Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 12 December 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

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was a regional offshoot of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The latter might be a decent source on non-political subjects, but in general it was a Soviet propaganda source. I would like to ask whether the sources like Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia could be considered reliable in history related articles. ASE was used in many articles in en:wiki: I feel that the use of this source in controversial articles about the history is not justified, and more recent and neutral propaganda free sources are preferable. I would appreciate opinions about this source. Grandmaster 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because a text has been used in an article does not mean that text has been used as a source. However—generalist encyclopaedia should not be used as sources in history articles as they fail to represent the account of history constructed by appropriate experts. Generalist encyclopaedia have a purpose other than the best representation possible of the current scholarly account, and do not employ as a matter of course persons who can appropriately represent the current scholarly account. See WP:HISTRS for the kinds of sources you should be using in history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to mention that the editors of the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia placed their primary emphasis on articles on Armenia and the Armenians. Most of the contributors in the field were prominent and internationally recognized scholars and thus the authoritative figures on topics relating to Armenia's history and culture. I wouldn't use the encyclopedia's article on the United States as a source on its counterpart on Misplaced Pages, but these guys were the head honchos of the topics they studied. A number of scholars outside Armenia have consulted and cited the encyclopedia as a reliable source numerous times in their studies.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The example I typically give there is Kropotkin's article on Anarchism for EB. I would suggest going through an SPS evaluation (in your head, or on the Talk: page of the article) of expertise in relation to such articles by such persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add few things. Viktor Hambardzumyan, an internationally recognized scientist so is considered on the founders of the Astrophysics, was the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia's head editor. Most of the historical articles were written, obviously, from the Armenian point of view and the modern history, especially the era concerning the First Republic of Armenia was mostly from the communist standpoint and was anti-Dashnak, but its reliability cannot be argued, in my opinion. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 01:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a contradiction in what you say, because you admit that the ASE's historical articles were written from the communist standpoint, but then you say that its reliability cannot be argued. Grandmaster 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia should be avoided only in cases when it criticized people and events that were considered anti-Soviet in action or spirit. It is, however, a top source for research on non-modern historical topics. It has been widely quoted internationally and edited by the top internationally-recognized scholars of the time. User Grandmaster who posted this dubious request has been trying to cast doubt and discredit good sources in order to open way to push Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. His actions should be curbed as he is acting in bad faith. As for the Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia, it should be avoided both as a source for modern and ancent historical information since it was edited and managed by the Soviet era's most infamous plagiarists and revisionists such as Ziya_Bunyadov#Critics, who were widely criticized in the West for egregious violations of academic ethics and racist attacks . Sprutt (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

ASE cannot be considered reliable for a number of reasons. First, it is tainted by Soviet propaganda. Second, it is quite outdated. There are dated sources that have not lost their value to this day, for example Vladimir Minorsky who is widely referred to in the international scholarly community, but ASE is not a source of similar international acclaim. Third, ASE authors like Bagrat Ulubabyan are criticized for promoting nationalist agenda by experts on nationalism such as Victor Schnirelmann. And it is very difficult for people outside of Armenia to verify what ASE actually says, since as far as I know it is available only in Armenian. Also, I find the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions by Sprutt to be in violation of a number of wiki rules. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Grandmaster 06:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One more reason why Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia can't be used as reliable source: Anti-turkism was one of the directions of USSR propaganda and it is one of the directions of Armenian propaganda as well, therefore USSR supported all efforts of Armenians on this issue. Best, Konullu (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The influence of Soviet propaganda is only seen in an article relating to the modern period (topics on the economy, the Cold War, the advent of Bolshevism in the Caucasus, etc.). What propaganda value can be attributed to a district belonging to a kingdom established two thousand years before the USSR was created? (Am I'm not talking here about Marxist interpretations of history and society). The ASE is found to be used in dozens of Western sources, as a Google search yields hundreds of results either as Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. Third, the fact that some mild criticism at Ulubabyan does not condemn the rest of the contributors of the encyclopedia, many of whose works have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These include Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, Hrach Bartikyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Suren Yeremyan, etc., with none of the opprobrium that has accompanied scholars from Azerbaijan.

So what is all this hoopla about if not simple disgruntlement that the history the world accepts as part of Armenia's history does not quite fit with narrative of lies and falsifications fabricated in Azerbaijan? And Konullu's comment deserves a huge "LOL".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Shnirelman is quite critical of Yeremian's articles in ASE. He critically mentions at least 2 of Yeremian's articles in ASE, "Armenians" and "Greater Armenia". According to Schnirelman, Soviet propaganda forced all the ethnicities declare themselves to be autochthons in the areas they inhabited, and Armenian Soviet scholars were actively involved in this process as well. And that includes ancient history. Grandmaster 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As demonstrated by Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov in his book, Schnirelman, who directed his criticism mainly against Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists, reluctantly extended his criticism to some Armenian scholars as well in order to fight accusations of one-sided analysis. As mentioned before, you can therefore safely discount Schnirelman's discussion of Armenian scholars as an awkward attempt at false balance. All this ASE thing is just one big bad faith hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of an Armenian politolgist Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov is not sufficient to discount criticism of Schnirelman, who dedicated large chapters in his book to the criticism of the Armenian historical revisionism, substantial part of which related to Soviet times. Plus, Schnirelman is not alone. You can read about Armenian nationalist scholarship in the book by professor Philip Kohl, for instance: Grandmaster 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is from an article by Ronald Suny, an ethnic Armenian US historian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias:

While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post‐Stalin years scholars promoted insistently national themes. Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities. Because the first “civilization” within the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium b.c. Urartian sites and objects of material culture were featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700th anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre‐Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto‐Armenians were probably a Thraco‐Phryian branch of the Indo‐European‐speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that, rather than being migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium b.c., and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre‐Turkic (earlier than the eleventh century) origin for their nation.

Ronald Grigor Suny. Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2001), pp. 862-896

Grandmaster 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Armenian scholars, Yeremyan especially, never claimed that Armenians were autochthons. Up until the late 1980s, they still adhered to the belief that Armenians had migrated to the Armenian Highlands during the second millennium B.C. (see vol. 1 of the History of the Armenian People series). It was only with the publication of Ivanov's and Gamkrelidze's book that there was a noticeable shift in thinking among the academic community, and this in the twilight years of the Soviet Union. Sprutt makes a good point in remarking that Schnirelman's "criticism" comes off as an attempt at false balance than any real, substantive condemnation of Armenian scholars, who having countless Armenian and non-Armenian primary sources on the Armenians during the ancient and medieval periods, never had any reason to exaggerate or distort history (barring one or two exceptions).

Suny was, by the way, trained as a scholar of the Soviet Union, not of Armenian history and culture. His works are not above reproach and have been criticized by more than a few scholars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And Yeremian wrote such works as "Проблема этногенеза армян в свете учения И.В. Сталина о языке // Изв. АН АрмССР. Сер. обществ, наук. 1951. N 6.". Translates as "Problem of ethnogenesis of Armenians in the light of the teaching of I.V.Stalin about the language". And you say that this author was free from communist influence while he tried to introduce it into ancient history? You might know that the communist ideology treated history as that of the class struggle. As for Suny, as a scholar of the Soviet Union he is well aware of what was going on in the historical science of the USSR. Again, Suny is not an ideal author either, but at least he is capable of impartial assessment of certain periods of Armenian history. Grandmaster 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Our discussion of course is after the Soviet state stopped micromanaging so heavily the interpretation of history, i.e., following Stalin's death. I don't have to mention the Japhetic theory, do I?

Again, this conversation is largely derivative. It spawned from the recent edits done on the Goghtn article, for which I have yet to see any significant objections to in the the sources consulted and cited.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeremian did claim that Armenians were autochthons. According to Schnirelman:

В своем подходе к этногенезу армянского народа Еремян исходил из автохтонистской концепции, начинал историю армян с Хайасы и доказывал, что их предки не имели никакого отношения к Фригии. С этой точки зрения, мушки не представляли для него никакой ценности, и он щедро отдавал их грузинам.

...

Иными словами, по концепции Еремяна, армяне являлись безусловными автохтонами на Армянском нагорье; они были носителями государственного начала с рубежа VII-VI вв. до н.э. и являлись как бы прямыми преемниками Урарту; к этому времени они ассимилировали все остальное население бывшего Урарту, которое перешло на армянский язык. Тем самым, формирование армянского народа и возникновение армянской государственности резко отодвигалось в глубь веков и предшествовало возникновению Персидской державы. С этой точки зрения, персы оказывались захватчиками, нарушившими естественный ход этнополитической истории армян. Положение улучшилось лишь во II в. до н.э., когда арменизация продолжилась, охватив Араратскую долину и более северные территории. Еремян настаивал на том, что к II - I вв. до н.э. процесс этногенеза завершился и сложилась Великая Армения с одним народом и одним языком (Еремян, 1951. С. 49-50).

Note that Yeremian made those claims before 1980s. Grandmaster 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have made this request regardless of Goghtn. We discussed ASE a lot at various articles, and never reached any consensus. This is why I want the community to express their opinion about this source. Grandmaster 20:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What I see is that Grandmaster is reluctant to follow wiki rules and reach a consensus in Goghtn, and instead has decided to discredit an entire range of valuable sources in this post through demagoguery and needless hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. This is a board for discussion of reliability of the sources. I have every right to ask the community opinion about questionable sources. Please comment on the subject, not the contributor. Grandmaster 07:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The way I read it, we have two editors here conscientiously defending very reasonable positions. I think this is basically a difficult balancing decision for the two of your to work out, but here are some pointers:-

• Neutrality and reliability are two different things according to Misplaced Pages norms. No sources are truly neutral, and anyway very non-neutral sources can be important to report in order to give a neutral report of what is said about a subject.
• On the other hand, there is a fine line and where we talk of old propaganda, from a past era that is now disowned even by some of the authors who were involved in that era, we can say that its reputation for accuracy is reduced. (But propaganda which is still happening and believed in is of course another subject, because obviously one person's propaganda is another person's real belief.)
• From the discussion above, it seems clear that both editors agree that the source in question well-known and frequently discussed. In that case it is possibly WP:Notable even if no longer of the highest reputation for accuracy. One way of representing such sources, common in politically divisive subjects, is simply to "attribute" the opinion. So instead of saying simply "Armenian history is X", you can say "According to the Soviet era works of Mr Smithsky, Armenian history is X. This has been disputed by more recent publications such as Y." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I just wanted to note that this source is not very well known outside of Armenia, as it is written in Armenian. For the person who has no knowledge of Armenian it is not the easiest source to use. This source is mostly mentioned by the authors from Armenia or the Armenian diaspora, but even their opinion about this source is not always favorable. For instance, here's a quote from an Armenian author, who wrote the following about ASE:

In the 1960s too, social science publications in Armenia and Azerbaijan did refer to the border conflict between them over N-K. In general, historians whose articles were published in a journal were considered "winners", which also meant that their national views did not contradict the general Party line. As such, they became the 'gatekeepers' of their national past. Indeed, different versions of the histories of nations and territories appeared in national historiographies. For example, Armenian historians in the Armenian Encyclopedia emphasized the Armenian myth regarding the contested territories of N-K and Nakhichevan. Only a short explanation was devoted to the existence of the Azerbaijanis in these territories. A short column referred to Azerbaijani music in Nakhichevan without praising the wise leadership of the Azerbaijani Communist authorities. Instead, the success of the flowering of Azerbaijani music was accredited to the 'Soviet era', meaning after 1922.

As you can see, even the Armenian authors admit that ASE was promoting the Armenian myth with regard to the history of the region. Grandmaster 06:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I mostly agree with Grandmaster here. This is a notable, but not a reliable source. The problem was not scholarship, but censored of everything by Glavlit. Yes, everything was political, and especially nationalities, where Stalin was such a great "expert" ("Проблема этногенеза армян в свете учения И.В. Сталина о языке" tells it all). Quoting by other sources does not prove reliability. For example, Kavkaz Center, a notoriously unreliable source per se, was quoted in many reliable sources. Same is here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one here is contesting the extremely powerful influence of Soviet propaganda on topics from the modern period, but to claim that the ASE is notable and yet unreliable at the same time is perplexing. There is a certain unevenness to an encyclopedia when its scope consists of everything from Armenian poets executed by Stalin in the 1930s to geographic regions from the ancient and medieval periods, which is where the ASE is mostly cited. Its individual authors consisted of modern historians, forced to adhere to the party line, but many of them were also widely respected outside of the Soviet Union (see the names I mention above). I don't know what Nagorno-Karabakh "myth" Geukjian is specifically referring to, but it seems to me that too wide a brush cannot be applied to all articles and entries. We have to evaluate a source and judge its appropriate for a certain article as it comes and goes. If a strong enough argument is made against its usage, only then it can be excluded.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not just modern history, I think the sources that I quoted demonstrated that ASE was quite biased when it came to the ancient history as well. So in my opinion it is obvious that instead of using this dated Soviet source it is better to find a more recent and preferably third party source not tainted by communist propaganda or nationalism. Grandmaster 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should not be used as RS with regard to anything related to Nagorno-Karabakh, other ethnic issues in Caucasus (Chechen-Ingush, etc.) or other highly politicized events. I am not really familiar with N-R dispute, but Soviet Encyclopedia is also notoriously unreliable with regard to ancient history (Ivan the Terrible being probably the most famous example used in Soviet propaganda). My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What I see here is a well-known approach widely used to demonize, blackball and exclude ideas, sources or even people by appealing to their "Soviet" provenance. Anti-Soviet, anti-communist and anti-Russian biases remain unusually strong in the West, and it is only too easy to find people ready to lash out again anything remotely Soviet or Russian. If anyone can bring examples showing exactly how ASE promoted unreliable information then we can debate what is at issue there. Sprutt (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

All perceived "political" publications, even such as descriptions of sports events or pure fiction (like books by Mikhail Bulgakov) were censored very literally, by removing paragraphs and phrases. One could not publish even a biology paper without approval from the First Department run by the KGB, and they would always approve it, unless your data contradicted official statistics or theories by Lysenko or anything else of political significance. So, I am not telling that all Soviet sources are unreliable, but the articles on political subjects in Soviet encyclopedias are definitely unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The censorship that you describe belong to the times of Josef Stalin while ASE started in the mid 1970s, when the Soviet intellectual environment eased up a lot. I agree that Soviet encyclopedias should be avoided as references to contemporaneous political issues. Ancient and medieval history, however, is fine unless articles are written or influenced by specific individuals or academic cliques known for fraud. Using a big brush in this case is unwarranted. Sprutt (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the censorship I described took place in 1980s. Of course Lysenko was gone, but Glavlit remained. Every month every library in country received a list of books that should be destroyed. Those were actually books that already passed censorship and therefore were printed and distributed. For example, when Korchnoi left the country, sport calendars with his photo had to be destroyed. P.S. There is an interesting book, "The KGB plays chess" which tells a thing or two about this, and even about Tigran Petrosian. My very best wishes (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I quoted criticism of the articles in ASE by Shnirelman and even the Armenian diaspora historian Geukjian, who wrote that the ancient history related articles in this source were tainted by the Soviet propaganda and ethnic nationalism. I think the quotes I provided speak for themselves. Grandmaster 18:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate is full of smoke and mirror and running in circles:

1. What is the exact passage are you trying to cite with ASE?
2. Is there an equivalent English or non-Soviet sources that supports the same passage?
3. If there is no equivalent English source that support the passage, is the passage you are trying to cite is notable enough among modern scholars to be included in the Misplaced Pages?

If the answer to the above three questions is "no", then what the hell are people blabbering about? Provide some hard evidences (like providing author names, ISBN numbers and poll surveys) and no more frigging propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate please! Jim101 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is not just one article. You can see that this source is used in a large number of articles on ancient history of the South Caucasus, sometimes as the only source for particular claims. Therefore I would like to ask for the community assistance with evaluation of the general reliability of this source in the articles about the ancient history of the South Caucasus. I can cite examples, but it is not just one article, there are quite a few when this source is used to support the claims not found in any third party source about the same subject. Grandmaster 19:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The community cannot issue an blanket ban on sources. For example, the official Chinese/South Korean history on the Korean War is deemed to be both censored, yet extremely valuable source among Cold War scholars. In such case, a blanket yes/no answer will not suffice. You have to bring out those examples one by one so that we can evaluate exactly what is going on according to the above three questions I raised. The current debate feels more like a shadow war among nationalist than a real RSN discussion. Jim101 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a blanket ban. I understand that this source could be used in the articles about Soviet propaganda, or Soviet Armenia, etc. But this source received substantial criticism for promoting a nationalist narrative, and its counterpart Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia is not much better. I just want to know if ASE could be used as a sole source to support a controversial or unusual claim, or a more recent and internationally acclaimed source is preferable. If you want examples, you can see for instance that in the article Barda, Azerbaijan ASE is the sole source for the following claim:

In 768, Catholicos of All Armenians Sion I Bavonats'i convoked an ecclesiastical council at Partav, which passed 24 canons largely concerning the administration of the Armenian Church and marriage practices.

In Gardman:

During the reign of the Arshakuni kings of Armenia (66-428 A.D.), Gardman was the seat of the nakharars of Utik' (and for this, it was sometimes called "Gardmantsvots ishkhanutyun", or the principality of Gardman).

Gugark, does not even provide the page number:

Gugark (Armenian: Գուգարք, Georgian: გოგარენე, Latin: Gogarene) was the 13th province of Greater Armenia. It now comprises parts of northern Armenia, northeast Turkey, and southwest Georgia.

I can continue. For a person who is not familiar with the region this may not seem important, but there's a parallel nationalist war between the academia of Armenia and Azerbaijan. So reliability of the sources from the region remains an issue, in particular of those published in Soviet times. Grandmaster 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now I actually see the situation behind the smoke...I think the answer you are looking for is WP:REDFLAG. In short, since it is established that ASE is not a the highest quality source around on the topic, then it should not be used alone to support a controversial or unusual claim. A double cite with ASE accompanying an independent source is a minimum in such scenario. IMO If that standard cannot be maintained, then remove the controversial or unusual claim the ASE is supporting. Jim101 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. Grandmaster 21:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole conversation is getting out of hand since it revolves around a very strong aversion found exclusively in Azerbaijan that tries to deny the presence of Armenians in the medieval and ancient periods. The controversy surrounding the examples cited by Grandmaster are fabricated by himself entirely and it's unfortunate that his argument is receiving more attention than is truly warranted. All the information cited in those three articles are based on primary sources, i.e., chronicles and histories written primarily from the fifth to twelfth centuries and if an editor truly had the time, they could dust off the published volumes from libraries and cited the works themselves. But then someone else would find another excuse to try to exclude the information – the source being in a language other than English, the source being unreliable, or the editor being accused of original research by reading too much into a source. I say this because I have had to deal with these tired tactics because some editors (and readers) are unsettled by the fact that their history does not quite match that found on Misplaced Pages, for which they must then rectify. I can name the primary sources for each of the three examples given (1. Movses Kaghankatvatsi's History of the Caucasian Albanians; 2. and 3. Anania Shirakatsi's Geography). If a statement is in wanting of more citations the appropriate tag should be added, but unless compelling evidence can be shown that the ASE is seriously mistaken in regards to a certain topic or article, this conversation is much ado about nothing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If the information could be found in primary sources, it is not up to us to interpret those primary sources. We need to find a reliable secondary source to do that. The question here is if ASE is such a reliable source. And I do not appreciate accusations of fabrication, etc. Do not take it to the personal level, and mind WP:AGF. And I do not think that Armenia is immune from denying the historical presence of other ethnicities in its territory. The article by Ronald Suny that I quoted above describes inter alia how the author was almost physically attacked in Yerevan for saying that Armenians did not constitute the majority of population of that city at the turn of the 20th century (which is a well known historical fact). This is exactly the reason why the sources from the region should be treated with care. They are marred with communist propaganda and ethnic nationalism, which is described by many international experts. Note that I treat sources from both Armenia and Azerbaijan the same way, not taking one over the other. Grandmaster 15:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lulu-published sources

I have a recurring problem with certain users insisting on the inclusion of references to works published by "Modern English Tanka Press" through Lulu Press on several articles related to tanka, haibun and tanka in English. My pointing out that they are effectively "self-published" has been met with rather irrelevant arguments that Lulu is a "print-on-demand service" rather than a self-publishing resource. I clearly expressed my concern here and here that since the books and "journals" have not actually been printed and hard copies do not actually exist until after a customer has paid, then they are effectively self-published. The "publisher"/"editor" for most of the works is Denis Garrison, but I have seen no evidence that he screens works or tries to insure that the information presented is factual -- and why should he? He doesn't actually pay to print them, unless they have already been sold to customers. However, when I pointed this out, the users claimed this is "my opinion" and should not affect article content. But it seems to me that that is the reason Lulu's website is blocked from Misplaced Pages is for this exact reason... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that it's irrelevant where a book is printed. I'd leave Lulu out of the discussion and focus on MET Press. TimidGuy (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Lulu publishes (nearly?) whatever anyone wants to have published. It's effectively not a publisher, but a press. It does no confer reliability. The "real" publisher in this case is MET Press. They also have an agreement that looks more like a self-publishing house, and they specialise in poetry, so I don't think they confer any reliability. In short, unless the author is a recognized specialist, the books in question are not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Stephan, I misread your comment and noticed after posting my general response below. My question is whether their being a self-publishing house that specializes in poetry (i.e., not academic literature) confers unreliability. I know that that is not necessarily the case, but it still seems inappropriate for encyclopedia articles to be citing those kinds of works in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The default state of any piece of writing is "unreliable source". Unless there are good arguments for its reliability (establishing "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it is unreliable. That said, being published by a self-publishing house does not automatically make something unreliable - if Steven Weinberg publishes (hypothetical) On Fundamental Forces in Physics via Lulu, I would at least tentatively accept it as reliable. But the reliability in this case comes from the author, not the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup - I've just come to the same conclusion. Books from MET Press are self-published by any reasonable definition. As Stephan Schulz says though, the key issue is the credibility of the author, not the publisher, and without recognition from credible secondary sources, or evidence that the author is a recognised expert in the subject, it matters little who publishes a work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree about focusing on the author, not the publication. WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS say that reliability can rest with the author. WP:SPS says we can use self-published sources if the author is an expert in the field who has previously been published in that field by independent publishers. SlimVirgin 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to focus of METPress, but I have faced the problem that no matter how many faults I find in works they publish, and no matter how many reliable sources I find that contradict them, it still doesn't seem like absolute evidence that material published by METPress is not reliable in general. My argument has traditionally been that since they do not actually print the books and magazines that they claim to "publish", and do not therefore incur costs of production until after they have received payment (because they publish through Lulu), they seem to generally be lacking in editorial standards. This method of publishing gives them a motivation to put out as much stuff as they can, in the hope that some of it sells.

The authors of most of the questionable material are Jeffrey Woodward and "M.Kei", neither of whom are academics, and both of them are writing in fields that seem to be unqualified in. They generally do not cite sources, and have on numerous occasions made ridiculous assertions about classical Japanese literature despite neither of them understanding Japanese.

However, my problem remains -- is pointing out 100, or 1,000 inaccuracies in a particular author's work enough to discredit him/her as a source on Misplaced Pages? The reason I went with Lulu was that these authors' refusal to go through mainstream academic publishers seemed to be a decent indicator that they are not reliable academic sources for an encyclopedia. Any thoughts?

elvenscout742 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Have the authors been published on this issue before in independent mainstream publications? That is, can they be regarded as authoritative in the field? SlimVirgin 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, they have not. METPress's Author pages for them seem to indicate that neither of them has a strong academic background in the field of classical Japanese literature). They both appear to be career-poets, and have never published scholarly articles in mainstream academic publications. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I don't see much that would suggest this meets the standard for a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Lulu published stuff can never be considered a reliable source. It is purely user-created material that the user pays to have published. This is not to knock Lulu, however, I have used them to print my own calanders in the past. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If a known authority chooses to self-publish, the material is usable no matter how or where they publish it. But they have first to be shown as an authority. So it isn't actually "never" I think it likely we will see much more of this, especially in the arts and relatedfields, and we will need to find better ways of judging. . DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Erowid

Many articles use this unreliable source. Erowid is a database that collects primary sources from a number of different sources without attribution. It is self run. It itself accepts contributions and works from sources which we consider unreliable. It will take a lot of personpower to remove all the sources.Curb Chain (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If this website is just providing convenient online versions of materials published elsewhere, then in effect this is just a convenience link and not the source as such. So we probably need to discuss each of those publications in isolation, unless (a) you are saying that this site actually might be faking sources or (b) you are saying that we are sure that ALL publications it reproduces are unreliable (which would be difficult to prove). Probably more relevant (and this may in fact be your intention) it might be necessary to clean up some of the references to this website to make it clear whether the website is the source the website is just a convenience link. I think this type of "convenience link versus source" confusion is going to come up more often as the internet develops more, but generally speaking it is a tidying up issue and we should be careful not to delete material too quickly in such situations (WP:PRESERVE).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Erowid.org never gives attribution to the sources. This makes it impossible to verify the veracity of whatever is being cited by using erowid.org. That was my argument for removing all prose using erowid.org as it`s citation/source.Curb Chain (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds problematic indeed. If Erowid has no independent reputation for accuracy then this approach would make it difficult to use it as a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Erowid is indeed a mixed bag, with their own original research mixed in with attributed reprints of reliable sources. It's articles on drugs are sometimes attributed enough to verify. I don't know about the spirituality stuff. In any case, it is a valuable resource for WP editors searching for sources and for an orientation into drug-related topics. I'm afraid that each use of the site would have to be evaluated individually to determine whether it is being used as a convenience link or not. Again, I have to stress that my knowledge of Erowid is restricted to its psychoactive drug section, and I don't know anything about its other sections. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

In the cases where Erowid has provided the evidence to back up the original publication, we would use the original publication, and not link to Erowid at all unless there is evidence that they have permission to post the copyright material. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they could be useful as a convenience link, and as an aid to research for WP editors. Might they in some cases be ok as an external link?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

convenience links must be 1) absolutely trustworthy as posting accurate copies 2) absolutely guaranteed to be legitimate hosts of the copyright material. Erowid is questionable on both accounts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain, you appear to be confused about what Erowid is and how it is used. There are numerous reliable sources attributed to their respected authors. Are you confusing the Erowid archives with the user generated part of the site? Essentially, Erowid is a tertiary source, like an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I also suspect that he is basing his judgement on the "Mind and Spirit" part of the project, and overgeneralizing. I've taken a look at that section and have to agree with him that it is of poor quality compared to the drug-related section I am more familiar with. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Most parts of the site that discuss individual drugs have a list of information, but I can't find anywhere this information comes from. It does not list references like we do on Misplaced Pages.Curb Chain (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientists in Forbes article

There is a debate at Talk:Prometheus (film) in regards to using this Forbes article.

In the Forbes article, scientists give their opinions on certain scenarios in the film Prometheus.

I'd appreciate some views on whether it is reliable for the claim that that scientists have "criticised the science" in the movie. On one hand this is a Forbes article which is generally considered an RS, on the other the piece starts with "I talked with five scientists and described scenarios in Prometheus that relate to their respective disciplines. Then I asked them some frankly leading questions", which suggests that some of the scientists may not have actually watched the film itself.

Is this article appropriate for the claim that "scientists have criticised the science in the film" even though the article implies they may have not watched it, or is the fact it is a Forbes article good enough? Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source but it could be summarised a bit more carefully. I would use the "some leading questions" in quotes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a film about scientists who follow ancient star maps to mankind's original home. The article criticises the film because its scientists do not behave like real scientists. The real issue is weight. Unless the article was written by a prominent film reviewer or has received widespread attention, it is probably safe to ignore. Odd that the article concentrates on this aspect of why the film is scientifically implausible and ignores such issues as snake venom that melts metal and aliens who impregnate sterile women with killer "squid like" children. Let alone the basic premise of the film. TFD (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of ASAN source in Autism Speaks article

Autism Speaks (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Source: "Autism Speaks – Consider the Facts" (PDF). Autistic Self Advocacy Network (Flyer). Autistic Self Advocacy Network. May 16, 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl= (help)

Statement: Autism Speaks is often criticized by autism rights advocates including many autistic people who claim that it excludes autistic people from leadership positions, uses stigmatizing rhetoric, and focuses on issues that are not relevant to the autistic community.

Is it inappropriate to source claims that autism rights advocates/self-advocates make to an autistic rights/self-advocacy group? Would sources from multiple autism rights groups be better? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If the criticisms have been covered by third parties, then the specific criticisms attributed to the specific speakers / groups making the criticisms probably can be included. basing a generic claim of "criticism" on self published "rants" is probably not acceptable. Again, the specific article content and the specific sources matter. the particular flier is probably not on its own an acceptable source for article content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm confused about the meaning of self-published, then, I guess. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Billy Brandt

I am married to Billy Brandt and I have noticed that his ex's who have issues continue to change his biography to untrue information. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsBillyBrandt (talk • contribs)

Any biographical claims in the article Billy Brandt that are unsourced or poorly-sourced can be removed immediately. What information should be removed? Zad68 14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

i blanked all the unsourced information about kids, but cannot do any more editing as the article flags "adult content" nannyware and I cannot get in anymore. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a specialist bio covered by WP:PORN, I have notified the project. In my review of the bio I can't tell exactly what is contentious or how difficult it would be to source. Zad68 15:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How do we determine which paleontology theories to report?

We have an expert, Michel Laurin (talk · contribs), who wants to add paleontology content to the encyclopedia. He needs guidance regarding how we decide which current hypotheses to include in our articles. In medicine it's easy: we generally rely on scholarly reviews and textbooks. In the more poorly-funded sciences, where an important topic may languish for a decade or more between reviews, how do we best serve our readers? Do we wait the ten or fifteen years, or rely on number of citations and article talk page consensus?

The editor has published in the field, and has had WP:COI explained.

What is the status of Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)? Does it reflect our usual practice in that area? If so, should we point Michel Laurin there? If so, should it be upgraded to guideline status?

The background is at User talk:Michel Laurin#Sources in medicine and paleontology. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Modified by Peter Brown (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The usual standards apply. Yes, point him to the essay. No, it does not need to be upgraded, as it explains how a policy is applied - the policy is what has the force, the essay doesn't need it. KillerChihuahua 15:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking whether it should be a guideline, not whether it should be a policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The essay is concerned, throughout, with whether it is warranted to make a definitive claim. As noted, such a statement must be based on a consensus. Much of the material in paleontology that is of interest to the general reader, however, is uncertain, and neutrality requires presentation, not of a consensus, but of the major competing viewpoints. Which group is more closely related to the birds, the lizards or the turtles? The turtle theory is gaining adherents and may someday become a consensus position, but​—​as with a huge number of issues​—​no definitive answer can responsibly be stated. Besides an exposition of settled matters, an ideal paleontology article will contain snapshots of the current state of research in the major areas within the article's scope but cannot present a consensus that does not exist. The essay does need to be upgraded. Peter Brown (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Where and why exactly does you description require a change of the essay?--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's leave the essay/guideline question for now - perhaps to another thread - and focus on Michel's perceived problem. (I've restored this thread to its original title.) He and Peter above are saying scholarly publication in paleontology is very slow to review even highly-cited taxonomy or phylogeny theories, and there is a lot of contention in this unstable field. I'm suggesting that it may be appropriate in such a field for us to include theories that have been highly-cited but not yet subjected to independent scholarly review. That is, in medicine, reliable sources are almost exclusively secondary; are we more inclusive in fields that are unstable and slow to review? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Peter and Michel; the situation is similar in paleobotany. One exacerbating problem with independent review taking so long is that someone outside the field might discount a new and widely cited theory as having undue weight based on the absence of independent review, when in fact the contrasting theory is merely older. Textbooks in these fields are few and far between, and review articles are most often written by the authors of the primary literature (something common in many other areas of the natural sciences as well).--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Curtis, is there a Wikiproject that covers these fields? If so, should we point them to this discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Palaeontology?--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Generalising is quite tricky. Outside medicine, I have no problem with reporting a primary source and describing it as "Dr X reported Y.." if it has appeared in literature, depending on how far off currently held consensus it is. We really need a link to each example folks are discussing over as it can be hard to generalise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a common challenge and definitely requires some good discussions between editors about how to properly balance things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Punknews.org

I'd like to hear opinions about punknews.org as a reliable source. I'm a little uncomfortable with the writers doing articles under psuedonyms (please spare me the historical examples, just because someone notable did it doesn't mean it's ok across the board) and the pro-am feel of the site, but I could be wrong. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

i dont see that it would fall into the buckets of sites that we consider generally reliable. In particular instances perhaps. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

hmm it looks like it has been considered one of the acceptable sites at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Review sites. You may want to check with the Album review project and see if it is truly acceptable or if it got snuck in at sometime and no one has yet questioned it to cause its removal. the pseudonyms are troubling to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Only staff reviews are accepted from punknews.org. Non-staff reviews are listed under the non professional. It appears that anybody can submit news to the website; if this is the case I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Maybe the listing of staff reviews from punknew.org as a professional review should also be contested? The1337gamer (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Primicias 24 to dispute other sources

I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.

Here are the sources:

• Primera 24 (Original source in Spanish)(Google Translate)
• El Universal (A national newspaper and discussed before at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break)(Original source in Spanish)(Google translate)
• El Universal (Original source in Spanish)(Google Translate)
• Soberania (Original source in Spanish)(Google Translate)

Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Huey P Newton

The following source:

Is the reason for some contention on the article Huey P. Newton:

There is also substantial discussion on the Talk page

This is the text:

Despite some involvement in social programs, the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, as well as other U.S. cities, never transcended their reputation for violence and criminality.

As outlined in my comments on the talk page, this reference seems to have some POV issues, some WP:V issues, WP:PSTS issues, and does not appear necessary to support the statement, as other references are there. However, this position appears contentious, so I would appreciate some guidance on whether this source should be included or not.

Not a good enough source for contentious political biography. An opinion piece or essay that is part of the cut-and-thrust of the debate, not commentary standing apart from the debate. The author may have published more detailed material elsewhere that might be reliable. The viewpoint she is writing from is a mainstream one that probably needs representing in the article, but better sources are needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

This article has a section sourced to a PDF from the UN which is hosted on a blog on the international law bureau website. Does this fall foul of WP:PRIMARY? It is currently used as a source on information about BLP's. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That material appeared to be an accurate reflection of the content of the UN report, and rightly placed it in that context. I'm not seeing the BLP implications given that a) the report is about government institutions and b) the material in the article seems to be an accurate account of what's in the report and c) I'm not seeing any reasons to doubt the credence of the hosting website (what are your specific concerns?). UN reports are often a good source for this kind of topic - I've used comparable UN documents in the FA Timor Leste Defence Force to discuss the failings of that institution and allegations of bad behaviour by named individuals. I note that you'd removed the material in question here, and I've re-added it per the above. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable. UN documents are good for positions taken by UN. If there was press coverage use that as well. Remember WP:RECENT and draw on academic research papers when they become available. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to use state of Illinois audit as secondary source for article

Is the following secondary source a good source for the content listed below? All the relevant information is taken from Chapter One, Introduction and Background - Report Conclusions, pg. 1.

Source: MANAGEMENT AUDIT PILSEN-LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2008 a special audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General for the state of Illinois uncovered a number of expenditures, which were inappropriately charged to State programs at taxpayer expense and sometimes without documentation. Additionally, the auditor discovered that a third of employees did not have documentation to prove they were qualified for their positions. At the time of the audit 48 percent of the files also lacked documentation on performance appraisals.

Kausticgirl (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a primary source document, the audit report itself is of limited value. Such a finding should have been covered by the media, though. Use them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. This report by Fox News mentions the audit. Would it in combination with the audit be valid sources? Or should I use only the Fox News report? Kausticgirl (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor claims secondary source not reliable? Need consensus

Are the following secondary sources good sources for the content listed below?

Source: Youth Connection charter set to fire teachers, union cries foul

Source: Chicago Charter Teachers Fight for Their Jobs, And a Union

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2011 the teachers at Latino Youth High School formed a union with the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff (Chicago ACTS) in response to what they believed to be administrative mismanagement of the school. Although the union was certified by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Board made clear that charter schools are public schools and are allowed to unionize under Illinois state law the administration of Pilsen Wellness Center has refused to negotiate with the school’s teachers.

Kausticgirl (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What article does this relate to? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

To the article for Pilsen Wellness Center, the owner of the school. An editor has removed the above content because he feels the sources are biased and won't permit it to be reinstated until RSN states that the sources are acceptable. Kausticgirl (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

YouKnowIGotSoul

• Source: YouKnowIGotSoul
• Article: Aaliyah (album), using it first at my sandbox here
• Content: Quotes from this interview/article

I'm working on Aaliyah (album) in my sandbox and wanted to make sure if the blog YouKnowIGotSoul, specifically this interview of those involved in the album, would be acceptable if I nominate the article for FA. I came across it after looking through clearly reliable sources such as this LAtimes article referencing the source in question. Just want to be sure before I use any of it at my sandbox, as the actual Misplaced Pages article on this album is a mess and happens to have it incorporated, among other blogs. Dan56 (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Chronicles of Chaos

Is Chronicles of Chaos a reliable source from music reviews? I was removing nonprofessional reviews of some music articles, and was wondering if this one is appropriate to stay or not. The website: Chronicles of Chaos. Thanks. The1337gamer (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If the lead in that article is true, then it seems acceptable for the specialized audience it caters to, as those music releases would presumably not receive reviews from the more mainstream, professional review sources. If more professional sources are available for a particular article/album, then they should be used instead, as WP:STICKTOSOURCE suggests, "the most reliable sources on a topic". Dan56 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You're using it to make statements about a reviewer's opinion, not to cite facts, right? Assuming that's the case, there shouldn't be much question of reliability. An opinion is an opinion. Maybe there's an issue of the notability of the review, but you can judge that case-by-case. TheBlueCanoe 02:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Creationist site studylight.org - is this really a reliable source?

Studylight.org is a creationist site affiliated with the Institute of Creation Research., (which offers courses run by the ICR. I ran into this at Thomas Chalmers where I discovered that the link that I thought would take me to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition took me instead to studylight.org. It seems to be being used extensively as a source and if I'm right needs to be added to the cleanup list at the top of this page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug... hold on, I don't think this is the problem you think it is. (It's actually a different problem!) Studylight hosts a number of public domain reference works, including the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The reference at Thomas Chalmers is supposed to point to this article, which is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article for Thomas Chalmers, and supports biographical background info. I don't see any problem with using Studylight for this purpose--to make public domain reference works available. It's like Bartleby. It would be a problem to use some essay at Studylight to support a theological point in an article, but I did not see that happening in the half-dozen or so uses of Studylight that I clicked on. The problem this might be is that we're using very old public-domain reference works in articles, but that's a different problem. Zad68 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the broken link at the article, check it out now. Zad68 13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an essay that discusses this issue: Misplaced Pages:Convenience link. Convenience links can be used, but should be replaced when better convenience links are available. Some of these links could be replaced with links to Wikisource or Google Books. I'm confident that Wikisource hosts the entire Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.--xanchester (t) 14:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And it does: wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, although many of the entries are missing.--xanchester (t) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

xanchester, thank you for those, both the Convenience link essay and the Wikisource reference, I will be making good use of both of those!! Zad68 14:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another free copy of the EB 11th ed., complete I believe, is at www.1911encyclopedia.org (example page). One reason for avoiding the studylight link, if others are available, is that studylight has a nuisance popup asking for subscriptions. Andrew Dalby 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Total Immersion

Total Immersion includes the following statement:

Total Immersion's popularity with triathletes is evident by the many interviews with the founder that have been done by various triathlon coaches, including Kerry Sullivan of the Triathlon Summit and Rockstar Triathlete Academy, Patrick McCrann of Inside Endurance, Simon Gowen of the Simon Gowen Triathlon Show.

The three citations point to webpages: http://www.triathlonsummit.com/index1.html, http://www.xtri.com/all-articles/detail/284-itemId.511710350.html, and http://www.latalkradio.com/Simon.php . Are these links sufficient to support the assertion in the statement? Thanks! Location (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Kate Coleman (June 9, 2012). "True Hollywood Story: The Producer and the Black Panther". editor's picks. Salon.com. Retrieved September 23, 2012.
2. Pearson, Hugh (1994). In the Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America. Perseus Books. ISBN 978-0-201-48341-3.
3. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/REVISIONISM-Guess-Who-s-Mything-Them-Now-The-2609696.php

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution