Pandaung and Tutsi. The second cite also supports the assertion re Padaung. That source also speaks of "deforming their collarbones".

p.24 in the first source cited in the Femininity article disagrees with the assertions in the Neck ring article, saying that (in re the cases it addresses) that if the rings are moved the neck muscles are no longer able to support the head. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC on excluding criticism of Nonviolent Communication

I'd welcome any input from editors familiar with RS in an RFC concerning exclusion of criticism of Nonviolent Communication. Jojalozzo 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Elias Chacour and David Hazard book "blood brothers"

A citation from this book was brought into the article about the village of Jish:

Elias Chacour, now Archbishop of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church), whose family resettled in Jish, wrote that when he was eight years old he discovered a mass grave containing two dozen bodies.

The book is "Blood Brothers" by Hazard and Chacour (p.57), the latter claiming being a witness to events of the 1948 war, claiming being 8 years old . The book seems to be largely an improvised story, rather than a witness account (he was 8 year old as he claims), heavily influenced by religious and political thought. Some numbers are extremely exaggerated, like "tens of thousands of killed" in the 1948 war, which puts real doubt on realism and accuracy of Chacour's "memoirs". We might be able to use this book for some information, but doubtfully it can be used to support claims of massacre. It has been discussed here.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: Chacour is not used as a source on the massacre per se, (for that we have historians like Benny Morris and Yoav Gelber, see here.) Instead, the question is whether we can use Chacour´s testimony as a personal witness/autobiography, corroborating what the historians describe. Huldra (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If he is not a source for the massacre per se, what is the purpose of using him? He's a primary source, and not a particularly good one--eight year olds are not in a position to make judgements about such matters, the passage of time clouds memory, and if you already have good sources, I'm not sure what purpose including him serves. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding to this, the link between the "grave" of Chacour and the "killings" described by Morris (who is a WP:RS) is made by the editor, thus it is a synth. Chacour doesn't seem to specify whose "grave" was it, how did he know the amount of bodies there, and not even if the grave is recent or ancient. Chacour tells he saw a grave not a massacre.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

These objections are overdone. If I understand correctly, he was in the relevant village in the relevant year, he had heard gunfire, and he then was the first to find a body recently buried (he says "a boy's arm", not a skeleton) under shallow sand. When explored this turned out to be a mass grave and the bodies were re-buried. Why should he be "not a particularly good" source on that? As regards Jish the report is notable. He's a primary source, so we can attribute the statement to him, with no editorial synthesis, as in the citation given above. Andrew Dalby 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think he's a good source because 1). he was 8, and the book is from 2003--first hand accounts written down soon after events are generally more accurate than those written decades later, 2). he's not an expert relative to the subject, 3). he's a primary source, and we favour secondary sources. We can't use this kind of source for controversial material. I cannot see the source in Google preview, can you provide a quotation? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote (p. 56 of the book cited). It was a children's ball game:

Oddly, the ground seemed to have been churned up. I stopped and picked up the ball, noticing a peculiar odor. An odd shape caught my eye -- something like a thick twig poking up through the sand. And the strange color ...

I bent down and pulled on the thing. It came up stiffly, the sand falling back from a swollen finger, a blue-black hand and arm. The odor gripped my throat ...

The stiff arm lay in the sand at my feet -- a boy's arm. I imagined the face -- sand in the sealed eyes -- gagging the slack mouth. I thought I was yelling. No sound could escape my throat. Vaguely, I could hear Charles beside me calling ...

Later, the shallow graves were uncovered. Buried beneath a thin layer of sand were two dozen bodies. The gunfire that the old man had heard had done its bitter work.

The victims were hastily re-buried in honorable graves. There was seething anger and talk of retribution. But how could there be any retribution when we had no power against this madness? Most of the men, Father especially, would have no part of such ugly talk.

As for me, the innocence and durability of youth were on my side. No one mentioned the incident to me at all. Mother, Father and my grandparents were overly kind, ignoring my outbursts of impatience or tears.

Agreed, memories can be faulty and memoirs written down soon after the event are likely to be the most accurate; but this is what we have, the author is notable, the event is notable and this is verifiably what he says about it. Note: the sentence about the gunfire is evident "synthesis" -- but it isn't proposed to quote that sentence anyway. Andrew Dalby 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The author's notability is irrelevant, most scholars and reporters whose articles we use as sources are not notable. If the event is notable by our definition, it is because there are reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage--and I think you have at least one of those. The source does verify that this is the author's claim, but that is irrelevant, because the question is not did he make the claim, but rather is he reliable for the claim. This is a self published source, an autobiography, and we do not use those for anything controversial. Please note, we do not have to use something because we have it, we choose to use something if it improves the article, and I see no value added to the article by use of this source. I think he is not reliable, for the reasons I've stated. Others may disagree, but you have my thoughts on this matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Some background: "Blood brothers" was first published in 1984 (I think: at least the oldest copy I can find in my library or at abebooks.com, is from that year). At that time mentioning of Israeli mass-kiilings was outrageous; and Chacour suffered years of harassment because he had witnessed something official Israeli history at the time said were lies. Even as late as oct. 2011, an wikipedia editor tries to introduce it to wikipedia: see here

However, after 50 years most (but not all! ) Israeli archives from 1948 have been opened…showing that Israeli military and political leader were perfectly aware the massacres in 1948, including one at Jish.

Secondly: two wrong statements have been made here; the book "Blood brothers" is not "selfpublished" (a remarkable claim for a book which has been translated to 20 languages). And there has been no violation of WP:SYNTH; the experience of Chacour at the time of the 48-war is placed in its chronological time in the history of the village. However, if someone writes that the people killed were, say POWs (as Israeli sources say were killed at the time), then it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I was sloppy, it's not self published, but it is an autobiography, and thus a primary source the kind of which we seek generally to avoid. I don't think any of us doubt that the massacres occurred, and it seems that there are enough sources aside from Chacour, so why use him? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As the policy stands, it isn't correct to say "a primary source the kind of which we seek generally to avoid". The substantive statements (which I quote from WP:PRIMARY) appear to be "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." ... "... primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages ..." The advice is thickly hedged around with warnings, but it doesn't say "seek ... to avoid". Andrew Dalby 10:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The book quote was brought in a way it seemed to be a reliable secondary source. It was also brought in context that created a clear link to a specific event of 1948 war, while none of this was specified by Chacour (the gunbattle heard by some one, to recall you).Greyshark09 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The book "Blood Brothers" brings extraordinary claims on killings which are certain to be wrong. I remind again that the book says tens of thousands of Palestinians died in 1948 war, which is at least an error, but possibly a deliberate exaggeration from "thousands" of Palestinian Jews and Arabs to tens of thousands Palestinian Arabs alone. Due to such attitude, other claims by the book are highly doubtful and need another source to be verified. In addition it is a primary source, which creates huge doubt on verifability of childhood memories of Elias, and it doesn't matter if he is respected and honored to great degree as a clergy man.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis. Elizium23 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

regarding Bruce Kirby (yachts)

On this page the author cites http://www.brucekirbymarine.com as the source. In fact the URL is http://www.brucekirbymarine.org. Long story as to why this happened, but it would be good to get it changed, and I could see how to do that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.19.14 (talk)

.org looks correct. I'll do the simple bit. fg_c 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, since the source currently referenced on the page currently violates WP:SELFPUB, it'd be better to use this, a third-party source that meets Misplaced Pages standards. The subject's personal website is worth including but should be put in an external links section rather than referenced for information in the article.--Namk48 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Project On Government Oversight

Is or isn't POGO reliable? This was last questioned last year without result.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II&curid=11812&diff=458363000&oldid=458361920

Hcobb (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School and visuality.org

A reference is being used in the controversies section of the Corona del Mar High School article from this website. As not a lot of eyes are on the high school article and this section is being disputed, I would like to get some feedback about this being a reliable source or not. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards. It isn't a neutral, third-party source, and it surely doesn't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" from other reliable sources. There are some newspapers that might be usable as references that are linked on the visuality.com page. First Light (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Volumes of the Anthropological Survey of India

The Anthropological Survey of India has published a series of volumes on the communities of India. Here's the full citation:

• Singh, Kumar Suresh (2004), Bhanu, B.V.; Bhatnagar, B.R.; Bose, D.K.; Kulkarni, V.S.; Sreenath, J. (eds.), People of India: Maharashtra, People of India, vol. 2, Anthropological Survey of India, ISBN 8179911012, retrieved 5 October 2011

This source is currently being used in the expansion of the Kunbi article but I'm sure it is used in several other articles all over Misplaced Pages about other communities of India. The work identifies about 4635 communities all over India. Details of the project that led to the publication of the volumes, the sources referred to, methodologies applied, number of person-days/hours spent on the project and per community, etc can be found in the foreword. Problems in language and presentation have been noted on the talk page of the Kunbi article. Is the source reliable for articles on the Indian caste system like the Kunbi? Relevant discussions are at Talk:Kunbi. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Anthropological Survey of India is a major research organization, long-established, government-supported, academic. Its publications should be treated as reliable. There may be opposing points of view on controversial issues, and in that case we should cite reliable sources for the opposing views too. Andrew Dalby 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The AnSI might be all of those things; however, these volumes are not secondary sources. In one of the few books in which they are even mentioned in the bibliography (but not cited), Susan Bayly's Caste Society and Politics in India, a couple of these volumes are listed under "Government Publications," but not under "Secondary Works," both of which subdivisions the bibliography has. The only review I have seen of these volumes, Laura Jenkins's Another "People of India" Project: Colonial and National Anthropology is less than complimentary. No peer-reviewed publication of this data in internationally recognized journals has accompanied or followed the publication of these volumes. Neither have they been vetted by being cited in secondary works. I had initially thought, they might pass as tertiary sources, but upon examination found them to be little more than airbrushed field reports which have the imprimatur of an organization for what its worth. Government Publications have their place on Misplaced Pages, e.g. for citing a few locations, dates, population numbers, but they can't be used en mass, and not for interpretations (especially when they also serve as nationalistic platitudes) such as "Formal education has had a positive impact on the younger generation of the Dhonoje women." All the pitfalls that accompany the use of primary sources on Misplaced Pages accompany the use of these. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is much about the books which is suspect but one point that stands out, for me, is that they regularly include footnotes acknowledging that information has been taken from the works of writers such as Edgar Thurston but they seem not to explain what has been taken from those works, nor what page(s) of the works are referenced etc. Effectively, they have merged 100 year old sources with other stuff, without providing any delineation or even "proper" academic attribution. I can only see certain sections of these books but they are usually self-contained sections, and in some cases have the appearance of being pretty much an unattributed copy of the old stuff. This would not be the first time that Indian government agencies have extensively copied content from other sources without attribution (even Misplaced Pages has been used in this way, IIRC). I would have to dig deep to find examples because this is something that I have picked up "along the way" while dealing with numerous caste/community related articles, but examples do exist. I really would not trust them without additional verification, just as I would not trust the official reports of the Census Commissioners from the British Raj. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved back because parties involved in dispute commented on an archived thread.
The claim that the AnSI volume is a primary source is misleading since the general editor, K S Singh, clearly states in the foreword that pretty much all of the prominent and well-known works in this area have been used in the volume (Enthoven, Karve, Dandekar, the various constitutional lists of the OBC, SCs/STs of the government of India, etc). Zuggernaut (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The lack of high quality reliable sources that use this as a reference, if true, doesn't speak very well for this being a reliable source. Especially since it's been around for 7 years. First Light (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a series of about 40 volumes and has a citation index in the hundreds, perhaps thousands. Here's a quick, un-formatted, un-tabulated Google scholar link. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Of which a half dozen "national" series, published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi were published in 1993 (those are the ones that are usually cited, especially a volume on genetics and another on "Schedule castes."), the rest, the "Regional Series," published by Podunk Press, (left out in your details above by making AnSI the sole publisher) are the ones we are talking about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Could "Podunk Press" be meant as a slur? Popular Prakashan has been around, to my knowledge, for 30 years (i.e. since the time when I was selecting Indian academic books for a university library) with scholarly titles alongside mass-market ones. A web source says "80 years" and that could well be true. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And what sort of slur might that be? Making disparaging remarks about a publisher? I'm familiar with them. They publish some decent books but also some trash. The problem here is whether their regional series, volumes of which read like the District and Provinces Gazetteers of old, qualify as secondary sources for Misplaced Pages. I am suggesting that they don't, but especially that they can't be used to make large-scale edits for which other references are hard to come by. (There is a similar problem, by the way, with the Archeological Survey of India publications. They have produced some good volumes, but because they have monopolized archeology in India, largely keeping out foreign archeologists, as Pakistan, for example, has not done, they have also produced unreliable stuff. Few non-Indian archeologists, for example, believe that Lothal had a dockyard. Yet, Misplaced Pages's FA based entirely on one ASI volume continues to propagate this interpretation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

PS In fairness to you and to the publisher, they do seem to publish some good books. My image of them from the last time I paid attention to them is not the same, but I could be mistaken. It doesn't change my overall point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you would probably know their name. I quite agree that publications of a government-funded agency should be taken with a pinch of salt and would be an unwise choice as a single source for large-scale edits, especially on issues that could possibly have the least connection with nationalism or national progress. E.g. much of anthropology, and, sadly, even archaeology. Andrew Dalby 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying promptly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is currently used mainly in one section of the article - "Kunbi communities from Vidarbha region of Maharashtra". It is used mostly for non-controversial topics of the 9 Kunbi communities such as:

1. Location of the community/caste (for example the Kunbi Lonari migrated to their present location from the Lonar crater lake lake in Maharashtra
2. Language spoken (Marathi), script used for written communication (Devanagri)
3. Dietary habits, generally given as vegetarian and non-vegetarian
4. Festivals celebrated by the nine communities (Dussera, Diwali, Holi and Ganeshchaturthi and the like)
5. Traditional occupation before the community took up agriculture (for example, the Lonari used to be engaged in salt making from the Lonar salt lake before becoming agriculturists)
6. Whether the traditional caste council still exists or whether the community now uses the modern democratic institutions for solving disputes
7. Sample surnames of the community

Potentially controversial areas where the source is used may be:

1. Status of the caste in the varna system
2. Recent progress made by the community (not controversial to me but some might view the government funding as a conflict of interest)

If the consensus here is to replace the sourcing for even the non-controversial content then it will be a time consuming task but not an impossible one but we are in no hurry so I don't see this as big deal. We should also be able to find adequate sources for the varna status claims. However it will nearly be impossible to find anything on the current situation of the Kunbi communities which will be a loss for the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What Fowler&fowler says today on the talk page ("In practice this means that the material relying on AnSI volumes will need to be pruned, and other sources will need to be accommodated") seems perfectly sensible to me. "Prune" is what I'm about to do to my apple trees -- I'm not going to remove them but cut them back firmly and (I hope) judiciously.

Noting that my words above are quoted on that talk page, I want to add -- but we all know this -- that a "reliable source", by Misplaced Pages's definition, is not a reliable source of truth or certainty, and never a source of the whole truth. "Reliable" newspapers, and the publications of "reliable" institutions and publishers, contain many errors, many arguable claims, many half-truths. Andrew Dalby 16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wise words, Andrew Dalby. An example of what can easily be taken out is: "Tea is commonly consumed to overcome fatigue" cited to these volumes? What does one make of this? Holding their noses, they down the cuppa and go plow up another acre? But, equally, it might be the answer a peasant farmer accepting benefits from a government is likely to give to that government's interviewer. Why would they admit that they like the taste and while away the (government funded) afternoon in idle chatter (like elsewhere in the civilized world). Do these volumes have details about alcoholic beverages (much in demand these days in all of rural India)? Good luck with the pruning. Both. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments on alcohol consumption are replete in the volume. In fact they reflect the reality on the ground and the changing attitudes in India as you can see from these two random samples:

• About the Teli, it says on page 1954 They are non-drinkers but a few modern youths have started drinking alcohol in recent days.
• About a completely unrelated Sahu community, it says on page 1813 In the former days, the community used to punish those who consumed alcohol but nowadays that strictness is not present. Their men smoke bidi, and cigarettes and also chew betel.

The are ample references to the gender bias problems in India in the form of higher drop-out rates for girls, about early, even teenage marriage for girls (in some cases as early as 12 years, page 1663). On page 748, it says In olden times girls were married before puberty, even now the common age of marriage for girls is 10-12 years.

There are equally critical comments about lack of economic progress, untcouchability (unconstitutional and illegal in India but recorded in this volume They accept water or cooked food from most of the neighbouring communities such as Kunbi, Patel, Mochi, Vasara, Padvi, Warli, Nai. They do not accept water and cooked food from Bhoi and Bhil but accept siddha from them..., page 162)

I do not see an iota of nationalism or platitudes about national progress in these volumes. The volume certainly has its share of slips and problems with presentation at times but I take back my words and I think using the source for the varna-jati classification should be non-controversial too. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For me, I see no objection to "Tea is commonly consumed to overcome fatigue". This is true also among older members of the ethnic group I grew up in, but it isn't true worldwide.

The source is "reliable" (in the Misplaced Pages sense) and can be used. Given the potential for conflict of interest, we should naturally not rely on one source unduly but look for other sources too. As we always would. That's it from me -- good luck to all. Andrew Dalby 10:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for giving your valuable time to the matter, I appreciate it. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is mostly a weighting matter - do not unduly rely on it, but cite it by all means. Efforts should be made to find alternative sources to support it. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Would like review of a site

Can I get opinions on this site:

• trustedworldnews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

It has recently been added to a few articles; however, when looking at stories on the site, I'm seeing several non-professional elements (broken grammar, blatant spelling issues, capitalization, etc) which suggest this site has little to no editorial oversight. Also, the phrasing suggests a more casual writing style than is usually found in news sites. My gut reaction is that this is actually a scraper-type site that is being added to Misplaced Pages to attempt to gain page clicks (and thus far only added by a single user). But, I would like to see other opinions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cannot find any information about them and would therefore not consider rs. TFD (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Purpose sources

Are these reliable sources for an article on Purpose.

• Rosenblueth, Arturo; Wiener, Norbert; Bigelow, Julian (Jan.,1943). "Behavior, Purpose and Teleology". Philosophy of Science 10 (1): 19. JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/pss/184878.
• Laszlo, Ervin (9/1973 doi = DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1973.tb00235.x). "The Purpose of Mankind". Journal of Religion & Science 8 (3-4): 310-324.
• Warren, Howard C.. . "A Study of Purpose:". The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods (Journal of Philosophy, Inc.) 13 (1): 5-26.
• Conway, Patrick (1974) (in English). Development of volitional competence. MSS Information Corp. pp. 60. ISBN 0842204245.
• George, Frank Honywill; Johnson, Les (1943). Purposive behavior and teleological explanations. Gordon and Breach. pp. xII.
• Alexander, Victoria N.. "The Poetics of Purpose". Biosemiotics (Springer Science + Business Media B.V.) 2: 77-100. doi:10.1007/s12304-008-9031-3.
• Short, T. L. (1981). Peirce’s concept of final causation. Transaction of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 17, 369–82.

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say, per WP:RSOPINION, these sources "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". Racconish 08:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Those appear, from the details given, to be normal academic papers, so are reliable without necessarily needing attribution. This is a philosophy topic, so make sure that you explain the various philosophical views carefully and with due weight to how much regard is currently given to each. An advanced university textbook, i.e. for a specialist undergraduate course or for master's level, might be a good guide to how much weight to give to different schools of thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Firas Chamsi-Pasha

• Concern: In the article Cloth of gold published by The Economist, does statement (a) "arrived in Huddersfield" disqualify the reliability of statement (b) "for whom he was an agent"?
• Discussion: Southpole1 argument to deem (b) unreliable is based on the fact Hield Brothers is not in Huddersfield but in Bradford. In a typical SYN manner, he tries to demonstrate (a) is untrue, hence (b) is unreliable. Here is the latest version of his reasoning : "The Economist article states that Chamsi-Pasha arrived in Huddersfield in 1981, to do what ? Were he an agent he would not need to go to Huddersfield as agents work from other locations. Were he working for Hield Brothers he would have gone to Bradford and it would have said so." I, on the other hand, argue the article is written from "Bradford and Huddersfield", it does not say Hield Brothers is in Huddersfield, (b) describes the connection of Chamsi-Pasha with Hield Brothers before or at latest in 1981, there is no other source contradicting (b), The Economist is a generally reliable source, hence (b) should be considered reliable. A third opinion provided twice concurred with mine.
• Article statement supported: "The company was acquired in 1993 by Syrian former textile agent Firas Chamsi-Pasha." After revert by Southpole1, the current version of the article says "Syrian businessman Firas Chamsi-Pasha", with the reference to The Economist unchanged.
• Article where used: Moxon Huddersfield.
• Full citation of the source: Firas Chamsi-Pasha arrived in Huddersfield from Syria in 1981 when Hield Brothers, an old family-run weaving business for whom he was an agent, ran into trouble. (...) In 1993, he bought another Yorkshire company, Moxon.
• Link to the source: The Economist.
• Relevant talk page discussion: Talk:Moxon Huddersfield#Third opinion (2).

Thanks for comments, Racconish 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fashion Future

Hi Admin,

About the article in Davina Reichman please:

Is this a reliable source: to reference the above article?

The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:

Reichman influenced and inspired fashion designers. Nicola Finetti and Michael Lo Sordo utilised the show as a platform to launch their respective new collections at Austrian Fashion Week. Lo Sordo printed Horder's artworks for his entire collection in 2010 and Finetti printed Peppin's artworks on garments for his 2011 and 2012 collection.

The diff:

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

It seems Fashion Future is a self published source, not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages's standards.Racconish 09:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NyTeknik and Energy Catalyzer

NyTeknik has been involved directly with measuring and testing a fringe theory device the Energy Catalyzer. For example: "Ny Teknik recently participated in two new tests of the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’, providing more accurate measurements to reduce possible error sources. ... In the new tests, Ny Teknik aimed to reduce measurement uncertainty in three ways: ..." Does this make them a primary source? Both sides of the debate agree that "They were at the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we have been over a similar case earlier. Then it was the question if a book review was independent of the book. // Liftarn (talk)

This is completely different in that ny teknik actively participated in the demonstrations of the device. They themselves decided on changes to the tests of the machines for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If they participated in experiments and reported same, it's primary and should be used with caution, if used at all. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nyteknik is a respected magazine in Schweden. They have reported on the E-cat extensively, investigative reporting. Trying to dismiss Nyteknik articles as non reliable is absolutely wrong. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have mentioned continuously, this is not about reliability but about it being a primary source. Fringe guidelines says to not rely on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is not a primary FRINGE source. The source is a report about an event. The event is about a device that is supposed to work with a method that is not accepted by mainstream science. A report by journalist about a meeting of the flat earth society is not primary fringe. Such an article could be perfectly used for info like "there were 50 people there", "the meeting lasted for 2 days", You can try to read into FRINGE what you need to support your view that Nyteknik should be banned, but it is absolutely wrong to combine the two policies the way you are proposing. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing called primary fringe. It is the article itself that is a fringe article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The policies were not written with your line of thinking in mind. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is some part of Nyteknik's reporting that you think is not suitable, then we can discuss. Trying get a complete ban on Nyteknik's reporting through this Noticeboard is completely unjust and not in line with the spirit of the underlying principle. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ny Teknik reporter was indeed present at the demonstration. That does not make them a participant. Making suggestions still don't qualify as it would be the equivalent of a reporter asking questions. // Liftarn (talk)

Look at the text I have highlighted in bold. It is a quote from Ny Teknik, they say they have participated in their own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what POVbrigand wrote: the source is not a primary FRINGE source. The professionality of Ny Teknik is out of doubt.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not about whether the website is reputable or not; The issue is whether it is primary or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that people are missing the point here. Ny Teknik aren't reporting the results of 'experiments', they are actually participating directly - they are taking the measurements, and reporting the results in a document they have themselves produced - and note that this pdf document isn't 'published' in Ny Teknik - it is linked from it. Of course, they aren't 'experiments' anyway, in any meaningful sense - Ny Teknik themselves write that "There’s still no clear indication of when a test performed by independent experts can be done, although this is still what both readers of Ny Teknik and most experts Ny Teknik has spoken to demand". NY Teknik are clearly unqualified to conduct experiment, as they themselves state. It is always problematic when so much of an article is sourced from a single publication, and having them so intimately involved with 'demonstrations' of the subject they are reporting on that they are themselves the primary source for results (which they are, by definition - there is no other source for this material) makes the reliance being put on them even more questionable. I'm sure that in general, Ny Teknik meets WP:RS for its core subject matter (mainstream developments in technology), but they are reporting on a topic outside their field, and getting intimately involved with the production of 'data', rather than just reporting it. It is entirely inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to make use of such material in the way that it has been used. The 'experimental data' they produced is a primary source, and one that wouldn't even be considered reliable if it wasn't - it is nothing more than 'data' derived by unqualified individuals at a demonstration where they had no control of the conditions. Ny Teknik themselves state that what is needed is " a test performed by independent experts" - if they don't consider their results sufficient, neither should we. Maybe they are RS for general 'who', 'what', 'where', 'when' reporting on the E-Cat demonstrations, but they are not RS for any 'results - they say as much themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I'd have to say I agree with you here. In terms of reporting that some test occurred, who the participants at the test were, and where that test happened at, they would be a very objective and reliable source of information. For instance, they claim to have met the "anonymous customer" on the October 28th test and assert it is a legitimate person, even though they are at the moment refusing to identify who it might be. That still doesn't suggest they have any real knowledge of physics, plumbing, electrical circuits, or anything having to do with the technical side of things. They may quote Rossi here in terms of what he said including reporting on whatever instruments Rossi might have installed on this equipment, but I would put all of that under the same level as anything on WP:SELFPUB, thus the need to be even more careful with the details and qualifying anything said in such a manner. This is a general interest news outlet, not a scientific journal or specialty magazine devoted to this particular topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I have no problem if some of Ny Teknik's collection is not suitable. Some of their stuff isn't even interesting for our article. From an encyclopedic point of view, all the detailed measurement data is not needed. It's quite boring to read and for those who want to know the details, they can go to Nyteknik and get all excited about it. But the mere fact that they may have partially unsuitable material doesn't allow anyone to dismiss all their reporting in total. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't cherry pick what we like from a primary source and declare that it is in some way secondary. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Can a primary source who participated in an event as discussed above be an independent source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are still convinced that journalists suddenly lose their independence when they gather their own measurement data, please have a look at how automotive journalists testdrive cars and report about all kinds of self measured test data. I am not argueing that Nyteknik is particularly more qualified in looking at a amp-meter than you or me and I do not think we should use all of their data in our article, but a journalist taking his own measurements does not automatically lead to losing independence the way you are proposing. You are only pushing your position for a complete ban on all of Nyteknik's reporting. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"automotive journalists testdrive cars". True enough. And as such, they are reliable sources for their opinions on such cars (obviously), and also RS for 'data' (if the publication they write for has a reputation for producing reliable reports on such matters). We wouldn't consider them reliable sources for data on the E-Cat, as they aren't 'LENR journalists' - and neither are the Ny Taknik journalists - they have no expertise in the field, where any RS on performance can only come in the form of peer-reviewed science in a recognised journal. Yes, they are RS for statements that demonstrations have taken place, and that people attended. They cannot however be RS for any authoritative statements about the E-Cat's performance - They acknowledge this themselves. In fact, at the moment, nobody can be, because it hasn't been 'tested', just 'demonstrated' by the person attempting to sell it without telling anyone how it works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd further be concerned if the automotive journalist saw fit to watch someone else test-drive a Cessna-170, only to report that after using his stopwatch he was unable to comment on whether it was able to achieve Mach 27 in less than 5.20003 seconds. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd treat the whole magazine with considerable caution. It's a trade magazine, that is, as far as I can tell, distributed for free and financed exclusively by advertising. Trade magazines in general are not the most reliable sources - they widely rely on press releases and friendly industry contacts, not on investigative journalism and critical analysis. That does not mean they cannot be reliable sources for e.g. product launch dates or company appointments, but not for highly contentious red flag issues like Free Energy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The point is that they don't lose their independence just because they take some measurements and publish them. I already agreed to Andy arguments ages ago and I even made a proposal back then Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_6#Demonstrations_wrap_up. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

By our standards, I think they do lose there independence because they participated in the experiment. If, as Andy asserts, they note a need for "a test performed by independent experts", then we should be particularly cautious about reporting the results. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

TVbytheNumbers

This has been brought up before, but the last time was 2009. Since then, it's extremely widely used. Every TV editor on here uses TVbytheNumbers. It's the only place that posts final numbers for television ratings (everywhere else uses fast affiliate ratings—and doesn't post the finals later in the day). From my experience, they've never been wrong. Can it be included as a reliable source now? Jayy008 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

From all appearances, TVbytheNumbers seems to be reliable, as it uses the Nielsen Ratings system. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Just thought I'd put some of these here. It's, what I would consider, reliable sources using TvByTheNumbers.com, or at least commenting about the website. Forbes describing it as "the leading online site devoted to analayzing TV stats", one from the NY Post siting statistics from the website.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since TVbytheNumbers partnered with Zap2it, whose parent company is Tribune Media Services, I would think that more than satisfies the prerequisite "editorial oversight" a source should preferably have to be considered "reliable".  Chickenmonkey  01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

TV Fanatic for its reviews

Is this site reliable enough to add the content of its reviews to the Reception areas of South Park episode articles? Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...I think I might have issue with us using the "professional critical opinion" of a computer programmer when it comes to television critiquing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tangent Magazine

Raised from here

I have doubts on the reliability this Australian online fashion magazine in view of the following mission statement: "Tangent is a playground for people who appreciate fashion as art. It targets people who indulge in their identity and want to discover every secret corner of fashion first. Tangent entertains with the most unconventional editorials, exclusive content, fashion videos and live stream interviews. Tangent magazine fuses the hottest international labels with the edgy Australian fashion, to give our readers a potent mix of style to inspire their wardrobes" . In practical terms, I find the 2 articles (I) cited in Davina Reichman overenthusiastic in tone. What do other editors think? Racconish 09:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your doubts are pretty well founded. I poked around the site for an hour trying to figure out if there are any hallmark features of reliability. It does seem to be entertainment as well as a fashion guide along the opinions of its two primary editors, and two staff writers. I don't think it's particularly reliable for much in the objective sense. I think it probably will turn on how the source is used. For any substantive purpose, it probably is unreliable. To simply state an event happened, and that it was covered in this media, it might be alright. But I'm not a fan of including content that says "X was interviewed by Y" if there's really nothing else to say about the interview. Same for "Q reported on Z" – if Q is unreliable, like mashable or techcrunch – it's probably not worth even mentioning. JFHJr (㊟) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point the article is pretty much cleaned of all the promotion and fluff, including pretending DR is a designer. I notice the articles in Tangent refer to upcoming events, such as the launch of a new line, as if they were already accomplished, which is not true. If we accept this source for DS being an "entrepreneur", how can we refuse it for "designer"? I would rather remove all references to this source than draw a line in the sand. Racconish 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent proposition. JFHJr (㊟) 16:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see this as being resolved. User:Racconish, an editor of the Davina Reichman article, whose primary edits have been removing sources and content comes to the noticeboard. He is met here by User:JFHJr, also an editor of the Davina Reichman article, whose edits have also been removing sources and content, who even recently unsuccessfully nominated it for deletion. I imagine a less biased opinion should be required. I personally am not very knowledgeable about fashion, but the mag in question does seem to have a publishing history, professional staff, and professional quality writing and photography. The fact that it says it's here to entertain does not inherently make it unreliable, fashion is a fairly frivolous subject, and intended to be entertaining. --GRuban (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Derby Memoirs

• http://derbymemoirs.bankedtrack.info/index.html
• http://derbymemoirs.bankedtrack.info/loretta.html

Personal hobby site used to source numerous DYKs (which include but are not limited to BLPs, against WP:SPS).

Nice pictures, though-- those pants belong in some National Register of Historic Sightings.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Could you list the articles in which it is used, or at least the BLPs? As a self-published source, it should clearly not be used as a source for any BLPs, so it would be good to remove it from them as soon as possible.

I'm only aware of one article in which it is used, Ronnie Robinson (roller derby), so I'll just discuss that in context, for now. The author of the particular article used is Phil Berrier, who has written extensively on roller derby online, but so far as I know, has not been published. The editor of the website is Loretta Behrens, a former roller derby skater who is occasionally quoted on roller derby in the press, but, again, I don't believe has been published. This is marginal at best, but as it is used to cite entirely uncontroversial facts, I believe that it is suitable for its purpose. Warofdreams talk 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, because I was concerned to hear that these had been used to reference BLPs appearing at DYK, I found the external link search. I don't know how complete its results are, but if it is correct, then your allegations are wrong - the site has only been used as a source in the one article I mention, and otherwise appears on the talk page of DYK, and as an external link not used as a reference at the end of the roller derby article. Where are these other pages? Using this website for BLPs would be a serious issue, which needs resolving ASAP. Warofdreams talk 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it and strike that portion; at any rate, that it is used on one article still requires resolution here. Or course, that portion could have been avoided if you had posted this query yourself, as requested several times at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess this board is dead or dying, so I'll expain myself why it's not a reliable source (even though our WP:SPS page already does that):

Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

That's that-- the burden is on the person wanting to use this self-published hobby site to explain where her work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications, and why her hobby work is worth reporting if no one else has reported it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.adherents.com/

It is being used in many pages as a reliable source for numbers of followers for various religions but the study it quotes is from 1990 and the copyright and last update is from 2000. There are newer sources for some of this data (like the ARIS study) so is adherents.com a reliable source for this usage?

In particular is a dispute over it's use in the Talk:Christianity in the United States#Adherents.com is out of date article. Alatari (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Union membership card

I am working on the article Francis Alfred Broad. I have access to some of the family records; in particular I have a photocopy of a printed union membership card. This card confirms (to me) that F. A. Broad, "by trade a Electrical Instrument Maker, member number 33, South London number 5 branch, Scientific Instrument Makers' Trades Society". It is signed by Broad, the president J Holmes and the secretary H J Carter. Is this ephemeral or a reliable source? --Senra (Talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its a primary source, and using it to make historical suppositions would be original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --Senra (Talk) 11:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have included this primary source as a footnote here --Senra (Talk) 11:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This barely skirts the "illustrative" concept of using primary sources when a secondary source already demonstrates the fact—barely, but on the right side of the line. I'd suggest you publish a modernised biography in a labour history journal, and cite that! (I do understand you're organising your research at the moment). Remember, that even when an _archival document_ is a primary source, an archivist's _finding aid_ is a secondary source. So you could cite an archivist's finding aid that specifies the date of the formation of the union correctly. (Given my own research interests, it looks like a great contribution to the encyclopaedia!) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Er. ... on the right side of the line. I think this is a compliment so thank you. If I understand correctly, in this specific context, the membership card in question is in a private collection and not a professional archive. I therefore feel unable to cite this private collection and have relegated this primary source to a footnote. If I have not understood correctly, please do feel at liberty to correct the article. Just a tiny more bit of background. One of Broad's descendants mildly complained recently about my use in the article of the title Amalgamated Instrument Makers Trade Society sending me a photocopy of the union membership card as evidence; hence this whole thread. For the record, WP:COI does not apply; as main contributor I am entirely unrelated --Senra (Talk) 13:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

wrestleview.com and lordsofpain.net

Are Wrestleview.com or LordsofPain.net reliable sources regarding wrestlers? Could they be used for WP:BLP information about them? Jayjg 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

According to style guide at WP:PW Lordsofpain is not reliable and that wrestleview is marginally reliable and should only be used for television and Pay Per view results. Based on that the only BLP info I can see being added with these sources would be something like Rey Mysterio won the World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania 22 in a triple threat match against Randy Orton and Kurt Angle.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrestling PPV pages

In articles about wrestling pay-per-view events, is it permissible to use the official home video release of the event as a source for match results?

Blozier2006 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --FormerIP (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

FilmBug.Com

I have noticed that FilmBug.Com is being used as a source or external link on 272 articles, but at the bottom of some subject's pages at FilmBug, there is a statement:

Article text released under CC-BY-SA. It uses material from the Misplaced Pages article "(Subject's Name)".

This is WP:CIRCULAR. Now, not all of the FilmBug articles use Misplaced Pages as their source, (Emily Watson's FilmBug article, for instance, acknowledges her Weinstein Company bio), but it looks to me like all the mentions of FilmBug in Misplaced Pages articles will have to be gone through and deleted when circularly referencing is present. I wanted to get some feedback on the usage of FilmBug and my plan to delete it as a source where appropriate. Sheree North, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: N–O are some of the articles that have a circular reference issue, the issue seems to mostly pop up when the subject is dead.Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This suggests that FilmBug cannot be regarded as a reliable source. Where it notes its own sources, we should consult and cite them rather than FilmBug; where it does not, we cannot know that the source is not Misplaced Pages, a blog, or other unreliable source. RolandR (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Are mainstream newspapers reliable for reporting census data?

Article: Diet in Hinduism
The claim: Contrary to popular belief, India is not a predominantly vegetarian country, according to recent census data as of 2004. Brahmins of East India and Kashmir and the Saraswat Brahmins of the Southwest are allowed fish and some meat.
The source: The Hindu, url:
The challenge to the source:

The objection to the source seems to be based on the editor's view that the census doesn't address dietary concerns. I don't know if this assertion is valid or not, but the newspaper reports some very specific numbers to back up its claim, which leads me to question where they got the stats if the didn't get it from the census (which they claim they did). The Hindu seems to be a respectable mainstream source that qualifies under WP:NEWSORG, so in my interpretation of the guidlines it is trustworthy for reporting stats that it says it has taken from the census data. In the absence of proof that The Hindu is not accurately reporting data, I don't see how the objection to its use is valid. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

When in doubt, look at other sources: states that as of 1998, 30% of the Indian populace was vegetarian. states that there are many more nonvegetarians than there are vegetarians in India. Seems that Buddhists and Jains are more likely to be vegetarian than the majority of Hindus are. No need to use any source (which, by the way, appears tp meet RS) when stronger sources are plentiful. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The "online edition of India's National Newspaper" is about as reliable a source as sources come, surely? It also does not matter what the user who reverted your changes think, it's the source that wins not personal opinion. Nikthestoned 17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's more or less my view, and I would be more willing consider source error if there were credible sources claiming the opposite. Basically if the source is incorrect, then it is either mis-representing or mis-interpreting the data, but if that is the case then it needs to be established through other reliable sources. Anyway, I've replaced the source for the claim using the sources collect has kindly dug out, so hopefully this issue is now resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

D. Balasubramanian of The Hindu is writing an article based on three works of Dr. K.T. Achaya. Normally, The Hindu is as reliable as it can get but there seems to be some sort of a problem in this case. Relevant content from The Hindu is:

Contrary to popular belief, India is not a predominantly vegetarian country. But a quarter of the population is reckoned, based on census data, to be vegetarian.

Brahmins, Saivite non-Brahmins of South India and several Vaishnavite sects across the country avoid meat. Interestingly though Brahmins of East India, Kashmir and the Saraswats of the Southwest are allowed fish and some meat.

The first quote implies that someone, either Dr. K.T. Achaya or D. Balasubramanian, has performed some calculations. Since the census neither addresses dietary habits, nor counts the population of the 4365 communities of India, it is difficult to understand what kind of estimation has been done here. Assuming that the 25% number was arrived at by taking into consideration the traditional habits of the various communities of India (see above for a source on a detailed study by the Anthropological Survey of India), there seems to be a contradiction here. My guess is that two components have been combined to come to the conclusion:

1. Caste census data from the 1931 census (the last census when caste populations were counted) was used for estimation
2. An assumption that the castes which were traditionally vegetarian are still vegetarian

There will be more reliability if you can cite Dr. K.T. Achaya's works directly. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between whether people are actually vegetarian, and whether they claim to be part of a religious grouping which mandates vegetarianism. Few people rigorously adhere to all their religion's tenets. If you looked at censuses in Europe you'd discover many more people self-identifying as "christian" than if you did a phone survey asking "Did you go to church last sunday?"; and the number of people actually in churches on any given sunday is even smaller still. So, avoid extrapolation; stick to what the sources actually say. X million people belonging to a vegetarian sect is not the same as X million vegetarians. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the issue about whether newspaper reports are reliable for census data (I would actually say, on balance, "yes"), I don't think we should be reproducing the phrase "contrary to popular belief" from a newspaper. Because it is journalistic comment, not fact, and because, whereas the source is presumably referencing a popular belief in India, by including the phrase in Misplaced Pages we give the impression that the same applies in the English-speaking world. --FormerIP (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Sanderson Beck a reliable source?

An editor continues to use this writer as a reliable source for articles relating to Indian history, eg Siege of Jinji and Aurangzeb (blanked at the moment due to copyvio issues with edits added by the same editor). and related pages are the ones involved in this specific complaint. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know the topic of the article, but certainly the Beck item is miles from WP:RS. I support the deletion of the Beck material/ref. The problem is that the continued inclusion of low quality material is in the end going to cut back on funding for Misplaced Pages when people say: We donate all this money and these people post this type of junk... So I think there is need for far closer adherence to WP:RS for it is not just an image issue, but in the end will be a funding issue. E.g. see this that I came across today. The user TraceyR seems so frustrated with Misplaced Pages. It is happening too often now. History2007 (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am always wary of declaring any author "not RS" in all situations... so could someone enlighten me as to what the objection to this author (Sanderson Beck) actually is? Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard of him until today. But from what I saw he is as far from "scholar" as one can get. The only thing he has not claimed on his website is that he had lunch with Elvis last week.... Give me a break. I was tempted to say he needs his head examined... But I will avoid that statement. Exactly in which respected journals has he ever published? It seems like "none". This is why I am getting generally fed up with all this non-scholarly junk floating in Misplaced Pages and people defending it... This will just cut back on donations as we begin to float on this type of alphabet soup generated by people like Beck (and 10,000 others). History2007 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unreliable for history: self-published. See WP:HISTRS for an outline of acceptable sources for historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• Actually: unreliable for anything: self-published by a non-expert. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments on WP:RS of self published source

Comments on use of self published sources in this article will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In summary, a number of established doctorate professors did extensive studies. The studies, the testimony of the doctors, and their conclusions, were published on soufanieh.com (in a manner that provides online users direct access to many of the doctors' original reports). I wish to elucidate the scientific/medical studies that took place as well as the doctors' conclusions resulting from those studies, but a Misplaced Pages user flagged me for this.
If I were to plainly state their conclusions--that those established experts failed to find a scientific explanation for their observations, would that be the equivalent of asserting an exceptional claim--subjecting and limiting me to Misplaced Pages's exceptional claims policy?
COice6 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Scholars have access to the scholarly publishing industry, and industry which uses peer review to verify their claims against the scholarly community's understanding of good scholarly practice. Scholars publishing outside of the scholarly publishing process ought to be viewed with deep and abiding suspicion unless their publication has been positively reviewed in peer reviewed journals in their field of speciality. unreliable Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"unpublished documents" question ...

I was looking at the article about Ellie Nesler. There are some factual errors I would like to correct. I have in my personal/professional archives a rather complete set of the actual Court documents. I testified in the matter as an expert. Most of these materials became public during the trial. They are not published anywhere (this was before the www). Is it ok to cite a personal collection or professional archive as a source? There are news accounts, but many are themselves inaccurate ... it was complicated. The primary correction I want to make has to do with the trial outcome and the decision on appeal. Pgm8693 (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say not. Else everyone will start publishing items in their basement/garage in Misplaced Pages. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but would add if you have good interesting material, you may be able to get it published in a reliable source--then we could use it. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

With the consent of other editors through talkpage discussions, I think these materials could potentially be used to facilitate the removal of information in the article if it is clearly and demonstrably wrong. But they should not be used to add new material. This is because they are primary sources. The materials would need to be verifiable (i.e. other editors need to be able to check them). I would say that uploading to Docstoc or something would be okay in order to satisfy this requirement, but other editors might disagree, so that could be a hurdle.--FormerIP (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that will open the door to WP:OR on those documents, the need to verify them, etc. Big time publications have been fooled that way... We have enough complaints about junk floating in Misplaced Pages, no need to add to them by someone finding Jimmy Hoffas diary in their basement, 3 Wikipedians verifying it and making news... etc. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of the cornerstones of this site. The majority of the editors here cannot verify personally collected unpublished court documents, so they would not even be acceptable as a primary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That is right. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between presenting a source for the inclusion of material in an article in an article (which I don't think can be done here) and merely presenting it for the purposes of discussion on a talk page. In that case, the core policies of OR and V are not applicable. I'll accept that it's not at all a straightforward matter. Pgm is nowhere if the veracity of the documents is contested by other editors, and there may well be a WP:COI issue as well.

To give a hypothetical example. Our article currently says - and this is completely unsourced - that Nesler "fired five shots into Driver's head". Let's say that Pgm is able to provide documents showing that the number of shots was four and only two of those were to the head. Documents showing this beyond any reasonable query and showing that it is something factually accepted by the court, the prosecution and the defence. Surely we should at least consider removing the incorrect information from the article? --FormerIP (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There ought to be a way to deal with this within our rules. Taking your hypothesis. If the current statement is unsourced, and the talk page shows it is controversial, it should be tagged "citation needed". Then: (a) If the only available "reliable" source confirms it (though we think from the documents that it is false) we could (a.1) still remove it -- we don't have to repeat every word that reliable sources say -- or (a.2) retain it, but add an attribution to the source in the text. Which is the normal signal that we don't stand by the assertion. Or (b) if no reliable source confirms our current statement, then of course we remove the detail altogether until we do have such a source.

Between choices (a.1) and (a.2) I would go for (a.2) in cases where there is significant current interest, because, if the detail is simply removed, someone else is pretty sure to re-insert it. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to attribute incorrect information. We can just delete it. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nesler "fired five shots into Driver's head", that's sourceable to the MSNBC article, but if it weren't sourceable, the simple solution would be to remove it, since anything not sourced is fair game for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's sourceable, Nuujinn. That's because my scenario in which it is false was totally made up. The point is that information which editors are reasonably able conclude is false should be removed from Misplaced Pages. It doesn't really matter what process is gone through in order to reach that conclusion. It could very easily be based on looking at court documents that contradict news reports. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We may use primary sources to correct simple errors, e.g., a direct quote, the spelling of a name, the length of a sentence, but cannot interpret those sources, even if the secondary source's interpretation is wrong. The correct approach then is to approach the publisher of the secondary source. Also, we may provide links to court documents. TFD (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, Misplaced Pages discourages links to primary sources such as court documents. WP:BLP states that they should not be used in any biography of a living person specifying in clear language: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Cheers - find secondary sources for sure. Collect (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The applicable section is WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event. The article should be re-named and links to court documents for articles that are about crime stories are appropriate. (Read the article.) It is of course inappropriate to link to court documents for a person whose claim to notability is not their involvement in a legal proceeding. TFD (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Question about external links

How do I report or prevent another website from taking my website LINK and constantly moving it to the bottom of the LINKS section?

You should probably give more details. I don't think there is enough info here for anyone to give an answer. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in regards to Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency, I've just taken a look at the article (as this editor) raised the same question at the help desk, and removed all of the links as in their current form, they viloated the MOS and more problematically seemed to be spam.--Cameron Scott (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping refs

• Book Title: People from Halland: Axel Erlandson, Olof Von Dalin, Fredrik Ström, Niels Valdemarsen

"Swedish American farmer who shaped trees as a hobby"

Published by General Books LLC in 2010 Google books Book about different American Swedish people, with some text about Alex Erlandson's life and his trees.

My questions are, given that it is using the wording as a describing term would the above citation be:

1. a reliable source?
2. support the use of Tree shaping as a title?.

?oygul (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No the publisher is a poison press with no editorial responsibility for content; and, who regularly uses wikipedia as the source content of their text. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Some editors at Astrology are intent on adding the following criticism of a peer-reveiwed study in Nature into the article (see here for full context: ]):

"Criticisms of Carlson's study have been published in numerous astrological and other fringe journals. These arguments range from faulty design and conclusion by Professor Hans Eysenck (1986) and Professor Joseph Vidmar (2008) to the claim that the Carlson data provides statistically significant evidence favoring the astrologers by Professor Suitbert Ertel (2009)".

The sources used are: Astrological Journal, Correlation, and Journal of Scientific Exploration, all of which are non-peer-reviewed fringe sources. Nevertheless, they are being used to challenge a genuine peer-reviewed scientific study, using WP:PARITY and the fact they they are identified as fringe journals as a justification.

The noteworthiness the criticisms is questionable as none of these criticisms have been discussed in reliable sources. There is no evidence that they are part of mainstream scientific discourse.

Your input would be appreciated at the article's talk page: ]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• None of these criticisms come from reliable sources for the purpose of critiquing a peer reviewed study in Nature; the criticisms should not be included as they cannot be verified against reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for our purposes, they would be considered primary sources. Generally speaking, primary sources are reliable for their own viewpoints and they are allowed but with several important caveats as to how they are used. But in this particular case, WP:FRINGE says that points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. From what I can gather from the discussion, these are being used to support content where there are no secondary reliable sources for the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I only read the source that is available on line, but to the extent they analyze Carlson's article, aren't they secondary sources. Bad secondary sources, but secondary. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism

In the article Libertarianism:

Is the PRIMARY source Holcombe, Randall G. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf.+Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable. reliable for generalised claims about libertarianism including claims in the sociology and history of ideas of libertarianism, such as, "Another common justification is that private defense and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough."

Is the PRIMARY source, whose partisan political publisher disclaimed any editorial responsibility, Birch, Paul (1998). "Anarcho-capitalism Dissolves Into City States". Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes no. 28: 4. ISSN 0267-7083. Retrieved 5 July 2010. notable as an argument to support a general discussion of libertarianism and law such as, "Paul Birch argues that as in the world today, legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different legal system will be many times more complex and costly to resolve than disputes involving only one legal system. Thus, the largest private protection business in a territory will have lower costs since it will have more internal disputes and will out-compete those private protection business with more external disputes in the territory. In effect, according to Birch, protection business in territory is a natural monopoly." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough to use these self published sources to describe what it is that libertarians believe. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To describe what all libertarians believe? This would allow an editor to use the Irish Worker's Solidarity Movement's programme to rewrite libertarianism, and then another editor to use the USLP manifesto to rewrite the article, and then use the statement of beliefs of the Black Rose bookstore in Sydney to rewrite the article. None of these sources are competent to express what all libertarians believe, or to make comparative judgements, as they are politically partisan and directly involved in contesting what libertarians ought to believe. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No these aren't reliable sources for anything. Holcombe's article is hosted by a partisan site and he himself is apparently a partisan. (And those eyes will be haunting my tonight.) He's not highly distinguished or notable such that he's eligible to serve as a spokesman for the Libertarian movement generally. Paul Birch is apparently a lot less distinguished, but I think this is him. He's an astronomer. If he's an anarcho-capitalist as I gather he is then he's way fringe. I think there's an article on anarcho-capitalism and basically material on that should be confined to that article, beyond the merest mentions.

So the Birch material is just clearly and equivocally of no use. Holcombe's better but he's still basically a nobody and per Fifelfoo he's not got standing to say what libertarians hold, nor is is probably even notable enough to be included as "some commentators" in a "some commentators say..." type construction, although I'm not sure of that. Do we not have actual reliable sources from neutral political scientists and historians of political philosophy and so forth, or absent that at least from heavy-hitter libertarians, who have standing to address these issues? Can we use those instead? Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do have oodles of reliable soruces. Robert T Long is a heavy hitting academic, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Colin Ward, etc etc etc. Sadly Libertarianism has been dominated by editors willing to use partisan primary sources, conduct original research, etc. As a follow up: Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow up question

Is Anthony de Jasay (1996). "Hayek: Some Missing Pieces" (PDF). The Review of Austrian Economics. 9 (1): 107–18. ISSN 0889-3047. Prior to 1998 RAE was not peer-reviewed, therefore this article fails to me HQRS criteria reliable for "Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement." reliable for the significance of this view in a high order article like Libertarianism. Please note that we have unimpeachably reliable sources for this point already. RAE wasn't peer reviewed prior to 1998 when it was ISSN 0889-3047 (using Ulrich's periodicals directory). Subsequently to 1998, when it changed ISSN, it became peer reviewed. I am only interested in this article, and the period when RAE wasn't peer reviewed.

I would delete this source myself, as we have two scholarlies on the same point, but I fear the appearance of editorial bias, and so am seeking a secondary opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Peer reviewed" is not a requirement for use of a reliable source. And where the article is, by its nature, political opinion, de gustibus non disputandum est surely applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

HQRS is a requirement of Featured Articles, which is where I want to see Libertarianism return. Not disputing about tastes leads straight into WEIGHTing problems because of an undue emphasis on texts lacking significance, or full of peacocking. Colin Ward, and Mad Bill from the Park might share a view on the development of anarchism in the twentieth century. Only Ward has the capacity to state it (with the exception of Ward's own influence). de Jasay seems to be a well published political economist and philosopher of economics; so I'm happy to accept an expert argument here that de Jasay has the personal capacity to make such judgements about Hayek. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS at Ruby Laffoon

Hello. In reviewing the Ruby Laffoon article, which is currently at FAC, I noticed that the article's main source is:

• Gipson, Vernon (1978). Ruby Laffoon, Governor of Kentucky, 1931–1935. Earlington, Kentucky: Vernon Gipson.

The book is self-published and my understanding is that the author must therefore meet the requirements set out at WP:SPS (i.e. that he is an expert in his field). I asked about this at the FAC and Acdixon (talk · contribs), the nominator, gave this response:

"I was concerned about this issue being raised. I don't honestly know what Gipson's credentials are. Laffoon is a very minor politician in the grand scheme of things, and Gipson's is likely to remain the most complete account of his life for a good while (maybe ever). Gipson is from Hopkins County, the same county as Laffoon, hence the interest. According to this, he was the first acting chairman of the Hopkins County Historical Society in 1974. His book is listed as "Suggested reading" in Kentucky's Governors, which was edited by eminent Kentucky historian Lowell H. Harrison, and The Kentucky Encyclopedia, edited by current Kentucky state historian John E. Kleber. For what it's worth, the book is heavily footnoted with references to the local newspapers of Laffoon's time, although I have no way of checking those references since the papers have long since gone out of business. All that is a very indirect case, I know, but it's the best I can do right now. If this is insufficient, I might be able to contact the current president of the Hopkins County Historical Society (who is one of my former colleagues) to see if he can tell me more about Gipson. Seems he was just at a class reunion last month."

As a reviewer, I feel unable to say "well, it's clear that Gipson does/doesn't pass SPS" – it genuinely looks borderline to me. To be honest, I have very little experience in determining the reliability of SPS's, hence the post to this board. Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is borderline. If Gipson hasn't published any work in peer-reviewed media, at WP:SPS that counts against him as author. But the fact that this book is cited or recommended in reliable sources (apart from those you mention, it is also in the footnotes of James C. Klotter's Kentucky: portrait in paradox, 1900-1950) counts in favour of the book: by those authors, for their purposes, it has been accepted as a reliable source. And, after all, through the centuries, local historians who have written big books have needed to go for self-publication: there was often no other way.

Whether there's a guideline that helps us further, I don't know, but I would conclude from the above evidence that the book is a reliable source of facts (as you say, maybe the best there'll ever be) but an unreliable source of interpretations ... unless we know that Gipson has had some training as a historian, and I guess we don't know that. Andrew Dalby 12:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But we do have a guideline (in beta): WP:HISTRS. I'd suggest that you seek book reviews of the work in historical journals, or further positive citations by historians. Local history can be troublesome like this. Seriously: journals for book reviews, especially regional history journals. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo, I hadn't seen that page. I agree that book reviews would give good guidance. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I find helpful is to look at library holdings for a book - see what type of library holds the book. In this case this is the World Cat listing. You can see it's held by a number of academic libraries, mainly near Kentucky. Filson Club is a historical society based in Kentucky that's reasonably well known in the genealogical and local history world. I'd say the work is probably reliable enough for uncontentious facts, but it would be better to use other sources as much as possible. Kentucky has an active local history community, so checking their local history journals could be fruitful. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to touch base with the president of the Hopkins County Historical Society to get some more information about Gipson's qualifications. I haven't found any reviews of the book in journals so far, nor have I found anything else Gipson published yet. Acdixon  14:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Found nothing on JSTOR.— Racconish 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have been accepted by historians. For local history, this is often the only type of extensive source available. So I would consider it rs. TFD (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments everyone. Like Acdixon, I have been unable to find any reviews (though I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right places). I did find this (someone's PhD dissertation from 2009), which shows that Gipson wrote the book as his master's thesis. A search on google books does lead to the same conclusion as TFD – it has been accepted as RS by respected historians.

Books/journals that recommend Gipson as suggested reading:

• The Kentucky Encyclopedia by Lowell H. Harrison (edited by John E. Kleber), University Press of Kentucky
• Kentucky's Governors by William E. Ellis (edited by Lowell H. Harrison), University Press of Kentucky
• The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, Volume 84
• A New History of Kentucky by Lowell H. Harrison and James C. Klotter, University Press of Kentucky

Books/journals that reference Gipson:

• Kentucky: Portrait in Paradox, 1900–1950 by James C. Klotter, University Press of Kentucky
• Hard times and New Deal in Kentucky, 1929–1939 by George T. Blakey, University Press of Kentucky

—Jenks24 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Direct quote by subject of biography (Weston Price)

I am currently having an issue getting this direct quote in to the Weston Price article:

In his 1939 Nutrition and Physical Degeneration book Price made one passing comment about his 1923 work:

In my search for the cause of degeneration of the human face and the dental organs I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues. In my two volume work on "Dental Infections," Volume I, entitled "Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic," and Volume II, entitled "Dental Infections and the Degenerative Diseases," (PRICE, W. A. Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic. Cleveland, Penton, 1923) I reviewed at length the researches that I had conducted to throw light on this problem. The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something. This strongly indicated the need for finding groups of individuals so physically perfect that they could be used as controls. In order to discover them, I determined to search out primitive racial stocks that were free from the degenerative processes with which we are concerned in order to note what they have that we do not have."

(Price, Weston (1939) Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers)

Several things here:

First, given Price had to vet through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers is the source reliable regarding Price's own view of Dental Infections and the Degenerative Diseases?

Second, just where does the work as a whole fall? Secondary source because it was vetted through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers or a Primary source because it was written by Price? (See Princeton University's classification of What is a Primary Source?)

Third, even if the passage itself qualifies as a Primary source is it reliable regarding Price's own view of his earlier 1923 work?

Right now I am going for reliability not NPOV so don't waste our time with that. Once the RS of this source is confirmed or denied we can work on the NPOV issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like an obviously involved primary to me. For reviews and appreciations of scholars' works, seek other scholars' opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, this is wp:UNDUE weight on what you yourself note is a passing comment. All this quote says is what our article already says - that Price decided to seek out 'unspoiled' indigenous peoples to study. Include it as a link if you need to, but full quote is way too much. --Ludwigs2 16:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo and Ludwigs. It's a primary quote. As such, in principle, it's not totally disallowed, since the POV of the subject needs to be documented in articles about themselves. It's more a question of weight. Now if others in secondary reliable sources have commented on that quote/idea by Price, their views might be eligible. Whatever the case, regardless of whether you are 10000000% right, trying to edit war this into the article is just plain wrong, and no amount of forum shopping will change that. I hope you will respect this outside input from uninvolved editors and factor that into how you now discuss this on the article's talk page. That's where you should focus your efforts. Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate.... -- Brangifer (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Weston Price is that his modern fame seems to revolve around what others did with his work long after his death especially in the case of George E. Meinig's book. In the very long Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Do_we_agree.3F section User:Griswaldo raised this important point which got lost in the shuffle. He again raised this point in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#arb_break_2 but it again got lost in the shuffle.

It took some digging to find the one reliable source that actually looked at Meinig's book in the context of what Price actually said and even that didn't go any further than the 1923 work. How much of what we are seeing is actually about Price's actual views and not about Meinig's interpretation of Price? I've noticed things even in the 1923 work that get ignored--I had to slug all the way back to 1935 to find a secondary reference regarding Price's conservatism regarding tooth extraction and even that called him radical though it doesn't explain as to how he was radical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Daily Caller as source to refute a technical white paper + secondary sources

I have never posted here before so please excuse any deviation from proper procedure. It would be inadvertent.

1.Questioned Text:

Ou, George; New tools to combat thieves online;Daily Caller 10/25/2011

2. http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/

3. Appears in Protect IP Act

4. Context:

Five Internet engineers, Steve Crocker, David Dagon, Dan Kaminsky, Danny McPherson and Paul Vixie have prepared a whitepaper suggesting that the DNS filtering provisions in the bill "raise serious technical and security concerns" and would "break the Internet", while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit.

I realize there are other problems with this sentence. For instance it cites "other engineers" and only documents one; NPOV is also a problem. I tried to change some of these things and was un-edited.

But the question right here right now is whether the Daily Caller is reliable in this context. I said no. The un-editor says it is, based on

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71. I read it and the following discussion ensued:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Protect_IP_Act&action=edit&section=28

By the way

The footnotes in that paragraph link, in the following order, to:

http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59599226/Debunking-DNS-Filtering-Concerns

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/#more-26745

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=2

this links to letters to the editor

Thank you for your thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who first introduced The Daily Caller source citation to our Misplaced Pages article. It cites an opinion piece by a network engineer, George Ou, in the tech section of that publication, and the Daily Caller article also supplies an embedded link to George Ou's full technical paper. The Daily Caller is not being cited to support an assertion of fact; it is only cited as a published source of an opposing opinion from another engineer. I admit I'm still unclear as to what possible specific objection the above editor may have to citing the DC as a source of opinion, especially in light of Elinruby's agreement about Ou's position linked above: "I have not investigated its claims in depth but it raises questions phrased in a respectable manner that suggest a valid alternate view. The author (George Ou) also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing." As near as I can tell, the objection has something to do with Gloria Allred...

Xenophrenic (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any challenges or critiques of the white paper would have to be of equivalent reliabilty. The scribd source seems to be self-published. The Caller is clearly not a reliable source for technical matters, but the reliability of the source used rests on the qualifications of the suthor. In either case, as Xenophrenic says, "the author (George Ou) also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing", so his criticism would not qualify as of equivalent reliability or noteworthiness. PCnet, Wired and Cnet are reliable sources, but the criticisms presented in those articles are clearly attributed to individuals who have no competency at all to criticize a technical paper. The letters to the editor in the NYT don't mention the white paper at all. Basically, none of the criticisms presented come from an equivalently qualified researcher as the authors of the white paper, and thus should not be included in the article at all. The sentence and the sources cited should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable site for Vietnam articles

Hi a user has expressed an opinion that what appears to be a government web site is an unreliable or questionable source for Vietnam war articles. This is the site http://www.quangngai.gov.vn/quangngai/english//homepage/20128761658_1995/ and the articles are Binh Hoa massacre and Dien Nien-Phuoc Binh Massacre. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's OK for a number of things, being a local government official site. But for history articles we're looking for books and articles written by academic historians. Can you perhaps use this website as a guide to the events that can be researched in the academic literature? After all, the site authors had to get the information from somewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The only place I can see where the source is reliable is the claim of 430 killed in Binh Hoa massacre, but that is only because it was verified by AlJazeera. Other claims within those two articles raise tons of red flags, which were not verified by any independent sources. The statement about the survivors joined the Viet Cong to fight South Korea is also a possible WP:UNDUE violation.

Not reliable: Regardless of the website's political affiliations, you just can't cite a tourist guide in a history article. Jim101 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. A tourist information site is clearly not a reliable source for historical information of this type. I also agree with Itsmejudith that top shelf academic sources are required. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Concurr with Itsmejudith per WP:HISTRS: local people's committees are not known for their historical scholarship. If a people's committee or local council got a historian in who wrote a signed article, and the historian was known for working in that field; that'd be the included edge case for reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference callaconvention was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference conconcon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference lessigbook was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" Discovery / TreeHugger.com
5. Cite error: The named reference froomkin2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference hill2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
8. Ratigan, D. (2011) "It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics" GetMoneyOut.com
9. Auerbach, K. (2011) "Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution To Redress the Increasing Distortion of Elections and Political Speech by Corporations and Other Aggregate Forms" cavebear.com/amendment
10. Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post
11. Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution