Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:50, 31 July 2012

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.

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Assam#Etymology

This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:

The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam

The reference given is

S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."

This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page (Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion, and lastly to Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.

The issue

The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.

The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:

The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.

This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 . Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 ).

The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.

Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kakati 1953 is a reliable academic source. Only include conflicting views if they are backed by a source of equivalent quality. Reflect sources properly, don't cherry-pick small phrases out of context. Using Kakati you are on safe ground to say "Assam" is an anglicised form of "Asam"... You don't necessarily have to say anything about academic consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually saying that something is an academic consensus requires very good sourcing which actually says this or demonstrates it in an obvious way, but it is rarely necessary to use such language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. In lieu of the current unwieldy and confusing section, this was a suggested alternative alternative. Your comments on this alternative text would be very valuable. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Getting there but some tweaks may still be needed. Try to avoid using Gait directly as it is so old. Your other sources are all good, I think. There is an art in writing them up. Avoid using terms like "accepted", "consensus". Just follow the straightforward Fact - source model. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased the text and removed all use of "accepted" and "consensus". I could not avoid Gait for two reasons. One, he's is still a standard work; and two, because states clearly that the British used a name other than "Assam" and that a similar name was used by the Mughals earlier. I haven't seen any other reference that does this pointedly. Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Better still. Now, this would be nitpicking were it not that the text has been challenged, and also we are on RSN and the archives may be used for reference. You don't need Gait because you have Kakati, you don't need to attribute. British Raj sources are a perennial headache on India articles, full of ethnocentric assumptions and haphazard methodology. Perhaps Gait is better than the others, but post WW2 is a useful rule of thumb on history articles. Fact, footnoted reference to Kakati, done and dusted. The only other tweak, not a sourcing thing, is that I would take out the "the" before "medieval". Then good to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. As a post-war scholar Kakati can critically read Raj texts, and make scholarly claims. As an encyclopaedia we are not a post-war scholar like Kakati—we should most certainly avoid using Raj texts due to their manifest deficiencies and their general rejection as appropriate scholarship by the post-war scholarly community. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed Gait and the "the", here. I shall make more changes, if necessary. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't been involved before but I sometimes work on etymologies. Your latest text is fine I think.

My impression (could be quite wrong!) is that this long dispute has been caused partly by the desire to place on Misplaced Pages a justification for the Assam government's proposal to change the name. Unfortunately the misleading statement that "Assam is an English word" became a sticking point. It isn't an English word, it's an English spelling ... but there may still be good reasons for changing it. Andrew Dalby 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This and a similar dispute some time ago on Misplaced Pages seemed more personal, pushing a POV.

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now?

Chaipau (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As subject is controversial in nature, we may put POV's of some scholars and specialists as per Misplaced Pages's policy.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now? When i reverted the change my actual words are like this Additions should be made without removing scholarly POV's and existing important data. Discussion is on going on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard though not binding in nature by which i refered to removal of large amount of important data by that change and advised to add without removing any existing data alongside mentioned about Misplaced Pages's policy of differences between order and recommendations.

I like to add here that i claimed "Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and adjoining areas without refering to any inspiring word which may be matter of another discussion. And i said that same word was used by British to refer to a piece of land not any tribe adding that same word was never used natively before arrival of British". Due to this fact, present scholars of state recommended the change of name, which is accepted by state government. So i recommended that we may put in POV's of scholars due to controversial nature of subject, which already in place. And what last change by disputing user has done is removal of such POV's of specialists.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling
• The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit.
• The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam.

Chaipau (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. The situation seems to me very similar. "Orissa" was not an English word, but an English spelling/rendering of the name, and it was perfectly reasonable to say that it is inaccurate, reminiscent of a former colonial regime, and should no longer be official. Misplaced Pages can be quite neutral on such matters.

The difference is merely, I guess, that someone in Assam has claimed that "Assam is an English word". If so, we can surely say that in explaining the proposed name change -- "it has been claimed that Assam is an English word" -- and we can cite a politician who said it. It seems to me not likely that a linguist or scholar would have said it, but, if any have, we can obviously cite them too. If the assertion is notable, as it evidently is, there need be no difficulty about any of this. As you say, the best place for such an explanation is the full article Etymology of Assam; once it's set out fully there, it'll be even easier to decide what should be said in summary at Assam. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Any official statement of the Assam government is notable enough to be included. We should avoid the word "claim". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the Etymology of Assam (User:Bhaskarbhagawati has challenged it on various grounds) Your help in checking out the sources would be very helpful. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam". Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting. In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam. This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government.

The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'.

Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've said below, I don't think we can help you further at RSN. We will not comment on what "proposed spellings should have been": that has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. The statement "Assam is an English spelling" is not controversial and is not affected by whether the same spelling was used in Dutch. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. The disputed statement is not "Assam is an English spelling" but "Assam is based on the English word Assam". Could you recommend where I may go next to resolve this? On your recommendation I spruced up the main article Etymology of Assam, so you may draw the right conclusion. If Misplaced Pages cannot resolve this, it would be remarkable. I have tried the third opinion, the dispute resolution and now this. As a result of this dispute, the Etymology section of Assam is now unreadable and makes no sense. Chaipau (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it.

If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. I'm not an admin here (thank heaven) so someone else will have to advise you where to go next :( Andrew Dalby 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall follow the comments made on the statement presented initially and go forward. I thank all for the comments made on Alternate Text 4 and shall not press the issue. I do appreciate the time and effort the people put here. Chaipau (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. If you gone through previous discussions here and in others, you can find that consistency is there what i said based on sources, it is another matter that disputing user tried to misguide here to gain advantage. As matter is controversial, i suggested the disputing user to put POV's of scholars, which is not acceptable to disputing user maybe due to against his interest. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it. The solution cannot be said article because same was entirely developed by disputing user and reverted all of my contribution attempts. Concerns are put in talk page. If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. It is disputing user who seems to waste others time as it is not a matter of reliable sources and should not be posted here.

bbhagawati (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit. Separate article is there for it to discuss in depth. The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". It is pending due to opposition by an particular tribe, but what is important is proposition by scholars and acceptance by government both of whom are generally wiser than layman's. The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam. So what i am saying keep only mutually accepted facts and scholars POV's and keep the rest for main article.

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam". Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting. In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam. This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government. Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'. It is because only one or two languistic groups in world used that X pronounciation that includes Eastern Assamese (included maybe due to corruption of S) which is exposed on others in state. S should be S not X and Asamiya is not from Asam but Sanskrit Asama.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati makes some tendentious remarks, but relevant nevertheless.

• His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4)
• The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words.
• The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.() "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam".
• It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing.

Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we are only advising about sources here. It's not up to Misplaced Pages either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,Itsmejudith. I have accepted a previous suggestion that the main page Etymology of Assam should be fleshed out first so a synopsis could be better written. I started work on it, but it has turned out to be more work than I thought. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4) I said Asamiya is from Sanskrit Asama like Assamese is from English Assam not Assam is from Asama.

The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words. I already mentioned about imposition of X pronounciation.

The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.() "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam". Noted persons signs as sign of goodwill when approached. What matters is that majority involved is particular tribe. Newspaper done so because decision remain pending due to objection.

It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing. No, my objection is regarding wrong glorification of something on false grounds which defeats neutrality policy.

It's not up to Misplaced Pages either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. But decisions of governments on the advice of scholars are considered as valid sources.

Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable.

Newspapers as source are conditional. An event reported by newspaper can a valid source but if newspapers reports that somebody objected on something does not mean this objection is correct.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is repetitive, circular, and no longer a reliable sources matter. I hope some editor who hasn't previously commented will close it. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue is wrongly brought here as it is not case for recommendations for reliable sources. It maybe closed now.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It was correctly brought here, Bhaskarbhagawati, and we resolved the issue for you. You are quite right to admit, above, that by continuing to be a "disputing user" you "waste others time". I am glad you now understand that. I hope you will learn from this experience that, in addition to wasting others' time, you also waste a lot of your own time in such pointless argument. You really can improve Misplaced Pages, you know! But you have to add information that is supported by reliable sources, cite the sources accurately, and, if a discussion arises, try to find agreement by consensus. Andrew Dalby 08:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding reliable sources i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced:

Banikanta Kakati says -

The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.

Satyendranath Sarma says:-

Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.

Due to fact that State government propose to parliament of the country for name change of State for its foreign links. Experts from State government also includes the Ex president of highest literacy body of State. Links are provided above in my previous posts. So i like to remind again that my claim is that current name "Assam" is an "English" word used by British to refer to a piece of land in "North East India" not a tribe. And this dispute is about current name not about any other names.

Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link

As for English spelling I like to say, (i) "Aryan" which is now an English word having its sources in "Arya" an Sanskrit word. Arya was used as self designation by Indo-Aryans but when it acquired English spelling by adding an extra 'N' it becomes an English word mentioned in all English dictionaries which means larger picture than traditional word by referring to Indo-Iranians and sometimes entire Indo-European people unlike the Arya.

(ii) The name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained is matter of another discussion.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course "Assamese" is an English word. Grierson's full text, written about 100 years ago, can be read here, thanks to archive.org. In the course of his explanation, yes, Grierson says "Assam is an English word", and goes on to state that it's a "corruption of Āsām", the Bengali name for the region." His terminology is dated -- linguists nowadays leave corruption to others -- but he's spot-on as regards the history of the name. He goes on to discuss its ultimate origin -- the Sanksrit theory, which he rejects, and the connection with the name of the Ahom, which he accepts. He's writing about the language , and his aim is to explain why he uses the term "Assamese", spelt with a double 's', although that spelling has no local justification. His argument is that it makes sense to continue this way until such time as the name of the state gets a new spelling. Fascinating stuff. And I guess it must have made sense to write, in Simla, in about 1910, when the only ruling language of India was English, "Assam is an English word".

Although it's quite legitimate to quote Grierson's full explanation, it doesn't support any modern argument except the obvious one. Grierson confidently traces the history further back from that so-called "English word" to the Bengali name of the region, and beyond that to the Bengali name of the Ahom. It's useless to quote that one assertion and say that all the rest "is matter of another discussion". It all goes together.

OK, so, quote me in what context Banikanta Kakati makes the statement. A great scholar, certainly, but it appears from your brief citation above that on this particular point he is merely quoting Grierson. That's natural enough; but we have no need to cite Banikanta Kakati on this issue unless he is saying something new.

One added point: if what you really want to say is that Assam was the British name for the region, not for a people or tribe, you're quite right, of course. Āsām was the Bengali name for it, and "Assam" was the British name for it. That's not controversial, surely. Andrew Dalby 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes last line that Assam is an English word and referred to land not any tribe makes sense and resolves this dispute. Hope this concludes this discussion. I have nothing else to say and signing off from this discussion.

Thanking all !

bbhagawati (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that holding someone to a line or a phrase, devoid of the context, is an example of quote mining.
• Etymology of Assam was slapped with a number of tags. I have since requested for comments on the talk page.

Chaipau (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Images of genealogical relationships

There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a genealogical profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).

There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:

• The image is not likely to be scrutinised with as much details as text would be (it will be assumed that the text is from a copy from reliable source and the usual tools used to scan for textual errors will miss them as they are contained within an image)
• It makes it impossible to link the subjects of the new image to their articles (and hence indirectly to the reliable sources used in the more specific biography article (which (particularly but not exclusively biographies on women) may be under a different name.
• If an error is found in the image most people will not have the tools to edit the image to fix the errors.
• It is not possible to use {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}} on the image -- although {{citation needed}} can be added it can not be added to a specific entry in the image.

If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue, the editor who made this image, has also been adding a template to what I think are inappropriate types of articles such as dab pages: eg Flood (surname) had template:Dalcassians added to it (diff) where should an editor discuss the mass addition of a template to what may be inappropriate articles? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated a section: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Template:Dalcassians -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

let's start with the obvious question: do you personally believe that the information now in this graphic is right or wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would judge (if I may intrude on that question) that it's very difficult to say. Early medieval genealogy is not an exact science, and that's the reaon why each link in the chain or each branch on the tree needs a footnote. If it lacks a footnote, it wants a "Citation needed" template. So the answer to WhatamIdoing's question would involve a measure of probability on each genealogical link: one couldn't possibly answer for the table as a whole.

It's a bit like the historical maps made by Wikimedians. They are very handy, and may be preferable graphically to anything we can copy from PD sources, but are they accurate? We don't know. Are Wikimedians reliable sources? Well, no, they aren't. So do we accept such graphics in Misplaced Pages articles or not? It's a hard question. Andrew Dalby 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but "it's not cited and probably okay" doesn't bother me much. The rule is that it must be possible to verify information, and if we think it's probably right, then it's probably also verifiable. But if we have some reason to believe that it's probably wrong, I'm going to be much more concerned. Uncited good information is okay. Uncited bad information can be a disaster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What does probably ok mean? The problem is that the standard of proof which many editors that add genealogical information is below that used for notable events. For example in this case neither the text that was replaced or this graphic representation has even one citation (nor are there any on Wikicommons). Often when asked for, if it is provided, it is from web sites which do not meet Misplaced Pages reliable sources criteria. It is usually fairly easy to check the father of the subject from the sources in the text and in some cases the mother. But each generation back the number of ancestors doubles and the sourcing often becomes less and less reliable. My position is the same as Andrew Dalby's on this issue. One needs to be able to highlight for the reader those parts of a tree that have no sources, those based on unreliable sources, and those based on reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the editors of graphics treat them much like writing an article. This may mean that the graphic will require a descriptive reference section, or even a bibliography. This is an ideal of course, and I hope such graphic designers use SVG or other vector formats so that other editors can subsequently edit their works to improve them or improve citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be a worthwhile goal. What the chances are of achieving it on Commons I don't know. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Next to nothing I suspect. Commons worry about copyright not about the reliability of sources used to validate images such as these. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Map graphics giving modern information (statistical, administrative, etc.) are generally safer: they are often derived from just one or two highly reliable sources and it is evident or is stated by the creator what sources were used. Historical ones are more dubious. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

One possible solution for family trees is a development of an idea I used in an an image I introduced into an article Bodiam Castle. It has letters on it for rooms, which are then listed in the Misplaced Pages article. If an image for a family tree, was to carry superscripts for each entry then a bundled citation could be used to link the names to sources within the usual footnote system. Preferably the sources could be added to both the Wikicommons description and a Wikipdia article that uses it. Even if the initial editor does not introduce any citations with the image other editors could request sources by using the hooks in the image to do so or add them (just as is done in a text section on ancestry). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would work ... if we can somehow encourage the incorporation of hooks in images of that kind. I don't quite know where we'd start ... Andrew Dalby 15:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

God helmet article and "Neuroscience for the Soul" source

• God helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I work the WP:COIN board. There is a very detailed request there rearding the God helmet. It doesn't appear to be a COI dispute. However, a recent post there by an IP sugggests that the dispute may be over adding negative information from a source that might not be reliable in the way it is being used in that article:

I haven't been a very active Misplaced Pages editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Misplaced Pages rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Misplaced Pages has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Misplaced Pages is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Misplaced Pages. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Misplaced Pages rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself.

I'm hoping RSNs effort can help calm things at the God helmet article. Is -- Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist. 25 (7): 520–523. -- a reliable source for the God helmet article? If so, to what extent can it be use in that artice? Also, please look over any other references being used to support negative information that article. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank-you to the IP address and Mr. Uzma Gamal who have considered the situation. This article is not a reliable source. It misquotes the original findings by Gendall and McGrath. Here is an example:

Aaen-Stockdale:

" ... claims these devices are able to modulate emotional states, in addition to enhancing meditation and generating altered states. In flat contradiction of this claim, Gendle & McGrath (2012) found no significant difference in emotional state whether the devices was on or off.

Famousdog :

"Experimental attempts to produce these effects have found no difference in emotional state whether the device was on or off."

Actual quote (from the Gendle study):

"Although the device's "amygdala signal" had no effect on the emotive response to images in this study, additional investigations examining the effects of weak and complex magnetic fields on various aspects of perception and cognition are warranted."

Instead of trying to edit on the God helmet page today, I will instead head your suggestion and re-read the article very closely for other negative information from that article. Once again, thanks for your consideration.Ksirok (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Going to the website for the device in the Gendle study, I found that it doesn’t claim to "modulate emotional states". Instead, what it does claim is that it can enhance moods for people who feel at their worst in the morning, but don't have psychiatric disorders. The Gendle study only examined changes in the way people responded to images with emotional impact. It doesn't look like the Gendle study examined any of the effects attributed to the God helmet, but I'll have to read the full study to be certain.

The Aaen-Stockdale article also claims that the researcher Michael Persinger bases his ideas (about the neurological basis of religious experiences) on the literature of epilepsy. This isn't true. Persinger’s ideas are based on temporal lobe and limbic lability (how easily these brain areas change their state). Epileptics are only one of the groups who have this trait.

Aaen-Stockdale says that Persinger uses field strengths of 1 millitesla. In fact, the fields are much lower - 1 to 5 microtesla. Aaen-Stockdale's information is not correct. He claims that the fields are too weak to penetrate the cranium, but it's a fact of physics that magnetic fields penetrate everything. Nothing can stop a magnetic field (so-called magnetic shields bend the fields, but aren't insulators). True magnetic insulation appears to be as impossible as perpetual motion. Persinger attributes his effects to field-to-field interactions between the God Helmet and the weak magnetic fields present in the brain, created by its electrical activity. This error may have originated with a psychologist in Sweden who attempted a replication experiment, but Aaen-Stockdale's article perpetuates it. Accuracy is more important. Perhaps a physics editor can confirm this.

Looking over the references for the God helmet page, I can see that most of them are from scientific journals. There's no need to rely on popular psychology magazines, like The Psychologist. I will be looking into this some more, because of my interest in the subject, but for now it looks like the Aaen-Stockdale article is not a reliable source on the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.181.216 (talk)

Could I please have a WP:CHECKUSER on Ksirok and the anonymous IP 70.44.181.216 who "hasn't been active on Misplaced Pages recently" (yeah, right. Or indeed EVER) who are trying to argue that a review article with an extensive bibliography published in the official publication of The British Psychological Society isn't a reliable source and that the editor who added the citations to it (me) has a COI? Ksirok has already attempted to out me and this seems to be rapidly turning into a witch-hunt against a single source that they disagree with! I bet you $10 that both these new, single-purpose editors have a connection with Laurentian University in Ontario. Famous_dog (c) 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ksirok's claim that I "misquote" the Gendle & McGrath study is nonsense. The text that he refers to is clearly a quote from Aaen-Stockdale NOT Gendle & McGrath. I will add the section he quotes from Gendle & McGrath ("additional investigations ... are warranted.") if it will keep him happy, but its a pretty lame, standard conclusion for researchers looking to justify further funding and ignores the very strong conclusion in their previous sentence ("the device's "amygdala signal" had no effect"). Famous_dog (c) 09:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP's claim that "it doesn’t claim to 'modulate emotional states'. Instead, what it does claim is that it can enhance moods" is a complete tautology. How on earth does one "enhance mood" WITHOUT "modulating emotional states"!?!? If you want to re-word this (consistent with the citations), then that's fine, but stop trying to discredit this source. Famous_dog (c) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous IP states that Aaen-Stockdale "claims that the fields are too weak to penetrate the cranium, but it's a fact of physics that magnetic fields penetrate everything." This is true, but actually, Aaen-Stockdale says "the magnetic fields generated by the God helmet are far too weak to penetrate the cranium and influence neurons within". This is a different matter. He argues (in the very next sentence) that "TMS uses field strengths of around 1.5 Tesla in order to induce currents strong enough to depolarise neurons..."). Magnetic fields must be strong enough to depolarise neurons, otherwise they cannot influence brain function, whether they penetrate the cranium or not! This is willful misquotation by Anonymous IP. Arguing, as Anon does, that field strengths even weaker than that quoted by Aaen-Stockdale would have bigger effects demonstrates the level of desperation that this discussion has reached. Regarding Anon's argument that "most of are from scientific journals. There's no need to rely on popular psychology magazines, like The Psychologist" I'm afraid that the vast majority of these references are by Persinger (which surely introduces the sort of bias that Anon and Ksirok claim to be defending the article against). In addition, secondary sources trump primary sources. Famous_dog (c) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Aaen-Stockdale article mis-quotes the Gendle study, and it gets the field strength wrong. It's also wrong in it's statement that, (as far as Aaen-Stockdale can tell - a statement that does not inspire confidence in its reliability) Persinger's theories are based on the literature of epilepsy. This thread is about whether or not the Aaen-Stockdale article is a reliable source. Other issues belong on the God Helmet talk page, like how Persinger explains the effects of weak magnetic fields. I let more than a day go by before responding, in the hopes it would help to cool things down. Please excuse my dynamic IP address. Please, let's "discuss the issues, not the people".

Its becoming clear that there will probably be no agreement regarding this issue. It may be too convoluted for this forum. Accordingly, I will adopt the suggestion of the administrator who started this thread, Mr. Uzma Gamal, and continue to edit the page, paying particular attention to the sources for negative statements. At this point, I don't know if mediation will be called for. Of course, I plan to address how the God helmet's magnetic fields influence brain activity.Ksirok (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

Hey all,

I want outside opinion on this source, ] it says founded 1873, there has been a long on goign dispute on this page and another about whether this club has been liquidated or not, but the scottish football league have put on there site as a founded year of 1873, i know this will probably be a primary source but can it be used reliably to determine for wikipedia article whether the club is the same club that existed since 1873 or is in fact new club. I am not trying to ascent the club has or has not been liquidated only trying to put a end of this dispute.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of any source which speaks about this club being liquidated? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC).

Brevik and Dhimmitude

This source "Liz Fekete. "The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre". Race & Class" is used for the follwoing claim "Anders Breivik, who identified Bat Ye'or as a key influence, used the term "dhimmitude" in his internet postings to describe what he called "jihad against the kaffir"." Does it acceptable becouse the article is not about dhimmitude.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is dhmmitude substantially discussed, or is this the only sentence discussing it? If the latter, the source isn't sufficiently about this topic to really bother with. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have linked the source.As I am involved I really like outside opinion--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The source looks impeccable, since it is peer-reviewed and written by a leading expert in the relevant field. As a general observation, though, I'd be cautious about a disparate bullet-point list of example's of the usage of term, which is what the article currently contains. Formerip (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said my problem it would be cherry picking and WP:UNDUE for this article maybe in Brevik article it probably would be ok.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, though, it would certainly also be cherry-picking to arbitrarily exclude the information. If there's a case for WP:UNDUE, that should be made on the talkpage. Formerip (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have another concern the author of this piece is not an Academic in the field does it acceptable?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be published in a relevant journal and the author also appears to be in the relevant field . IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but she is not scholar I am not even sure what kind of education she has, does being member of the think tank and getting printed in scholarly journal make her reliable source? I have another example what about this? Its peer reviewed scholarly journal but again the article is not by scholar in the field does it acceptable too or no?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Liz Fekete is the Executive Director of the Institute of Race Relations, and head of its European Research Programme. She is a member of the International State Crime Initiative at King's College, London. She is a frequent visiting lecturer at universities. She has published counbtless papers in peer-reviewed journals, including Race & Class, of which she is Reviews Editor. She has been described by Professor Avery Gordon as "one of the best analysts of the complexities of racism in Europe today", and her recent book A Suitable Enemy: Racism, Migration and Islamophobia in Europe has been widely reviewed and cited. In short, she is one of the researchers best qualified to comment in this field. RolandR (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that very nice but I like to hear comment from uninvolved editors--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way am I an "involved editor"? RolandR (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Leaving that question in the air ... I agree, based on the credentials cited, that Liz Fekete should be regarded as an expert in this field. We can and should cite her. If there's reason to suppose her view might be controversial (yes, this is a controversial field!) there is always the option of in-line citation. Andrew Dalby 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes of white Americans in the United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No RS/N query made, simply commentary on an article's sourcing Fifelfoo (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a lot of info from this article. A sample is below.

In general, the problem is that information is cited to self-published sources.

When it is not, the sources sometimes do not support the statements. For example:

They also considered to be incapable of properly raising children, with a significant minority endangering their children in various -- and usually, bizarre -- ways.

If we want to say 'Some people think white people can't bring up children properly', then the cited article MUST SAY THAT. This article was about an act of child abuse by two people who happened to be white. The article didn't draw any wider conclusions about whether white people are capable of bringing up children.

This pattern crops up again and again. Statement that some people think white people are bad. Example of white people doing something bad.

Is the point of the article supposed to be that white people are bad? Or is it supposed to document the stereotypes believed about them?

I think the problem is the wiki community doesn't think this is very important and can't be bothered to improve the article, which means it is neglected and fills up with rubbish.

Some selfpub examples.

A popular origin story in the U.S for these stereotypes is that of the first impressions Native Americans had of Puritan refugees from England when they first came into contact with each other http://www.pantribalconfederacy.com/confederacy/useful/pdf/hygiene.pdf

and that the natives had to teach those refugees basic hygiene techniques so that they would be able to clean themselves. This also has a strong basis in European history http://en.wikipedia.org/Hygiene#Hygiene_in_medieval_Europe

as personal hygiene was seen as something of a fashion choice, akin to whether one should wear a hat outside or not. dhr.history notes: "The cities Europeans lived in exposed them to "crowd" diseases, or those spread by close contact, poor sanitation, and poor personal hygiene (Europeans rarely bathed). http://www.dhr.history.vt.edu/modules/us/mod01_pop/context.html

Risingrain (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Guitargeek.com

http://GuitarGeek.com hosts diagrams and lists of equipment used by famous guitarists. The site was created by Adam Cooper, a published illustrator who interviews guitarists and guitar techs for the info.

Usage: In Adrian Belew#Musical_style "In 2010, Guitar Geek interviewed Belew's guitar technician Andre’ Cholmondeley, creating a list and diagram of Belew's guitar setup at the time.". Here, Cooper directly interviewed one of Belew's guitar techs. I consider this one reliable enough for inclusion in Adrian Belew, at the end of the Musical Style section.

Bad usage: Nirvana (band). GuitarGeek states the reliability of diagrams, such as in Nirvana where it states "STAGE RIG COMPILED FROM VARIOUS BIOGRAPHIES, MAGAZINE ARTICLES, CONCERT FOOTAGE AND EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. THE ACCURACY OF THIS SETUP IS NOT GUARANTEED." As a result, I support this source's recent removal from Nirvana (band).

So, I propose that GuitarGeek is reliable when used carefully. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion: I know nothing about this subject area, so I'm looking at this as an outsider, which is probably beneficial. :)

GuitarGeek.com appears to meet WP:SELFPUBLISH. So the relevant policy is whether the "expert" applies here:

"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."

Google searches on strings like "Adam Cooper" guitar -site:guitargeek.com show that Adam Cooper and his site make significant strides toward meeting the "self-published expert" criterion. Cooper is active and successful professionally in his field. He's widely cited. Where he and the site are weak is trying to find how much they've been "published by reliable third-party publications" as this is a specialist world Cooper's an expert in. I did find this independent, professional site using his work:

Ibanez guitars 1

Ibanez guitars 2

Lexein my feeling is that you're dead-on in your assessment and usage of his work and the site. I'd make sure the article attributes any content that relies on Cooper and/or GuitarGeek attributes it in the article. Zad68 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving Jetpack66's comments out from inside my comment, for chronological order. Thank you for the additional information! --Lexein (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adam Cooper, along with Nick Bowcott (of Grim Reaper fame and long-time artist relations manager for Marshall Amplifiers), created the "Vulgar Display of Power" column for Guitar World which ran over 10 years. The popular column featured famous guitar player rigs and was the longest running column in the magazine's history. GuitarGeek.Com has been online since 1995. The vast majority of the rigs are compiled from actual interviews with the artists and/or their techs. Jetpack66 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From Adam's bio: "Adam Cooper's award winning GuitarGeek rig illustrations have appeared in GuitarPlayer, Total Guitar UK, Guitarist, Alternative Press, History of Marshall Amplifiers, Roland/Boss User Guides, Ibanez Steve Vai Jemini & Paul Gilbert Airplane Flanger Instruction Manuals, as well as the longest running monthly column in Guitar World Magazine's history: Vulgar Display of Power. Before launching GuitarGeek.Com in 1995, Adam published the highly respected music zine, Whirlpool, which was distributed worldwide via major record store chains." Jetpack66 (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Where do you stand on using GuitarGeek carefully (meaning, not when its own certainty is low, as in Nirvana), with attribution in the article text? --Lexein (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Vidstatsx

I have not come across the website vidstatx before, nor seen it used as a reference on Misplaced Pages. To me it seems like a clear case of WP:SPS, someone who claims to know what the YouTube rankings are. It has been added as a source for the recently deSALTed Dave Days. Has it been used elsewhere on the project as a reliable source? 117Avenue (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(Corrected name of section head from "vidstatx" to "Vidstatsx")

I am involved in editing this article with 117Avenue. The source is being used in the following way to support the shown article content:

As of July 2012, YouTube channel was among the top 50 most-subscribed channels on YouTube...

Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-50-most-subscribed-channels

...and was in the top ten most-subscribed channels in YouTube's Entertainment genre.

Source URL: vidstatsx.com/youtube-top-100-most-subscribed-entertainment-channels

Source is also currently supporting similar content at Sara Niemietz discography, Corey Vidal, Caitlin Hill and Charlie McDonnell among others. Zad68 14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(unarchived, relisted hoping to actually get comments this time) Zad68 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Unedited, unauthored random website. There is no reason to believe that this website is reliable for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

facts.org.cn and Falun Gong

There seems to be a current dispute at Falun Gong at least in part relating to the source www.facts.org.cn here. Does this source qualify as a reliable source for the material it is sourcing, which seems to be basically critical of Falun Gong? John Carter (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

facts.org.cn appears to be an unedited news-aggregator run by a political organisation. There are no named editors in the English version, and the site lacks an "About" page despite the site's producers being broadly familiar with English language expectations (cf: "FAQ"). As an unedited aggregation, do not use. Original copies (ie: unaggregated material) may in itself be reliable, if found at the original source of the material, and if reliably published itself. Don't use facts.org.cn—not because it is critical, but because it is unedited and thus can't have a reputation of fact-checking. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that it appears to be an arm of the China Association of Cultic Studies, a government-affiliated organization set up after the crackdown against Falun Gong got underway in order to slander the practice and incite hatred towards its members inside China (NB: political slander in the context of a campaign of violent physical repression is different to simply "critical" content). A more detailed discussion of the state's campaign is over at Persecution of Falun Gong, the above is just what I glean from a scan of the sources. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't matter in terms of reliability. States regularly set up institutions to persecute individuals, such as Centrelink or the Reserve Bank of Australia. The Reserve Bank reliably publishes excellent material. Reliable sources don't have to be "nice" or "neutral;" and when the best sources appear to have a particular position, then as they are the best sources that position is the NPOV one in wikipedia terms. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl's films were made in a way that would be familiar to many filmmakers but no one would suggest that they are reliable sources for Judaism. But your point is that we ought to look at the source's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking - not their political biases - in determining reliability? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Riefenstahl possesses no qualifications regarding the sociology of Judaism, and reviews of her works from the 1930s discuss their cinematographic, fictive and ideological functions (rejecting by silence any competence of Riefenstahl regarding the sociology of Judaism). We reject Riefenstahl because she is unreliable for the sociology of Judaism, not because of the ideological content of her films in the 1930s. We look at sources' reputations for accuracy and fact-checking, and more over their capacity to comment in a field (newspapers are bad for science, historians are bad for contemporary US pop culture biographies). In this case, "facts.org.cn" fails to display core signs of reliability in the fields of news journalism and opinion, or the sociology of religion in China—facts.org.cn's ideological position isn't relevant to their (lack of) reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Right - but how was that determined? Do we look at the source and say "Let's see, this doesn't appear to display core signs of journalistic reliability or the sociology of religion in China, given all the Chinglish and irrational ranting"? Is there a checklist? It would seem that one could make the argument that because the site is supported by the Chinese government, it should have great insight into China's social mores and be able to comment decisively and authoritatively on matters of Chinese religious practice in the country. After all, with the state's vast surveillance apparatus, the organization of the CCP might know as much about the composition and activities of Falun Gong people as any other organization in the world. Why doesn't that make them reliable? (This is not a trick question, I'm seeking to educate myself in a comprehensive way in our RS policies and conversations like this help.) TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The absence of named meat—either editorial staff (journalism) or an editorial board (scholarly product). The lack of authors for works. The absence of material discussing the organisation who produced or commissioned these works. It isn't a scholarly output (no discussion of peer review or submission requirements). It lacks the basic apparatus of identity of publications that any website possesses these days. Mostly this is from experience of what sources should look like for scholarly and journalistic pursuits—look at a bunch of international good news sources: SBS, abc.net.au, guardian, bbc, al jazeera, Le Monde, Times; look at how they present information about themselves, and about their products; etc. etc. This website does none of this grounding content, and makes rather extraordinary claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a typical advocacy/propaganda web site, possibly even qualify as hate site. I would suggest to blacklist. It has versions on several languages including Russian. This piece on Russian (linked to the site) tells that FG is a terrorist organization, the followers are mentally sick, and that policemen in China are allowed to torture or shot them on spot. After looking at this, I would tell that even famous Soviet anti-religious propaganda did not went so far, although there are many similarities. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, that is easy to fix. Are you saying that all they need to do is present a set of mugshots, add some bylines and datelines, and write in the inverted pyramid form and we've got a bona-fide reliable source saying that Falun Gong followers eat their babies and poison beggars? There is surely more to it than the surface issues you raise. Zujine's remarks (they'd been accidentally deleted) below seem apropos. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As this discussion has gone into the theoretical, and as you've already invited me to discuss the theory of RS/N responding, lets continue this on my talk page as you suggest. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a primary source with no reputation for fact-checking or verifiability. There are some sources indicating that the organisation that runs this site is tied to the Communist Party's 6-10 Office. The 6-10 Office was established with the mandate of eliminating Falungong, including through what scholars describe as a "massive propaganda campaign". For the specific material this source (and another government website) was used to support — the charge that Falungong encourages suicide — there are numerous reliable sources that have discredited these reports, and none of the government's claims in this regard have ever been independently verified. There was a former arbitrator who put it pretty well: "Information regarding the nature and activities of a religious group produced by a state engaged in a campaign of suppression of that religious group cannot be considered reliable."

Under the right circumstances, questionable sources could potentially be used as sources about themselves, but not to make exceptional claims about third parties. Interpretations of falungong's beliefs and teachings should come from academic sources, not from a Chinese government website.—Zujine|talk 05:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Information regarding the nature and activities of a religious group produced by a state engaged in a campaign of suppression of that religious group cannot be considered reliable." That arbitrator's reasoning is wrong, and I would be very happy to correct them on why they are wrong. The arbitrator is discussing the source's neutrality, not its reliability. Some kinds of sources regularly make claims that specifically take a side in an ongoing social debate. For example, most authors write in a fashion that makes the mid-twentieth century paroxysm of genocidal violence out to be a bad thing. Thankfully, many of these writers are specialist scholars who have the capacity to sustain such a claim, such as Hannah Arendt. The problem isn't that the Chinese government encourages "independent" organisations to anonymously slang off a religious group. The problem is that neither the Chinese government, independent organisation nor anonymous authors are suitable experts for religious slanging off. It doesn't matter if these parties detest and loathe a religion, all that matters is if they're competent to make extraordinary claims about a religion. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited. See for instance secondary reliable source citing this website: Benjamin Penny (13 April 2012). The Religion of Falun Gong. University of Chicago Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-226-65501-7. Retrieved 26 July 2012. With that not sure why anyone would want to cite facts.org.cn, given the wide selection and availability of secondary scholar reliable sources on the topic of Falun Gong. In fact, facts.org.cn currently is not being used for any citation at Misplaced Pages, so it is not a big problem. With that not everything is perfect:

• faluninfo
• clearwisdom
• clearharmony
• the epoch times

The Epoch Times using epochtimes.com or Falun Gong using faluninfo.net citations appear ridiculous and those citations should be replaced with higher quality secondary sources, per explained above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agada: a hate site meant to vilify a persecuted group is different to a regular primary source used to make claims about the party producing the primary source. That said, it's often a question of context. One would have to look at specific cases. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a conflict between China government and Falun Gong. Both sides utilize propaganda. It is interesting that secondary sources note that master Li media activity is modeled after China government one. Li was exposed to it, when Falun Gong was an integral part of the state and enjoyed their support. We as Misplaced Pages are neutral and don't take side in this conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed we don't, but the dichotomy I identified above is not my own, it is the frame adopted by reliable sources. And of course the pages should and do discuss Falun Gong's own communications strategies and the doctrines and influences that inform them; those are two different matters. But we've departed from the status of facts.org.cn. The consensus seems to be that at the very least it is not a reliable source TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"So facts.org.cn is a primary reliable source, that would require an attribution if cited." No. It is not reliable for any of its claims, due to lack of editorial process. Its opinion lacks any weight, as it is not comprised of weight-worthy commentators. Do not use facts.org.cn Fifelfoo (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good angles and points, 10x, Fifelfoo. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation technique

This source is used four times in the Transcendental Meditation technique article. However:

• 1)The source document is hosted on this Christian website a web site which says it "affirms the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Bible".
• 2) The author of the source document, Vishal Mangalwadi, makes his purpose clear in his final paragraph called, Talking Points, which says: "Once we can help a Hindu to see that man’s basic problem is moral, that we are guilty of breaking God’s law and deserve punishment, it will be easier for him to see that Christ is the only way to salvation, i.e. forgiveness and reconciliation, because he is the only one who has died for sin.
• 3) The author of the article, Vishal Mangalwadi, is the Co-founder & director of the Christian organization: Theological Research and Communication Institute (TRACI), New Delhi
• 4) The author, Vishal Mangalwadi's bio says: Vishal and Ruth are currently in the United States exploring The Soul of Western Civilization - the Bible. This study was inspired by Vishal and Ruth's recognition of India's need for the reforming power of the Bible."

At present the source is being used to support the article text listed below:

• "all who want to learn are taught"
• "Vishal Mangalwadi says the mantras, having the names of deities, are meaningless sounds used in the Japa yoga tradition."
• "and students are required to bring a clean handkerchief, some flowers and fruit, and their course fee."
• "The TM teacher is said to "worship" the picture of Guru Dev during the TM instruction, puja ceremony."

Is this an appropriate source for this article and the content specified above? Or should other sources be used in its place? A prior discussion at WP:RSN regarding the Maharishi University of Management article, indicated that sources with a narrow Christian point of view should be avoided. Is it true in this case also? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Vlach claims to have an appropriate PhD for Theology, but his . Vlach is publishing a tertiary source for non-experts. Non-expert tertiary: do not use for a scholarly field like comparative religious sociology. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, however, Vishal Mangwaldi is the author of the source in question. Michael Vlach is merely the founder of the web site that is hosting the source document. Sorry if my post was confusing, I've added a URL link and some wikilinks to my original post to make it clearer. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this changes the incompetence of the publisher of this work's importance to indicating that this source is unreliable for religious sociology or theology. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not challenging your position. I just wanted to make sure that my post, which questions the validity of the Mangalwadi source, was clear. Thanks again,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the Mangalwadi article, the website hosting it (theologicalstudies.org.uk), and the RSN archived discussion Keithbob mentioned. Considering these, it looks like the rule is that sources with a narrow Christian view should not be relied on as sources of factual information. Here, the website and the book it hosts promote a narrow Christian view and have been sited as the source of factual information. IMO the rule applies here and a different source should be used.Coaster92 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's a good generalisation regarding sources promoting narrow ideological views; it isn't universal. Scholarly theologians publishing in the scholarly mode do have the authority to make weighty opinions or claims in this field, more the moreso their theological publications exist in cross cultural comparisons etc. Theology isn't bad for sourcing religion—non-scholarly theology is bad. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More Information on the history of Bultfontein (the town in the Free State)

Awamiweb.com and awamipolitics.com

• awamiweb.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
• awamipolitics.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

I recently came across these sites being used as references by Mubashir09 (talk · contribs). These appear to be rather disorganized, multi-user blogs trying to be news aggregators. They each appear to have a few main contributors, but allow "guest writers" to contribute. Many of the articles appear to be little beyond opinion pieces. The English is often very poor, sometimes to the point where the meaning is undecipherable. There is no indication of when (or if) they are doing their own reporting rather than simply translating news from other sources. Granted, it's difficult to tell and I haven't spent much time going through their articles let alone looking for possible sources for their reports.

Anyone have time to look into this further? --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it looks like these sites plagiarize, should they be blacklisted? --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

University of al-Karaouine

A book by James Fergusson, a freelance journalist, titled Taliban: The Unknown Enemy and published by DeCapo Press is used in the article University of al-Karaouine to say that al-Karaouine is the world's oldest "madrasa" (the quote from the book is "The oldest madrasah in the world, the Jami'at al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, has been operating benignly – and continuously – since it was established in 859."). Contrasted with that, and dismissed as a "generalist source" is the following:

• Aslan, Ednan, ed. (2009), Islamic Education in Europe, Wiener islamisch-religionspädagogische Studien, vol. 1, Böhlau Verlag Wien, pp. 220–221, ISBN 9783205783107, The Muslim community maintained, favoured, and organized the institutions for higher education that became the new centres for the diffusion of Islamic knowledge. These centres were places where teachers and students of that time would meet and also where all intellectuals would gather and take part in extremely important scientific debates. It is not a coincidence that around the 9th century the first university in the world, the Qarawiyyin University in Fez, was established in the Muslim world followed by az-Zaytuna in Tunis and Al-Azhar in Cairo. The university model, that in the West was widespread starting only from the 12th century, had an extraordinary fortune and was spread throughout the Muslim world at least until the colonial period.

Ednan Aslan is University Professor at the University of Vienna in the field of Islamic Religious Education (see here) Is the book Taliban: The Unknown Enemy reliable for the statement that the school is a "madrasa" and is Aslan's book reliable for the statement that it was established as a university? nableezy - 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic was already discussed here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no it was not. Neither of these sources are mentioned anywhere in the ANI report. Please dont misrepresent the content of that page. This page is specifically used for opinions on the reliability of a source. The ANI report was specifically about a user edit-warring to try to force in a favored version of an article. Please dont conflate the two subjects, as it only distracts from the purpose of this page. Thank you. nableezy - 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Highly disingenuous of you to include the second source, as if to say, "Hey is this source reliable, even though mine is better?". The second source has no bearing on whether the first source is reliable or not. Athenean (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. I am asking about both, because you rejected the second as "generalist" but said the first was "reliable". So I am asking about both. That you rejected the second while accepting the first isnt my fault, now is it? nableezy - 21:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, yes, which is probably why no one has responded to your request. If you wanted to ask about the second source, you should have posted a separate request. The only reason I can think of why you would post both together, is that in case someone said Fergusson was reliable, if they also said that Ednan was reliable, (and they both are) you would then claim that Ednan was "more" reliable, since he is a "professor", while Fergusson is a "freelance journalist" (your own words). Disingenuous and dishonest. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, not even a little bit. You rejected Ednan as a "generalist" source, so I asked about it here. Now saying that you think that he is reliable makes your past dismissals disingenuous and dishonest, especially when contrasted with the claim that a book on the Taliban is reliable for the history of a Moroccan university. Im guessing that this hasnt gotten any response due to the silly responses initially posted (including, to be clear, yours). But fine, since you now acknoweldge that Eslan is reliable, in contrast to the rather asinine judgment you made on the talk page, Ill start a new thread specifically about Taliban: The Unknown Enemy. But "freelance journalist" is not just my own words, and if you cared at all about the material you push in articles you would have checked his qualifications before saying that. It is what he is. nableezy - 23:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we get some uninvolved commentary on whether the Taliban: The Unknown Enemy is a reliable source for the article University of al-Karaouine, and also if the book Islamic Education in Europe is a reliable source for that same article? Thank you, nableezy - 18:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The only intellectually honest thing would be to post individual requests for each source, everything else is noise. You should also be advised that being incivil and shrill does not help your cause, rather it hinders it. Probably another reason why no one has responded to your request. Athenean (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the third noticeboard which has been plastered by Nableezy in a quick succession, and this inquiry demonstrates yet again that he still does not understand what board is good for what. The question is whether Taliban: The Unknown Enemy by Da Capo Press is a WP:RS, not what this Aslan says here. As for him and your claim that madrasas were universities, there has been already lots of top-quality sources provided to Nableezy refuting this claim (e.g. here and here). That he forgets to mention any of them, indicates that he is actually not much interested in a discussion based on objective criteria, but rather in pushing his own views. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense. I am at this board asking if two sources are reliable for the statements attributed to them. You reject any source as "generalist" that you disagree with and accept a source if it agrees with you even if it is on a completely unrelated topic. And I do know what each board is for, thank you very much. This one is for discussing the reliability of sources. Your repeated edit-warring was reported to one noticeboard, and the neutrality of ignoring any source that you disagree with to another, and the reliability of sources to this one. That you play this "who me?" game everywhere you go is amusing, but not productive. nableezy - 23:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

JUst an observation, Ednan Aslan is the editor of 'Islamic Education in Europe', we should really be sourcing the info to whoever wrote the chapter that pages 220-1 come from. Both sources seem only to mention al-Karaouine in asides, but I would say that Fergussons lack of qualifications/expertise in religious education makes him a very poor choice of sourcing for this area. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Could this be used for this claim.It seems to me like a blog without editorial oversight with unnamed posters.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is not a "blog", it is a well-regarded non-profit organization that, among other things, tracks hate groups. Attribute it if you want, but remove it? No. nableezy - 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a self-published source so is only a reliable source about itself. Ankh.Morpork 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

by that definition a newpaper is self published, SPLC is a highyl respected orgnaisation, however ot should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC is an eminently reliable source on the radical right. Contra OP, the article's poster is identified in the byline, and SPLC has editorial oversight from a board of directors and a program staff. Skinwalker (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can the KNMG official viewpoint document be used in this way?

RSN request

• Article: Circumcision
• Article content under consideration:

"Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none recommend routine circumcision"

• Source used:

The Royal Dutch Medical Association's (KNMG's) "official viewpoint" (as the KNMG itself describes it): "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010)"

• Applicable quote from document:

"There is currently not a single doctors’ organisation that recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons."

Question Is the KNMG's official viewpoint document a sufficient source to support the claim being made?

Discussion

In my evaluation, the KNMG's official viewpoint document is not a sufficient source to support as strong and as broad a statement as is being made. To call it a "summary statement" as the article claims, I think we would require a statement from a neutral, peer-reviewed source such as a law or ethics journal, with a clear description of how the survey of the many world-wide professional associations of physicians was performed, what the inclusion criteria were, some discussion of the primary sources themselves, and description of how the conclusion was drawn. I'd also expect that a neutral overview to be the stated goal of such a journal article. But, we don't have any of this:

• First, the KNMG official viewpoint document is clearly persuasive in nature. Regarding circumcision, the document states "he KNMG does believe that a powerful policy of deterrence should be established".
• The goal of the document isn't to present the summary results of a neutral survey of the world's associations, but rather to justify the KNMG's own position.
• Take a look at the endnotes in the KNMG statement, they cite:

• A paper "Circumcision - a Victorian relic lacking ethical, medical, or legal justification"
• The anti-circumcision site nocirg.org (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Misplaced Pages)
• "Jews against circumcision"
• The anti-circumcision site circumstitions.com (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Misplaced Pages)
• The anti-circumcision site circinfo.org (which would never be considered a neutral reliable source of such information by Misplaced Pages)

among others.

• The KNMG statement doesn't even match up precisely to the claim being made. The KNMG statement is about "...for medical reasons" and the claim in the article doesn't have that qualifier (although this could be fixed with wording, but this wouldn't address the issues I see here)

I don't see how the KNMG official viewpoint document could be used to support anything other than the positions of the KNMG itself.

Input please! Zad68 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The document is not persuasive, it supports some view that is overwhelmingly prevalent in Europe. In Europe where circumcision was quite rare after WWII and before the recent influx of immigrants nobody did care about circumcision for the 50-60 years while the circumcision-rates were about 0.5-5%. The Netherlands were traditionally the country with the highest percentage of immigrants so they were one of the first to notice the issue. Similar statements were issued in Germany and many hospitals have stopped religious circumcisions in Switzerland and Austria after the recent Kölner Landgericht ruling. Yesterdays Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported about the discourse between Swiss legal experts whether neonatal circumcision is antragsdelikt or offizialdelikt (one that must be prosecuted under any circumstances).

The document is perfectly representative for Europe and should be given adequate weight, any thoughts that the KNMG might represent some anti-circumcision fringe views are completely misleading. Richiez (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of caring more about WP:The Truth than about the joys of finding a perfect sourcefor the footnotes, is there any professional association of physicians that actually does recommend routine circumcision?

The purpose of our sourcing guidelines is to get things right (where "right" is defined in terms of reliably published information rather than Wikipedian's personal beliefs), not to throw up bureaucratic barriers to filling an article with good and relevant information. Do we have any reason to believe that this statement is actually wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Richiez, you and I are both involved at Talk:Circumcision debating this issue, thanks for providing your side. It's good for the two of us to get some opinions from outside editors here at WP:RSN.

I have replied here because it was my impression the you think that the KNMG is some activist organisation with an agenda. This board should clarify whether or not this is the case, content discussions should be discussed elsewhere. Did you ask for input on the Dutch portal? Richiez (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, be careful not to miss the subtlety of the RSN question being posed here. I actually believe that it's quite possible that the statement "No professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision" is WP:The Truth™, although since the World Health Organization started recommending circumcision as a way to slow the spread of HIV, it also would not surprise me to find out that some small medical organization in HIV-ravaged Africa does recommend it. I don't know.

The issue is that the statement "No professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision" is not the article content the KNMG statement is being used to support. The article content is:

"Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians state that none recommend routine circumcision"

so what is being claimed here is that there are multiple "Summaries of the views of professional associations of physicians" being quoted. The KNMG statement can't be called a "Summary of the views of professional associations of physicians" when it was written for an entirely different purpose. In WP:MEDICAL articles, the word "summary" has a special meaning referring to the easy-to-read analysis of the results of an independent third-party review of existing medical literature. (Look at WP:MEDRS, which talks about the use of the word "summary" in reference to medical sources.) For example, take a look at this summary from the highly-respected Cochrane Library: Zinc for the common cold. To refer to the KNMG statement as a "summary" is very misleading. If the statement were changed to "The KNMG states that no professional association of physicians recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons" I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the characterization of the KNMG statement as a "summary statement" in a medical article that I find an unacceptable use of the source.

To expand on this, take a look at this article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics. It states "no medical body has advocated a policy that calls for the prohibition of circumcision", the inverse of what the KNMG says, in addition to "Although they recognise that existing medical evidence does not support that the procedure that can be universally recommended" as well, supporting the KNMG statement. But even this cannot fairly be called a "summary of the views of professional associations of physicians".

I'm not trying to throw up bureaucratic requirements, I'm just trying to get the article to accurately reflect the sources. This has nothing to do with any beliefs I might or might not have. Zad68 02:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style. If this is a fact (or a fact as far as the extensive research into sources by Wikipedians has been able to determine), you should report it as a fact.

And the intent of the summary doesn't matter. If the source actually does summarize them, even if it does so as a side issue or afterthought or any other reason, then its contents may be described as a summary of said statements (but only one summary, in the singular, unless you have other sources that do the same). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree "Summaries state that..." is lousy writing style, I don't like that. This does give me motivation to offer some new ideas for different phrasings to the article's regulars. Hope we can get consensus. Also hoping to see input from others here as well. Zad68 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Zad68's post above. I don't think they have the authority to make that broad statement, and I'm very suspicious that it's accurate. Jesse V. (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think WhatamIdoing gets it completely right in his first post. I'm usually highly critical of editors who attempt to use a single, blatantly partisan source to support such a dramatic statement, but in this case there is no reason to believe the source is unreliable. The KNMG has no dog in this race; their objective is to increase public health.

We have no reason to believe they would misrepresent the facts in order to support a point of view, we have no reason to believe that such a prestigious organisation would lower itself to bending the truth about the matter, we have no reason to believe they would have any motive to do so anyway, and as WAID said, we have no reason to believe the fact itself is untrue. We should include the statement as we have no reason to doubt its accuracy. If a reader is sceptical of the statement they can always follow the reference and decide for themselves. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

HSY article

I would like to know if this particular hellosomaliyouth article is a reliable source. It has been linked to using the Wayback Machine because the original webpage is dead. The HSY link is in a foreign language, Somali. According to WP:NONENG, although "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones", non-English sources can be used unless "a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information", in which case "relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy". However, no one seems to be able to provide a professional translation of much less understand/WP:VERify what that Somali language page actually says. Despite this, it is being used on the Scouting in Somalia article to reference sensitive WP:REDFLAG material not covered elsewhere in mainstream sources. Specifically, the following statement : "In February 2007, UNICEF sources reported the existence of a local Scout group, Boy Scouts of Somaliland, in Ceerigaabo, Somaliland." This is problematic because the HSY page does not use the term Boy Scouts of Somaliland anywhere, while other sources indicate that it is specifically the local Sanaag administration where Ceerigaabo is situated (a disputed region which Somaliland claims) that is actually responsible for this scouting group. The HSY article also seems quite spammy in that it features a bunch of porn- and cheap laptop-related links in the comments section. Middayexpress (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's questionable I wouldn't use it, but keep it a mention of it on the talk page in the event another source is found.--Otterathome (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Allrovi

Allrovi controls Allmovie and Allmusic. Allmusic has the wrong birth year for Kitty Wells and Allmovie has one that differs from other sources for Sondra Locke. Hal Erickson wrote the one bio but didn't have input on the birth date. This is the same for his Imdb bio work of the same subject. Should we compare Allrovi sites to other sources and possibly not use them for birthdates if they aren't reliable? I have emailed two of their departments, asked about their sources, but no response in weeks.

• http://www.allmusic.com/artist/kitty-wells-mn0000098189
• http://www.allmovie.com/artist/sondra-locke-p100009

--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would generally consider them reliable; mistakes do occur in details like this (for what it's worth, they also have the wrong year of birth for Chris Carter). If a majority of other reliable sources show that they have a detail wrong then use the more-widespread information in the relevant article, obviously, but if there seems to be no conflicting information to what they present elsewhere then I'd still consider them okay to go with. GRAPPLE X 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms. Locke's article has both years listed because of this source and a book. I read two reviews of the book author and both said that his dates were unreliable. There is a very long discussion on her article talk page and every other dispute forum we could find. I gave up on it after wikihounding, false sock investigations, block threats, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian Rockwell Williams

Brian Rockwell Williams contains the statement:

At the time of her death Briana Williams was 18 years old, and had recently graduated from Mount Carmel High School.

Citation #7 sources The Huffington Post (i.e. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/brian-williams-not-guilty-plea_n_905671.html) which is an excerpt credited to RanchoBernardoPatch (i.e. http://ranchobernardo.patch.com/articles/man-pleads-not-guilty-to-murdering-mother-sister-in-rancho-peasquitos). I am wondering if one is more credible than the other and which, if any, should be cited? Thanks! Location (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had editors tell me that the Huff Post is a blog and so not considered a reliable secondary source. From what I can tell, the Patch is a newspaper. There is an editor but I am not sure if it is OK to assume that there is fact checking. I couldn't find anything online but would like to hear other editors' input.Coaster92 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Patch.com has been discussed before. here is one it appears that each locality has an editorial board of sorts, and the qualifications of that local board may or more likely may not be up to snuff. if it is a national story, there should be other more consistently reliable sources available. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I normally would accept The Huffington Post as a reliable source and reject Patch.com as having reliability that is suspect, however, I'm not sure what to do in this case when a normally reliable source reposts an article from a source that is suspect. Thoughts? Location (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the Huffington Post is mirroring patch.com, there's no justification for citing the Huffington Post. Reliability can't be magically added in that way. So it all depends whether patch.com is reliable. Andrew Dalby 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Interviews on YouTube

Can an interview given by an actor to a tv channel be used as a reliable source?? Roshan (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• It depends on the source. By that I mean it depends on who has the video posted as well as who is interviewing the actor. For example, if an actor was being interviewed by their local news station (say, the local crew of CBS or Fox for their area) then that would absolutely be usable. However, if the person was being interviewed by a local public access show that wouldn't be considered as reliable unless the show is considered to be exemplary (having attracted attention and notability on their own). Generally that aspect of that would be easy to guess. Where YouTube sources tend to go wrong is in who posts it. Any interview is copyrighted by the channel/show that produced it. As a result, YouTube videos should really only be used if they're posted by the channel/show that interviewed the person. Even if the video is posted by the actor being interviewed and it's clear that the video hasn't been edited, the issue here is copyright and per WP:YOUTUBE we shouldn't link to videos that aren't posted by the official sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

the authenticity of a clip posted by a generic user on youtube is also a consideration. if it is "tho official" you-tube channel for the organization that recorded the clip then it is validated, otherwise people can doctor media clips and in addition to the copyright issues, its authenticity is also in question. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The verifiablity of the source is also likely to be an issue. How could another editor check the material. If the answer is "YouTube" then that's probably tricky. But if another means is available, you should be able to cite the show giving the details needed to access that, without the need for a YouTube link. Formerip (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

BuySoundTrax

Hello. This would be quite a handy article to use in the Sherlock (TV series) article, but I'm concerned about its reliability. Before I spend time integrating it into the article, just for it to be removed later, I would like some thoughts on its reliability. Thanks. The JPS 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find someone famous that Randall D. Larson interviewed who mentioned it on their website, this should confirm the authenticity of the website. The more you can find the better. Also be careful with what you want to add, the interview is filled with trivia that wouldn't belong in an article.--Otterathome (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fidel Castro

Early Childhood and Education paragraph

Having trouble with Wiki reviewer accepting the following as reliable source: Book: Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Troubador Books, UK (Isbn: 978 1780882154) plus my edits <His mother Lina was a devotee of Santeria, a fusion of African mysticism and orthodox Catholic scripture> I have published 10 books by mainstream publishers and am an expert in child and adolescent mental health- hence a reliable author to add to Fidel Castro's biographical details and especially his childhood. Note these previous books: Walker S (2003). Social Work and Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S. (2003). Working Together for Healthy Young Minds, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S & Beckett C (2004), Social Work Assessment and Intervention, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S & Akister J (2004), Applying Family Therapy, Lyme Regis, RHP

Walker S (2005) Culturally Competent Therapy- working with children and young people, Basingstoke, Palgrave

Walker S & Thurston C (2006), Safeguarding Children and Young People: a guide to integrated Practice, Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers.

Walker S (2011) The social workers guide to Child and Adolescent Mental Health, London, Jessica Kingsley

Walker S (2011) Social Work Assessment and Intervention (2nd ed), Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishers

Walker, S. (2012) Fidel Castro's Childhood- the untold story, Leicester, UK, Troubador

Walker, S. (2012) Effective Social Work with Children and Families- putting systems theory into practice, London, Sage Walker, S. (Ed). (2013) Mental Health Madness- an antidote to modern psychiatry, Herefordshire, PCCS Books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

We have a rule about self-published books. Note the two bits of bolded wording in WP:SPS. This really isn't something Misplaced Pages can be flexible about, I'm afraid.

Presumably, you got the information for your book from somewhere. It is possible that the information could be included in the article, but not using a self-publication as a source. Formerip (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are evidently a published expert in child and adolescent mental health, but that doesn't make you, in Misplaced Pages terms, a reliable source on Fidel Castro's biography. So I agree with FormerIP: assuming you used reliable sources for this information, we need to cite those sources. Andrew Dalby 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Frank Collin, aka Frank Joseph as a reliable source

Could I get some feedback on whether this author Frank Collin, writing as Frank Josph and used as a source for these additions to Adena culture, is considered in any way a WP:RELIABLE source, not to the mention the obvious WP:FRINGE problems? After removing here and advising the editor, User:Iansayers, what the problems with this author were here, they have re-inserted (although I have once again removed). Since the editor declined to bring the matter here as I advised, I figured I would and get it out of the way. Thoughts? Heiro 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am probably more New Agy that most wikipedia editors, but I am pretty clear that Joseph is not an author that should be considered a reliable source. The responses given by User:Iansayers tend to lead me to the conclusion that wikipedia will be better off without his supporters too. Carptrash (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer - I was notified about this on my talk page. I'm well aware of Frank Joseph, the original editor-in-chief of the cult archaeology magazine Ancient American(whose editorial position "stands firmly on behalf of evidence for the arrival of overseas visitors to the Americas hundreds and even thousands of years before Columbus", co-author of The Lost Worlds of Ancient America:Compelling Evidence of Ancient Immigrants, Lost Technologies, and Places of Power, editor of Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient America: Lost History and Legends, Unearthed and Explored featuring such luminaries of archaeology as Zecharia Sitchin and David Hatcher Childress. Definitely not a reliable source for anything except for perhaps in a pinch fringe opinions. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source for criticism

What counts as a criticism bearing weight? For example, a notable author wrote an article criticizing Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion. How should I prove that his criticism bears weight and should be mentioned in the article? Is it enough to show the place were the original article was published was a prestigious magazine or newspaper? Or the fact that the critic was cited by other people?(perhaps by those who wrote other criticism books in response to Dawkins). Your help is appreciated to avoid a dispute on Dawkins page.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

News magazines are generally not appropriate sources of criticism for academic works. Seek peer reviewed journal's book reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think The God Delusion makes the bar as an academic work, more a mass market offering. Bantam (the publisher) isn't known as an academic powerhouse. 94.195.187.69 (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument is about a comment Richard Dawkins makes about suicide terrorism , and the book is The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath quoting a paper by Robert Pape. Dawkins is talking about religious motivations in suicide attacks, and is clearly not stating all suicide bombers are religiously motivated. Pape's paper looked at some (he says all, but I think that's debatable) suicide bombings and concluded that the majority was not religiously motivated. McGrath uses that to try to discredit Dawkins. Clearly Dawkins didn't say all suicide bombers are religiously motivated, and Pape isn't saying suicide bombers are never religously motivated (just the majority of attacks he looked at wasn't), so the use of Pape's paper in this situation is fallacious in my opinion. — raekyt 09:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So the hook for all this is a single paragraph comment by Dawkins in The Guardian, written in 2001 in response to 9/11? If so, drop it, Kazemita: undue weight. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What my friend Reaky forgot to mention is that McGrath is not alone in using Pape's paper to criticize the new atheists, relating suicide bombing to religion: https://www.google.com/search?q=robert+pape+atheism&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And I responded to that link on the Richard Dawkins page is that the search doesn't mention Dawkins, just because other people use Pape's paper doesn't mean it's a valid criticism of Dawkins comment. And just because a bunch of people say something doesn't mean it's a valid argument, what does Pape say about Dawkins views, or what does Dawkins say about people using Pape's paper to argue against his views? — raekyt 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And my response to that argument was that you do not have the authority to declare whether a conclusion by a notable critic(McGrath) is valid or not. You can only research if it is reliable, i.e. if his reasoning is backed up by multiple sources and that link in Google books shows it.

@Andrew Dalby: the authors who criticized Dawkins (directly) did not mention the Guardian article as the hook per say. The Guardian article was just an example of such claims by Dawkins that is currently present in the article. User Reak has no authority to read the author's mind.

You may want to bear in mind the reception of McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion and how much citation Pape's paper received, before drawing a conclusion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article it looks like it barely meets WP:NBOOK... — raekyt 10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wondered whether that was really the only hook, but you will admit, Kazemita, that your initial query was so studiedly vague you were lucky to get a response out of us at all!

Notable criticism of any book by Dawkins (which was the topic of your initial question) belongs principally in the article about the book. Reception of the MacGrath book belongs principally in the article about that book. I'd start there. Andrew Dalby 10:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, read my beginning statement before judging me. I wrote: "a notable author wrote an article criticizing...". I was clearly not talking about McGrath's book. If you must know, it was Terry Eagleton's article I had in mind. Although I can see the root of this mis-understanding is due to user Reak (who wrongly guessed what my original question was about)

As for criticizing Dawkins' book, am I correct understanding you that in any Wiki page of a person, we are not allowed to bring criticism if the criticism is about a statement something the person mentioned in his book? --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make people dig for it, give them the link: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching — raekyt 10:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And I guess I have to start from the beginning here to since your not giving us anything, what claim are you trying to put criticism against, or what statement do you want this source (or another? link?) to say against Dawkins? Hes a literary critic, I don't see that he has degrees in Theology, but maybe he does, i donno his article doesn't specifically say. So basically what do you want to use this source to say? — raekyt 11:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Continued question)@Andrew Dalby: If material from books that criticized The God Delusion is not allowed, what exactly qualifies as acceptable criticism in Dawkins article?--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think as a general rule of thumb, you should only add criticism to any particular statement into an article if that original statement is notable enough to be covered in reasonable depth in the article. In this particular case, I don't see the suicide bomber claim in the article to begin with (going by a quick search, not a careful reading). Dragging it in just to be able to criticise it seems somewhat perverted to me - I don't see how this serves the reader. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the claim Stephan(in the article):

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!Kazemita1 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a mere mortal. I don't judge, allow or forbid ... Had you linked Eagleton and the London Review of Books, Kazemita, you might have saved some time. I would consider LRB opinions to be often notable, and Eagleton often worth citing. That's it from me. Good luck to all. Andrew Dalby 11:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment "You can only research if it is reliable," suggests a possible confusion by Kazemital about what we mean by reliable sources. Kazemital, have you read WP:Verify and WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentleman, Dawkins left McGrath a very good hook to connect him to Pape's paper: "If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers." http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&q=good+bet#v=snippet&q=good%20bet%20suicide&f=false This is indeed against Pape's research that McGrath uses to refute Dawkins, in which Religious purposes is not found to be the main cause of suicide bombing. @Stephan and company: Please revise Kazemita1 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically quote mining if you read the whole paragraph, that starts on page 347 and ends on 348 it's clear he's talking about religiously indoctrinated children, specifically an admonishment for faith. He's not claiming _all_ suicide bombing is the result of religious faith and if you just pull that one sentence out of context it makes it sound like all suicide bombing is, but you can't pull just once sentence out of context and make him say something he's not, that's intellectually dishonest. By WP:AGF I'm going to assume you've read The God Delusion, have a copy, and just misread that passage, I'm not going to immediately assume you was being intentionally dishonest by quote mining. If you haven't read this book, don't have access to a copy of it, how do you expect write a credible criticism of it by just relying on snippets online? — raekyt 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Raeky Let everyone know if any more quotes from the mentioned pages is necessary to draw a sound conclusion:

"More generally (and this applies to Christianity no less than to Islam), what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them-given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by - to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for further jihads or crusades. Immunized against fear by the promise of a martyr's paradise, the authentic faith -head deserves a high place in the history of armamaents alongside the longbow, the warhouse the tank and the cluster bomb. If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior virtue of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in ther religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities and that martyerdom in his service will be rewarded in the gardents of Paradise. And they were taught that lesson not necessarily by extremist fanatics but by decent gentle mainstream religious instructors who lined them up in their madrasas, sitting in rows, rhytmically nodding their innocent little heads up and down whlie they learned every word of the holy book like demented parrots. Faith can be very very dangerous..."

Kazemita1 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably a copyright violation to put such a big quote on wikipedia, but I still stand by my assertion that hes not claiming all suicide bombers are religiously motivated and discounting suicide bombing out of desperation for guerilla fighters that Pape says makes up the majority of the attacks he looked at. Is there secondary sources to back up Pape's conclusion, additional papers that back up his conclusions, reviews of his paper in other peer reviewed journals, etc? Is there any evidence that Dawkins really believes all suicide bombers are religiously motivated? You seem to be really pressing this criticism, which to me seems a bit petty, something that could easily be attributed to a miss-wording, or misunderstanding. Surely there's better criticisms of his work then this? — raekyt 03:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a reliable sources matter, if it ever was :) I find the back-and-forth confusing, and probably not conducive to measured conclusions, but since Kazemita has asked me to comment once more, I'll give my opinion for the very little it's worth. Dawkins was saying, in the passage quoted, that suicide bombers are motivated by faith. It is fair, on the basis of the passage quoted, to take it that, when he wrote that text, he meant all suicide bombers. Andrew Dalby 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

sfcrowsnest.com

In H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005 film), the website http://sfcrowsnest.com is cited for news, reviews and interviews. It is published by Stephen Hunt, with articles contributed by writers. In my opinion, the site seems to be reliable based on its longevity, and editorial staff. I don't know how much it has been cited in other works, so I'm bringing it up here. --Lexein (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There are better sources, such as File 770 and Ansible; but the crow's nest is reasonably reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep those other two sources on tap. --Lexein (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Glasswerk

Does Glasswerk appear to be a reliable source for music-related articles? I am unable to find an 'About us' information section from the site. Till I Go Home 10:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

thesavior.com - a reliable source?

Is this interview a reliable source for Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani. Note that despite claims it will be published in the New York Times, etc, that doesn't seem to have occurred. I'm removing, a commentary by a dentist living in Texas! This BLP seems to have become a bit of a train wreck. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Kurtz National Review article about Obama and the New Party

The question is whether is an RS or not. The proposed change is below, reproduced from the talk page on the New Party's article:

Proposed article change

Inserted as the second paragraph in the Influence section: During the 2008 US presidential election, conservative researcher Stanley Kurtz claimed(link to Kurtz's original 2008 article on NationalReview.com) that presidential candidate Barack Obama had sought the endorsement of the New Party while campaigning for Illinois Senate in 1996. The Obama campaign denied this allegation (link to a source maybe with a screenshot of the Fight The Smears response to Kurtz). In 2012, Kurtz revived the debate by producing alleged New Party meeting minutes(link to Ben Smith's article with scribd archive of the NP meeting minutes) documenting that Obama not only asked for the group's endorsement, but also joined the membership and signed the "Candidate Contract". However, former New Party members who were available for interview had no recollection of Obama's involvement (link to Ben Smith's article with interview results).

Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC).

Reasons it could be considered an RS:

1) Stanley Kurtz is a researcher with a PhD from Harvard University.

2) TNR is a well-respected source.

Reasons not -- I'll let opponents speak for themselves.William Jockusch (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WP enforces a neutral point of view. National Review is a reliable source on conservative opinions, whether or not their views can be rebutted. In the case of a dispute, both sides, pro and rebuttal should be included. Otherwise, any source that can be characterized a crazy lunatic right wing partisan operative can be summarily deleted by any editor who is a crazy lunatic left wing partisan operative who disagrees with that opinion, which appears to be the poor justification for the case presented below. Redhanker (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not even close. The source in question is an opinion piece written in the first person, accusing Obama and some other people of lying, which should end the analysis right there. Kutz is a partisan operative who has made it part of his career to make accusations against President Obama (the usual Republican points - he's a "stealth socialist" and a radical, he's cozy with terrorists, Jeremiah Wright, he was part of Acorn's election fraud, etc.) in the context of political campaigns. Between elections (in 2010) he published an entire book to argue the debunked Republican talking point that Barack Obama is a socialist. The proposition of adding material from Kurtz into the Obama article has been discussed several times without gaining approval. Now, writing one of his regular anti-Obama pieces for a conservative opinion forum (the National Review Online) he repeats an old accusation that failed to gain any traction before the last presidential election, that Obama was a secret member of a third political party. As it stands, there's next to nothing. This was the buzz of the day a month ago (at the time this question was asked) in the conservative blogosphere, and it quickly died down there and here (there was a long discussion that did not gain any consensus to include). Although the allegation itself, that in the course of an election Obama signed a pledge with an obscure left-of-center "fusion" party in exchange for an endorsement at the same time he was also nominally a Democrat, is hardly scandalous, Obama's campaign has denied it and although various innocent interpretations are possible the Kurtz camp has basically said the President is lying. That's an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, not partisan editorials. If there were any merit to this claim and if it were relevant: (a) there would be stronger sources for it, and (b) reliable sources would have covered the fact of Kurtz' making these allegations. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Media Matters is regularly considered an RS. Is this so different?William Jockusch (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not just a RS issue, it is a WP:BLP issue and and WP:UNDUE. And so even if the source is reliable for his opinion, it miserably fails the other criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to deal with this one issue at a time. I know that opponents of this and related additions are going to raise multiple issues. But one has to start somewhere. William Jockusch (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Misplaced Pages's core content policies. They work together to determine content." Attempting to "to deal with this one issue at a time" smacks of Wikilawyering. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you read the article, the evidence given for the claim that Obama signed the piece of paper is not the piece of paper with his signature on it, but the minutes to a meeting of New Party members, which say that he signed the piece of paper and joined the party. This seems beyond sketchy to me. The allegations may or may not be true, and may or may not be a big deal, but they rest on the flimsiest of evidence, and should not be considered reliable. That is to say, even if this article was reliably fact-checked, all it says is that someone said that Obama signed this piece of paper. There is much sound and fury in the article to attempt to divert the reader's eye from this plain fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. Abhayakara (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well documented. I suppose somebody may have forged and planted the New Party meeting minutes that described Obama's involvement, along with the New Party membership rosters that listed his "join date" exactly corresponding to the date from the meeting minutes. And no doubt the New Party event announcement flyers dug up during the 2008 campaign that described Obama as a member were part of the grand conspiracy as well. Just like the newspapers in Hawaii that carefully falsified Obama's birth announcements back in the 60's even though he was born in Kenya. (joke) In case my sarcasm isn't obvious, I would suggest that Kurtz has done his homework, he has made a slam dunk case via compelling original documents, and the burden is considered by many mainstream writers to be now on the Obama campaign to explain the campaign's false statements from 2008. The president's campaign has been castigated by editorials in major newspapers for this, and I would suggest that Kurtz deserves more respect than some editors give him here. Most of the complaints against Kurtz are simply that he has a conservative perspective and documents facts that are unfavorable or embarrassing from Obama's past. Many of Kurtz's views that give people heartburn above would only be considered "fringe" by political liberals, and would be considered legitimate opinions by wide swathes of intelligent and informed Americans. Most people who have read Obama's biographies and autobiography are aware that he can be fairly said to have moved to his present position from the political left. So some of these revelations (NP membership, ACORN involvement, listening to Wright's sermons weekly, seeking out Marxist associations in college, mentorship by a communist as a young person) are not really all that earth-shattering. Don't get me wrong -- Kurtz's view that Obama presently is a socialist is firmly in the realm of opinion, since it is contradicted by Obama's public statements and current policies and actions as president. Kurtz may be right, of course, in terms of what Obama desires deep down, even as he works pragmatically within the political system. But none of that really matters for purposes of this Misplaced Pages debate. What does matter is Kurtz's well-documented facts, which are not statements of opinion. Wookian (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be surprising if someone noted in the minutes on January 11 that Obama had joined, and yet the membership rolls didn't list him as having joined on that date. The fact that these two data points coincide does not therefore make them reliable evidence that a document has been signed. The person who has access to these minutes should have access to the document, yet it hasn't been produced. Why not? Possibly because it doesn't exist. Kurtz says only one other journalist has covered this at all, and says that that journalist disagrees with him. So Kurtz' view is a minority view; even if the source were reliable, which it is not, you still couldn't use it. See WP:BLPSTYLE, under Balance. This qualifies as a tiny minority, and hence is disqualified from inclusion in the BLP. Abhayakara (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You could also demand to see the chair that Obama sat in while he signed the document or the pen that he used, but I suggest that you are laying artificial constraints on the discussion. The New Party's "Candidate Contract" was not a legal document per se, but rather more of a political campaign promise to uphold the NP's agenda if elected with the endorsement and support of the NP. Wookian (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Stanglin, Douglas. "Facebook photo of duct-taped kids prompts couple's arrest". USA Today. Retrieved 19 May 2012.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution