Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 8 September 2007

• ]

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to WT:V.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Man vs Wild: Sources for criticism section

Ive (unfortunately) gotten myself neck-deep into a longstanding argument on the Man vs. Wild Talk Page, in which one user in particular has attempted to put forth a criticism section that states that elements of the show are staged using sources that myself and a few others feel is flimsy at best. However, as the debate has begun to turn nasty, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if it is agreed to be reliable here.

The following are sources which have been used for criticism sections, all of which was removed.

1. This picture, which user Rei has put forth that it appears that the raft was cut rather than fireburned, as the episode apparently stated. The problem I have with this is that his analysis is not backed up by any source other than photograph itself, which appears to me to be a violation of WP:OR, while another user, grahamdubya, has suggested that the image itself isnt strong enough evidence regardless.

Analysis of a photograph, if controversial, is certainly WP:OR. As such, until a reliable source describes the photograph, this claim should not appear on Misplaced Pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2. A youtube video of an episode where the unregistered user who used it as a source by stating that at one point in the video, a harness is visible. Again, no secondary source corroborating this claim, only the primary source from which the claim is based.

Analysis of videos posted on youtube with no secondary claim to introduce or corroborate that analysis was common on the original criticism section. For example this video, , from 4:44 onward, was used as a reference for a claim that because the cameraman followed the host, Bear Grylls, as he jumped off of a crevasse, the height of the crevasse wasnt as high as he claimed.

The rest of the evidence used for the criticism section can be seen in context here:

YouTube is a source of poor reliability, in essence, a self-published source. See more at Misplaced Pages:V#SELF.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Forum posts had been frequently implemented to present theories viewers had questioning the narrative presented in the show, including this forum post questioning the opening sequence of the pilot episode.

Forums are not reliable. See WP:ATT/FAQ#Are_web_forums_and_blog_talkbacks_reliable_sources.3F.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

4. The original criticism section also included 2 google searches elsewhere in order to show how there is widespread viewer criticism of the shows content.

Google searches are not reliable sources. Somebody there should really read WP:V and WP:RS.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If these are deemed to be acceptable sources, then I will reinstate it myself, but I am highly doubtful that it is.--Tao of tyler 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied under your points above. Hope it helps.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus has the right of it. Every source they are using violates our guidlines on reliable sources and using it may be considered a violation of WP:BIO. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC opened on use of translated court documents as source

An RFC has been opened regarding the provenance of material that was originally published by Baker's defense. Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)#Request for comments: Use of translated court documents as a source I appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Court documents are primary sources and not considered reliable sources. Court decisions may be used, but affidavits, evidence etc/ should not be used in articles, in particular in BLPs, unless discussed in secondary published sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This RFC, which was opened on 13 July, was archived that same day to Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 2#Request_for_comments: Use of translated court documents as a source. I assume that some BLP concern could be behind the speedy archiving. The tide was running heavily against the use of the documents when the archiving occurred, and it was based mostly on skepticism that the documents were real, and absence of the Japanese originals, not so much on the documents being primary. EdJohnston 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not reliable sources? They are reliable in some uses... for instance "X presented evidence Y to support Z", etc. However, if the sources is being used as "X presented evidence Y, so Z must be true" then no, it can't be used. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

In the section concerning his last appearence in the Dark Tower, I wrote how his fate was controversial among the fans. Its easily one of the more controversial topics in the last novel and fans are still debating it to this day. I was wondering if using topics from thedarktower.net (one of the largest Dark Tower websites on the internet) would be good enough citation to show the conflicting views between fans.--CyberGhostface 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Genrerally forums are not considered reliable, as we have no way to verify who posts to them, or if what they say is accurate. In this case, using thedarktower.net to demonstrate a controversy would constitute original research as the observation of the conflicting views is your own. What I think you need is a third source that comments upon the debates at thedarktower.net (or on the controversy in general). Blueboar 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bluboar that forums are not reliable sources of information. -- Librarylefty 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree in general that forums are not reliable sources, if there is a claim that something is controversial, or frequently discussed online, then links to such discussions should be acceptable sources for that contention. Corvus cornix 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of India theory

Whose source(s) is more reliable? What do the sources say? Topic experts would be nice. Moreschi 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As the article states up front, groups of reputable scholars disagree, and it seems to me from a cursory glance that it's clear neither side is really a fringe. The article at present does a great job of making this controversy clear, so I don't think there are any RS issues here. ←Ben 06:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. One side is fringe-y, the other isn't. OIT has not appeared in a single mainstream publication, and would be thoroughly discredited if mainstream linguistics scholars got tenure for doing easy stuff like discrediting fringe theories. Dbachmann, who is something of an expert in the area, says it quite clearly. . Hornplease 09:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

this article has got lots of expert attention, but, by its nature as fringe scholarship, also lots of crank attention. The quotes of the JIES debate really say it all. If the article creates the impression that "neither side is really a fringe", it still needs further de-crankification. dab (⁳) 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: mainstream scholarship considers the Indian subcontinent as at best an unlikely candidate for the "homeland" of the Indo-European language family. For a general overview of the "homeland problem" see Chapter 26 of JP Mallory and DQ Adams, The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (a digest form of their Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture), where they enunciate the relevant principles of evaluation for all hypotheses. The one reliable feature of the steady stream of blog-barfers filling WP pages with crankcruft is that they haven't done their homework. rudra 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

IMHO neither the anonymous website www.thereligionofpeace.com nor the contentious claims on www.religion-of-peace.com satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Can anyone confirm this? --Raphael1 19:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

They're just self-published sites, not reliable per WP:RS. ←Ben 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The context of this request is that this source is quoted in the Religion of peace article as an example of a group that uses the words "religion of peace" in a sarcastic way. It definitely does that. The site is not quoted as a source of data for terrorist attacks (although googling any of the attacks reported usually gives gives a news report showing details of the attack). I would say quoting the site as an example of sarcastic use of "the religion of peace" is legit. Quoting the commentary from the site would fail WP:NPOV. Mike Young 05:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be citing a source that says the phrase is used sarcastically instead of self-published primaries? Surely there must be someone else who has said it. Linking to those sites or even referencing them by name without a link seems to me to be The Wrong Thing. ←Ben 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In the article the prime minister of Malaysia said "Religion of peace" and Bush said "Islam is peace" Mike Young 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree to that as Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. WP:SPS also states, that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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." "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" fails as well since the article in question is about the phrase "Religion of Peace" and not about those websites. --Raphael1 10:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

the religion of peace article is a list of attacks. It does not invent data, so is not "Self Published". Raphael1 you have now reverted the article 12 times and been undone by several editors, please learn the lessons from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where doing this got you banned for a year. Mike Young 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com does invent data. I.e. it states, that only 225 out of between 18,000 and 26,000 civilians killed in 2006 involve American troops. Besides being "self published" has nothing to do with invented data. "self published" only means, that there is no editorial oversight involved, which is certainly true for this anonymous website.--Raphael1 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Choke

An editor has been attempting to add a scan of the purported production schedule for Choke (film), seen at Image:Choke day 1 front.jpg. It is "released" in the public domain, but the editor has not claimed the document as his own, only scanning it and providing it for the article. There's been a disagreement about the appropriateness of this source, especially considering the verifiability and notability of the enclosed information. Is this image appropriately licensed for inclusion, and if it is, is the image appropriate to cite for information about the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So far two of the sources cited in this image as well as article (Hospital & Mesob's) have been verified through third party sources. Details in image include shooting time (25 days) as well as crew members already acknowledged as correct - with over 75 percent of image details as well as other information (plus first hand account) have to assume that information supplied is correct and accurate209.212.28.50 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user is the editor with whom I am in dispute at the article and not one whose opinion I am not looking for here. Is there a neutral perspective available as to the appropriateness of the image? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also doubtful as to whether the uploader has the rights to release the document into public domain. Corpx 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Francis Crick

A debate is currently ongoing at Francis Crick over the reliability of certain sources being used to verify some claims regarding Crick's alleged involvement with drugs, which a regular contributor to the page User:JWSchmidt feels are "unreliable sources". I'm not too sure, and to be honest I haven't found a conclusive answer in WP:RS. Can someone look in and give an opinion on the sources concerned? They are:

• "For the Record: The Francis Crick Archive at the Wellcome Library" , Chris Beckett, Medical History, v.48,2,245-260 2004. "Medical History" is a journal published by (I believe) University College London, The Wellcome Trust (a British medical research charity) and the British Medical Association. It is is peer-reviewed and edited by two professors at UCL. Full text access is available via pubmed. This is presumably a fairly safe source.

• "Obituary: Odile Crick", Matt Ridley The Independent, 20th of July 2007 (The Independent is a British nationally distributed newspaper with a fairly high reputation. The specific link is to a recent obituary by the science writer and biologist Matt Ridley.)

• Full text of statement, The Times Monday July 24th 1967 This is a reproduction of a statement printed in The Times newspaper in 1967. As far as I'm aware, the newspaper's own online archives do not extend this far. This specific link is pointed at in the peer-reviewed Medical History article alluded to above. The publication of this particular letter is a moderately well-known aspect of British history in the 1960s and can be easily verified independently.

• This a story in the British national newspaper The Mail on Sunday appearing in August 2004. The MOS does not have the reputation of The Guardian or Indy, but neither is it a tabloid rag like The Sun or The Daily Star. Although not universally respected (largely due to its pronounced right wing bias, as is typical of the British press) it is perceived essentially as occupying the middle ground between chip-paper tabloids and more highbrow “broadsheets”.

• A book review from The Guardian, again a widely-read British newspaper with a strong reputation for accuracy, written by Robin Mckie, the science editor of its sister publication The Observer.

I'd be grateful for opinions, particularly on the newspaper sources. Badgerpatrol 17:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Chris Beckett is a reliable academic writer and the journal one of the standards of the field.
2. An ad in the Times is really a primary source, & can not in general be used unless referred to by secondary sources, but it would seem the use by Beckett is sufficient for that.
3. MOS is not acceptable for controversial politics, and for other subjects a little dubious. I'd be leery of anything certified by it alone, For the particular story used, the material cited is about as weak as I've seen--a reporter (Rees) writes that another person (un-named) tells him that he heard a story years before from yet a third person (Kemp--a known illegal producer of LSD) that Kemp had spoken at one point with Crick about Crick's use of LSD. A story indeed in the traditions of British journalism. Appropriate weight for this one would be a link alone, not 3 paragraphs in the article on Crick.
4. RobinMcKie, however, is a respected science ed., and what he writes either in the Observer or the Guardian is an unquestionably RS.

DGG (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good analysis- my only comment would be that since there's no interpretation of the primary source, it should be reasonable to include it unalloyed. If necessary numerous secondary sources containing the information can be found though, the episode is fairly well known. I also agree that the issue is given undue space at the moment. Tomorrow I'll endeavour to cut it back to 3 or so lines and integrate it into the main text rather than a separate section. The MOS source is the weakest, but I do think that all the sources are acceptable per WP:RS- as you say, the relative weight given to each is probably the key issue. Badgerpatrol 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The two disputed citations are for:

1. "LSD was allegedly 'drug of choice' for Francis", which cites a book review of a Crick biography. The book reviewer invents a personal interpretation and description of Crick's drug use in order to sensationalize a minor topic from a book-length biography. Since the topic of Crick's drug use is covered by the published biography, User:Badgerpatrol should directly quote from the published biography. User:Badgerpatrol has demonstrated a skill for cherry-picking sensationalized gossip from opinion pieces and other unreliable sources rather than using the published biographical sources about Crick. There is no need to quote a sensationalized phrase from an opinion piece about a biography when the biography itself can be cited. The larger dispute is over inclusion of the topic of Crick's drug use in the Francis Crick article. User:Badgerpatrol refuses to provide a justification for including this topic in the Francis Crick article. Crick's drug use has nothing to do with his work or his fame.
2. "Allegations persist that Crick was a user of illegal hallucinogenic drugs, which may have had some influence on his work", which cites a story in The Mail on Sunday by "Alun Rees". This "news" article claims that, "Nobel Prize genius Crick was high on LSD when he discovered the secret of life". This is the kind of sensationalized fantasy claim that Crick was prepared to sue over as long as he was alive. Why is there only one "news" source that was willing to publish this "news" after Crick's death? This non-reliable article and its sensationalized claim about the role of LSD in Crick's work was explicitly refuted by Matt Ridley in his book-length biography of Crick, as discussed on the talk page (all of this has been discussed there, but User:Badgerpatrol refuses to address these issues there, apparently preferring to come here to forum shop). "Allegations persist" means that one sensationalized tabloid story made the allegation, however no reputable news source has repeated the absurd allegation that LSD influenced Crick's work on the structure of DNA and Ridley explicitly refuted this absurd claim.

Neither of these two sources (above) are reliable sources as used by User:Badgerpatrol and they certainly do not provide the basis for an entire section in the Francis Crick article. User:Badgerpatrol's persistent attempts to keep citing these unreliable sources while refusing to cite the published biographies of Crick is an unproductive waste of time. --JWSchmidt 17:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okaaay. Well, firstly thank you for joining in the discussion here. This issue is obviously one which has upset you a lot more than I realised, per your earlier edit this afternoon . This is a content dispute and an honest debate over sources. I have no issue with you personally, and I don't think any of my actions have been unreasonable. I genuinely am sorry if I have said something to offend you. I think I have shown myself repeatedly to be willing to engage in discussion over at Talk:Francis Crick, and it is maybe a little disingenuous of you to say I have been "forum shopping" - this is surely the logical first port of call where there is a dispute over the reliability of sources? I have also now posted the issue at WP:THIRD, although that was before I realised that you felt quite so strongly as you obviously now do. If you have any other ideas for a third party resolution, please go forward with it. As for the sources- the Ridley book, the MOS article, the Guardian piece all agree that Crick was an LSD user. You don't seem to dispute this, and it's obviously verifiable. You do seem to dispute the fact that Crick's use of drugs influenced his thinking as to biochemistry. You do seem to dispute whether this should be included in a biography of Crick. To be blunt, I disagree with you. If you want to change the wording then please go ahead and do it and we can come to some sort of agreement. I think though that excising the issue (which contains verified information) wholesale, just because you don't personally like what it contains, is a bit silly. You don't own the article. You cannot dictate to other editors how they should edit, or what specific sources they should use, except in so far as to encourage compliance with policy and etiquette. I have at all times complied with policy and etiquette. I've already invited you to add the material from the Ridley book, which you've read and I haven't. I also agree that it shouldn't be an entire section , and I've invited you (and any others who are willing) to work with me to integrate the material into the main text. I've also pared down the material from the excessive length it once had, in proportion to the importance of the topic and the resources at hand. You obviously have a great deal of respect for Crick, as do I. But please don't let that emotion cloud your judgement as an editor. Can we lay off the incivility and threats and work together to come to a resolution and improve the article? Badgerpatrol 17:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is traditional in Misplaced Pages to admit newspapers as reliable sources. I accept DGG's ranking of the reliability of the various newspapers that he provided above. Robin McKie's article in the Guardian appears completely credible, but you should note that McKie chooses his words very carefully, and I think we should be similarly careful as to who used what. So far nobody has made a plausible connection between Crick's apparent drug use and his scientific work, so I'd be reluctant to include anything suggesting that. However the mere fact that he used drugs appears to be encyclopedic.

I think it would be hard to defend the complete text of this section about drug use that JWSchmidt removed from the article on 19 August, but some part of that might be retained. EdJohnston 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, although I think McKie is fairly unambiguous really ( "...came perilously close to being investigated by the police when an acquaintance was jailed for manufacturing LSD (one of Crick's drugs of choice"). Best way forward is for John to alter the section to a wording that he finds acceptable, and we can then discuss it from there. Badgerpatrol 10:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I don't think DGG is so much ranking the sources 1-4 as describing them each in turn with numbers for reference- not sure if that's what you literally meant? Badgerpatrol 10:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion is that none of the sources commented on by DGG can be excluded using the WP:RS rule alone. They are all from newspapers, and newspapers are considered reliable sources. I don't object to the use of editorial judgment to sift this material down to three sentences or so, because we don't have to include EVERYTHING ever written about Crick. When creating those three sentences, it is useful to keep in mind DGG's observations about the journalistic quality of the newspapers and the writers. I think User:Badgerpatrol might go ahead and draft up new text to propose at Talk:Francis Crick based on whatever he concludes from the comments here. We shouldn't practice content-based censorship (excluding a report of something because of what the report says) but I imagine we could rely more on sources that are perceived to be of higher quality. EdJohnston 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've already had a little go at this per DGG's initial comments above, but I think there is still fat to be trimmed and the material should be integrated into the man text if we can find a suitable place for it. Badgerpatrol 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I stand by my personal view that User:Badgerpatrol's approach to editing the "Involvement with psychedelic drugs" section of the Francis Crick article has been an unproductive waste of time. User:Badgerpatrol has taken the position that it makes sense to add into the Francis Crick article anything published by a source calling itself a newspaper. The refusal by User:Badgerpatrol to participate in a reasoned and responsible effort to make informed decisions about what is relevant to the Francis Crick article is upsetting to me. User:Badgerpatrol persists in in the position that Misplaced Pages should include an absurd rumor about the influence of LSD on Crick's scientific work, a rumor from a non-reliable source. This absurdity has been explicitly refuted by one of Crick's biographers. No reputable news source has repeated the absurd rumor. Has the "news" source that published the absurd rumor shown any journalistic integrity in this matter? The "news" source that published the absurd rumor only published this rumor after Crick died because Crick had promised to sue anyone who published the rumor. If this "news" source had editorial integrity then I think it would now retract the absurd story it published. This is the caliber of editorial oversight that User:Badgerpatrol brings to Misplaced Pages and persists in forcing on the Francis Crick article. "If you want to change the wording then please go ahead and do it" <-- I have repeatedly requested that someone provide a justification for including mention of drugs in the Francis Crick article. There are thousands of pages of published biographical information about Crick in reliable sources. None of these reliable biographical sources provide any kind of a justification for the idea that drugs contributed to Crick's work or to his fame. Ridley's book about Crick has one small section that addresses Crick's drug use and the main point it makes is that the rumor about LSD contributing to Crick's scientific work on DNA is an absurd claim. Ridley explicitly refutes the story from the "news" source that User:Badgerpatrol insists on adding to Misplaced Pages. I suggest that User:Badgerpatrol take this crusade to a new Misplaced Pages page, Sensationalized, absurd and refuted claims about drug use by famous people. "I've invited you (and any others who are willing) to work with me to integrate the material into the main text" <-- I refuse your invitation and I still request a reason for including mention of drugs in the article. I do not think it is unreasonable to demand that such a reason be built upon citation of multiple reliable published sources that explain why drugs are relevant to Crick's life and fame. There are some famous scientists who published descriptions of their drug use and speculated about the role of their drug use in their scientific work. In such cases, there might be reason to mention drug use in a biographical Misplaced Pages article about a scientist. Crick does not fall into this category. --JWSchmidt 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK John, I'll keep this short because I'm fed up wasting my time responding to your sillyness:

1) Lay off the personal attacks. if you can't be civil, say nothing. 2) For casual readers of this debate, it's important to clarify that nobody disputes that Crick was an LSD user. All sources agree on this, and I believe John accepts this also. 3) The issue therefore seems to be, is it reasonable to state that Crick's drug use had any influence on his work? Here the evidence is more equivocal. I've invited John to alter the wording of the relevant material to a form that he finds acceptable. He has refused to do so. 4) Until now, the issue of relevance has been subordinated to John's bizarre belief that newspapers are somehow inherently unreliable (as stated above, there are now at least three known sources for Crick's drug use, including two national newspapers and a published biography of Crick by Matt Ridley, as well as numerous contextual sources establishing the involvement of the Crick's with figures in the drug scene. The wording of all these sources is crystal clear and unambiguous). I am happy to work with others (as stated ad nauseum) to pare down this material (and the article generally, which is overlong) to an acceptable length and to give this issue no more than the space it deserves in the context of what it is a biography of Crick's life. Not just his work. 5) Note that it was not me who originally added the material pertaining to Crick's involvement with drugs to the article. I have already worked to cut this material in half, have expressed repeatedly my opinion that it should not constitute a separate section, have added new references and rewritten the material to reflect the nature of the sources and the importance of the topic, have engaged in a civil (from my side) discussion on talk re the whole subject, and I have invited John on numerous occasions to work with me to continue this work and add the reference material that he has to hand and I do not. Without meaning to get personal, diatribes like the one above are the thanks I have received. 6) I will work to pare down the material and integrate it into the main text, per what seems to be the emerging consensus amongst the editors that have contributed so far to this discussion on Talk:Francis Crick and in this thread. If you want to continue this discussion with me John, keep a civil tongue in your head, otherwise say nothing at all. I have treated you with courtesy and respect at all times - I expect the same in reciprocation. If you can't manage that, leave. I will continue to work on Francis Crick in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. Do not expect a response from me to personal attacks, incivility and patronising diatribes. Badgerpatrol 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Internet Broadway Data Base

Reliable source, or as worthless as it's apparent namesake (IMDB)? WilyD 20:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, as they claim to have fact checking - "We will need verification of submissions of cast/crew participation in a show (a copy of the theatre program usually suffices). Please fax or mail the verification along with a note explaining the correction/addition to" Corpx 15:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal and fandom protest reports

Hi, there's a content dispute over whether the recent changes to this article meet WP:RS and WP:NOR's standards. It appears that veteran editors believe the inclusion does not meet the criteria, but it is pretty tricky with the usage of "self-published" news sites to back up the claims of the anons and new users. Looking for some input since this is a, seemingly, gray area. Kyaa the Catlord 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've had a look at the FireFox News page and I wonder if it would be better described as a blog than a news site? If so I think there would be problems using it as a verifiable source. Xdenizen 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain. The articles I have read there certainly have some bloggish tendancies and are definately not what I'd call unbiased journalism. They have a "blogs" section and often blur the boundaries between the two. (Such as the author of the story in question having BOTH a blog and a news "byline".) Kyaa the Catlord 22:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that established editors have problems with using the FFN info as a verifiable source and the doubts you've raised here, it would probably be wisest if those who wish to include those changes sought a more acceptable source. Xdenizen 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What article are we talking about? Corpx 15:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal sorry I forgot to include that. Kyaa the Catlord 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Majid Kavousifar and Hossein Kavousifar

Really not certain what should happen to this page. It purports to be summary of the mob-execution of two men convicted of assassinating a judge. The photos appear to follow the summary, but there is no sourcing, no confirmation that the summary is a true version of what the photos show. For all we know it could be a fiction attached to unrelated photos. And then there's the issue of whether this belongs on the project in the first place, even if it is true. Does not seem to fit any Speedy criteria, and really not sure if it should be AFDed. But I do know that it is improper in it's current unsourced state, and that I simply do not have the knowledge to try to fix it myself. So I hope someone else can help clean it up, or help decide to toss it at AFD. - TexasAndroid

Well, it is sourced (two articles... one from Yahoo news, and one from iranfocus.com), however the sources could be better. The photos come from these two sources, and it is a copywrite violation to use them here. I have removed them. I have also cut the "play by play" summary that followed the photos. All that the article needs to say is that the two were convicted and executed by hanging. That leaves the issue of notability... are these two people notable and/or is their execution notable? It may be too current to tell. Blueboar 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh> Sometimes I look and look and just do not see. You're right about the sources being there. <Sigh> Still, thanks for the clean-up assist anyway. - TexasAndroid 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I was updating and cleaning up, it seems the Yahoo article was taken off line (the link is dead). So I have cut that as well. This leaves just the focusiran.com source... which does not really say all that much (also it is a non-profit "news agency" that may not be reliable ... don't know enough about it to say for sure, but it smells like an issue advocacy web site to me.) Definitely needs better sourcing... or perhaps merits a Prod or AfD (but I would need to figure out what category applies before I did so.) Blueboar 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I fail to see any historic notability for this incident, per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Skinny Bitch

Hi. I wrote a stubby but properly sourced article about a book called Skinny Bitch. A new editor keeps introducing poorly written and poorly sourced additions about a Chicago radio program. The edits are not vandalism, so I am bound by the 3RR. Can someone help? I already tried politely reasoning with the editor on her talk page, with little result.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Took care of it Blueboar 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos (book)

A dispute between me and Cyrus XIII about the NPOV of my contributions to Lords of Chaos (book) has escalated into an edit war. I can't see any substance in his accusations. Lords of Chaos has some - mildly put- controversial content. I disagree with this content, but I definitely think it has to be included in the article. In my opinion Cyrus XIII is referring to WP:NPOV and WP:EL in an attempt to keep this content out of Misplaced Pages, thus censoring the article. We are both experienced editors and I don't think that one of use is going to make the 'mistake' of braking the 3 revert rule. Zara1709 15:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this is quite old already, and probably this was the wrong noticeboard, there is something concerning the reliability of a source here: Is an article by Kevin Coogan a reliable source for the following information:

"The book itself , however, is not a "fascist" tract in the strict sense of the term, in part because Moynihan co-wrote the book with Didrik Saderlind, a former music critic for a mainstream Norwegian paper who is now an editor at Playboy. Moreover, Feral House editor Adam Parfrey clearly wanted to publish a popular book on the strange universe of black metal rather than a political polemic."

I think it is rather important to state that Didrik Saderlind is not, unlike Michael Moynihan (journalist), the other author of the book, or Varg Vikernes, the main subject of it, an extreme right activist. There is no reason to delete that kind of information. Zara1709 10:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NewsInsider.org for Sanctity of Life Act

Is this article a reliable source for the statement, "If passed, the bill would have caused abortion to be treated as murder"? For background please see http://www.newsinsider.org/faq.html -- I note they have an editorial structure, but I don't know if they have a fact-checking system in place. ←Ben 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. It looks to me like a blog run by a bunch of people Corpx 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree... at best it might be reliable for stating: "It is the opinion of Simi Lipsan (the author of the newsinsider.org article) that, if passed, the bill would have caused abortion to be treated as murder." Of course, inclusion of that opinion in a Misplaced Pages article would depend on the article's topic and whether Simi Lipsan is considered an expert on the subject. Blueboar 14:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Corpx. That site seems like a news-blog to me. If they reorganized in the future it could be a WP:RS - but not at the moment. Like Blueboar says if you were even including a quote from Simi Lipsan you'd need to ask - how much weight does that opinion have?--Cailil 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

www.onlineworldofwrestling.com

Apologies for bringing this to the administrators noticeboard, I'm sure there is a better place for this (and if so please point me in the right direction). How does one judge reliable sources? I have found a site which appears on 2522 different Misplaced Pages pages, called www.onlineworldofwrestling.com and am finding that a large number of articles are relying on this site as not just their primary source of information, but the sole source of information. Considering that anyone can pay the $25.00 to submit a profile to this site, and then in turn have it used to source a Misplaced Pages article, I have my doubts as to its reliability. Is this cause for concern, or no big deal? Burntsauce 21:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard exists for exactly this purpose. WilyD 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(the above has been copied to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard at the suggestion of WilyD.)

This is unfamiliar territory for me, but I am writing to inquire about the reliability of sources such as onlineworldofwrestling.com which are being used as primary and in most cases sole sources to create articles about professional wresters, many of whom are living people. Burntsauce 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears it has less control over content than Misplaced Pages - here it doesn't cost anything to fix them, there it does. I would believe this is not a reference at all, or if it is, it is certainly not a reliable source and should not be the sole reference. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Online equivalent of a vanity press, although they do claim to have some standards. Still not a reliable source by a long, long way. Sandstein 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) If this is consensually deemed as an unreliable source, what is to be done about the hundreds, neigh, thousands of articles in Category:American professional wrestlers and similar categories? Burntsauce 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I picked one at random, Colt Cabana, and that has plenty of different sources. You need to make a list of all the articles that only use the unreliable source, or just get that source removed from all articles and put on a blacklist. Though note that I don't really know how this works. Hopefully those who post here regularly will give better advice. Carcharoth 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a handful of examples for consideration: Rodney Begnaud, Dwayne Bruce, David Cash, Jonathan Coachman, and Mark Copani. Burntsauce 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, someone familiar with the area of professional wrestling I can confirm everything that I've seen at this site has been researched pretty carefully and reported accurately. I've also spoken to the creator of the site and he seems reliable enough for a source here. Burntsauce, you're just looking for reasons to falsely use WP:BLP and WP:V on the Pro Wrestling WikiProject, which you have been known to do. — Moe ε 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Moe Epsilon. Onlineworldofwrestling.com is perhaps they best professional wrestling site in existence, sometimes even providing more accurate and detailed information than the official company websites. Gavyn Sykes 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, you have been warned once before regarding your personal attacks. You are welcome to cite examples where I've falsely applied the BLP policy, otherwise I strongly urge you to retract the statement. Thank you. Burntsauce 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticizing your judgement isn't a personal attack, I thought this had been explained to you. You want to know where? Warrior (wrestler), Rodney Anoai, Stacy Keibler, need I go on? — Moe ε 23:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that IMDb is generally not considered a reliable source as well when dealing with the biographies of living people. It may be the "best movie site in existence" just as onlineworldofwrestling may be the best pro-wrestling site in existence. That is irrelevant, and does necessarily not make it a reliable source. WP:ILIKEIT does not apply. Burntsauce 23:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not a fair comparison. IMDB is not considered reliable because anyone can edit it and add false information. Not anyone can edit the profiles of Onlineworldofwrestling.com. Nikki311 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way Moe, edits like this are totally unacceptable. Burntsauce 23:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to you as well. You haven't made a accurate case saying that it is unrelaible and cleverly dodged the fact that I can cite places where BLP was used uncorrectly on your part. And FYI, you're entirely wrong. BLP doesn't apply to the Terry Gerwin article. The commentary has to be contentious for you to remove it and it wasn't simple as that. There is no BLP concern there. BLP doesn't apply everytime an article is unsourced. — Moe ε 23:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Moe. The Hybrid 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, OWW is a mixed bag in my view. For the most part, they are accurate..however they have had mistakes as well. In my opinion, they are basically a glorified fansite that wrestling fans take too seriously at times. Sourcing for wrestling articles is an issue: but frankly OWW shouldn't be the only source for articles. I've seen it used as the only source several times, as it seems to be the "default" link and reference listed if people can't (or simply don't want to) find anything else. RobJ1981 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting the link isn't really a fair choice since this site contains info concerning the early years of several undoubtly notable wrestlers, however wwe.com and tnawrestling.com should be used more often for info inside kayfabe excluding injuries and other legitimate issues, I find it hard to assume good faith here considering Burnsauce's attitude towards wrestling articles in the past. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce what is this, the crusade to destroy WP:PW? Anyway, OWW is a reliable source as it provides wrestling results years back and without that website, who knows what would happen with wrestling articles today. Blacklisting it would destroy WP:PW and most of its articles, including John Cena, Dave Bautista and The Undertaker. Cena I've nominated for FA, Batista and Taker are GA and they all have links to OWW. Davnel03 08:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it flawless? No, can anyone edit it? no - can current independent wrestlers get their profile on there for cash? sure they can. But are ALL the profiles there because someone paid for them? Not even close, the majority - 90-99% of them are created and researched by the contributors to the site, not for monetary reasons nor vanity as has been implied. Yeah maybe the "Kidz Kewl" profile is a vanity project, which is why WP:PW has a rule of thumb that says "Just cause it's on Onlineworldofwrestling" doesn't mean it's automatically notable enough to warrant inclusion on Misplaced Pages. And nor should it in my view be the ONLY source for an article. That's profiles covered, but the site has another and probably more important function, it's a repository of match results from a lot of federations over a long period of time - which is used as a reference when article mention specific matches (the overcitation in the wrestling articles that cause EVERY match to be cited in places is a direct result of the missapplication of WP:BLP that Burntsauce has championed). Are the results reliable? I'd say yes, they're basically a recap of what people have seen on TV, except you can't use your own personal viewing of the program as a source, you need a secondary source - Onlineworldofwrestling provides such a secondary source, it's neutral and recaps the results and happenings without it being a review or a rant or anything like that, just a run down of results and happenings usually. Those results can be verified against 3-4-5 different independent sources in a heartbeat to prove that they are indeed correct 99% of the time. I agree that articles that only cite OWOW need to have more sources added to help establish the notability of the subject but it shouldn't be blacklisted. MPJ-DK 10:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow... with a entry criteria of "no yard tards" and 25$ (or a dvd the site owner doesn't have yet) and "1 year of full time wrestling" I can't believe this is even a debate! OWW is a tertiary source, and as such should usually NOT be relied upon by as the sole source in an article. Also given the exceptionally low entry criteria the site is unusable as a gauge of notability. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you are unfamiliar with professional wrestling. The "no yard tards" rule and the $25 submission to have a profile placed on the site makes it extremly more of a valuable source. This requirement will put a limit on unnotable wrestlers going on the site, and I think the owner has been doing a great job of that. We also have a rule at WP:PW that not every wrestler on OWW is notable. No one said we should be using these as a source alone, but blacklisting it because Burntsauce has it in for the professional wrestling WikiProject, is completely nonsense. No one is using as a gauge of notability either. Your points are entirely moot. — Moe ε 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to know anything to know that this site is about as reliable as any self-published source on the internet. Also, continued attacks on the credibility of those who disagree with you only serve to highlight the fact that you have no actual defense of the credibility of the website. I see no claims that the website has any of the hallmarks of a real reliable source: editorial review, etc. It's not our job to prove it's unreliable - It's your job to prove it is. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, here's evidence it's a reliable source, I've picked a line from The Undertakers article - but finally defeated Kennedy in a Last Ride match at Armageddon 2006, which directs to this, which quote: LAST RIDE MATCH: The Undertaker defeated Mr. Ken Kennedy.. The Undertaker tombstoned Mr. Kennedy on top of the hurse and then put the bloody Kennedy inside of the hurse.. . Now, J.smith, please tell me why OWW isn't reliable having just provided you with a perfectly good example of why it is reliable. EDIT: By the way, Burntsauce has gone AWOL since this started... Davnel03 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are fact-checked, peer-reviewed, edited, proof-read, and things like that. There isn't much checking or editing of any sort going on on the site under discussion. What is a hurse anyway? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Davne103, that made me smile. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I do not feel that this site is a very reliable source. It has lots of rumors, is far from comprehensive, and has lots of other errors/mistakes. While it is not directly user-generated, much of the info comes from contributors who e-mail them, and a lot of it is not even formatted or checked for spelling. It is a decent fansite, but to use it as a source is asking for trouble. In fact, there is some strange notion that every match by a wrestler needs to be cited, which is probably just a bit over the top, and we should use published sources to document notable facts, not predetermined wrestling matches. Biggspowd 17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that there shouldn't be a need to cite every single wrestling match event in a wrestling article. Sadly it has happened time and time again that even wrestling results and title lists have been blanked citing "WP:BLP says it should all be cited or deleted" (or references to "mail from Jimbo"), forcing the pro wrestling project to get down and in effect oversource everything to the exessive extent it's seen in places. Considering that this user has the backing of several admins it's seen as a defacto rule and thus to avoid having articles gutted down to "XXX is a pro wrestler" articles go in the opposite direction. It's not by choice, well not the choice of the article editors but the choice of those who remove everything not sourced. MPJ-DK 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is policy and is non-negotiable. Citations facilitate verifiability. None of this is new. Yes, if something is unsourced and someone questions it... it needs to be cited or removed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL this is a circular argument isn't it? someone says "it's over cited", I explain why then someone goes "Well it's policy" - Now I'm just waiting for someone come in and say "man those wrestling articles are seriously overcited" to keep this infinity loop of logic going ad nauseum. Count me out, I'm getting off the carousel. MPJ-DK 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Being "over-cited" isn't prohibited in policy. Your attitude of "there shouldn't be a need to cite every single wrestling match" is not backed by policy and is contrary to the project's core philosophies. If you want something to be included in an article... find a source and cite it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Racial Slur Database", "Roadjunky.com", and two personal homepages

I would appreciate editors' thoughts on the third-party reliability of The Racial Slur Database, Roadjunky.com and two personal homepages that copy verbatim an essay entitled "Japanyes;THE THIRD EDITION" of publicly unverifiable origin . All four citations are used to justify the following contentious and exceptional clause in the gaijin article: "... is considered a racial slur by many to whom the word is applied." J Readings 10:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "Louis Leclerc" a noted expert in this field of study? I don't see anything that sujusts that this is the case. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. No, he is not a Japanese linguist, a lexicographer, a literary expert or even a noted Japanese specialist (to my knowledge.) This is part of the problem. Another editor insists that because these sources can be found on the internet, the word gaijin must be considered a racial slur by default. I'd also appreciate your opinion on sites like The Racial Slur Database and Roadjunky.com. Personally, I'm very skeptical of these sources, but I'd like to know what others think. J Readings 21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these are reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi in that regard. I don't see any evidence that those are reliable sources. Also, you might want to point out that drawing conclusions based on evidence is the definition of original research. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonder World

Looking for additional opinions on an article I've become involved with. There have been a number of fictional theme parks by this name over time, and there was an AFD deleted article at this location at one point on a fan-made theme park within one of the Roler Coaster tycoon games. Recently someone created a stub on another of the fictional Wonder Worlds, that was PRODed, and then convered into a sub-stub about a real Wonder World park in San Marcos, Texas. I then found the page on the Short Pages list and, being from the area, decided I could at least create a viable stub on the existing amusement park. At first I only sourced the park with it's own web page, and the article was properly tagged for sourcing and again PRODed. I have now added several more sources, mostly from travel sites, and officially contested the PROD. I also found that the cave that is the core of the park is an official Texas Historical Site, and tracked down the offical designation page for this on the Texas government web site.

Which brings the article to where it currently stands. The park is well known around the central Texas area, and is mentioned prominently on many pages that talk about what attractions San Marcos has to offer. But these are all effectively "trivial" sources because they really are just mentions. And I'm not 100% certain that the travel sites that I did find would qualify as "reliable" sourcing, though they are definitely not "trivial". Anyway, I would like for some additional opinions on the page and it's current sourcing. Between the travel sites and the official Texas Historical Site designation page, is the article sufficiently sourced now for a stub? If so, would someone neutral please judge if the sourcing tag still belong. Or, on the other extreeme, do I still have more work to make this a viable stub? - TexasAndroid 15:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lauder

A (terribly polite) dispute at Talk:Lauder on the reliability of older historical works when these do not correspond with more recent interpretations. Any input much appreciated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really a Reliable Sources issue... it is more a NPOV issue. The older works are certainly reliable by our definition, even if they are, arguably, outdated. This could be solved by textual attribution of who said what (and when) and an explanation of what current scholarship is. Don't claim either view is "correct"... simply present them both with explanation of the pros and cons for each argument. Blueboar 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Without delving into the particulars of the situation if older sources disagree with equally legitimate newer sources then the newer sources are usually more relevant. However, if old disagrees with new there is often an important story to be told there. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, newer scholarship is usually more relevant (but not always more accurate)... The point is that when there is a dispute between different sources we don't make the judgement as to which is "right" or "wrong"... we discribe both views and discuss the dispute in a neutral tone. Blueboar 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument here has been consistant. We are indebted to pre-twentieth century scholars for their indefatigable locating and deciphering of ancient manuscipts, documents, and charters. Without their industry today's generation would have been in difficulties. Most if not all of these industrious people were scholars, some, Like Sir William Fraser, of very high regard. Who is suddenly to say that late twentieth century scholars are superior (unless they have some sort of X-Ray vision with documents)? One of the big problems we are faced with is the interpretation of the ancient writings or, indeed, events. It is common for several handwriting experts to disagree. Moreover, as Joseph Bain (another great Victorian scholar) points out, what of the huge number of documents which we no loger have.

In the case of Lauder/Lauderdale we appear to have no extant charters before de Morville. This is much the same throughout Scotland. It does not mean that that was where history commenced. When we get back to the pre-1200s we enter a very grey area as far as verifiability is concerned throughout Great Britain and not just in Scotland. If I find twenty books written between, say, 1700 and 1920, all citing similar things albeit in slightly different formats, and all those books citing even older documentations, should I say all these scholars were crétins just because they reached similar conclusions or they were not born in the 20th century or held a different conception of Scottish history to a variety of sceptics or purists of today?

We on Misplaced Pages strive to construct articles which will be informative and to the best of our ability have a semblance of truth. We don't come here to construct fantasy. If I were writing about Paris and Helen would you delete the article? Because, lets face it, how many accurate sources are there for the existance of all the Greek myths that we still love and even make films about? If detractors of articles, critics of what has been presented, scoff and say 'what a story', fine. But if it is adequately sourced should they be wrecking or deleting the article just because of their own personal opinions? I say, comment if you must, add consturctive comment with sources if you can. David Lauder 19:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolfsegg Iron

Seems to be a hoax until there are no real sources. Anyone has an idea for getting facts? Greetings, Conny 19:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

Existing in Charles Fort's book would lend at least notability to the subject. Also, the article mentions a Nature article on the subject. If someone can produce that article they could use it rewrite the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Relatively minor Martial Arts books about those arts

Okay, I'm thinking of two articles in question with this query, but the principle applies to other articles. There are a number of relatively small martial arts schools with articles on Misplaced Pages. They have been discussed in multiple independent sources so notability is obvious. Shaolin-Do just survived an AfD with a pretty heavy consensus on the grounds that notability was shown by a number of newspaper articles in major newspapers discussing or mentioning that art.

However, the amount of information in those articles about these arts is usually only enough for a stub. From these newspaper articles you could gather what type of martial art it is (Kung Fu/Karate/Jujitsu/Tae Kwon Do ect), who runs the school, and typically where they teach and maybe a few short snippets of history or philosophy of that school. To get anything more than a stub (or at absolute most, a start-class article) you'd need more sources than that.

However, many of these schools have books about them, which include more elaborate histories, discussions of philosophy and training techniques, and a lot of information that would be useful for creating an encyclopedia article. These books are published by independent, reputable publishing firms, although they are written by heads or instructors of those schools. There has been some dispute over whether these are considered primary sources or secondary sources, and if they are considered reliable sources. They have been written by people very closely affiliated with the subject, but they have been published by an outside reputable publishing house and have presumably thus been through an independent editorial review. It could be seen as a secondary source, since it's not self published and it's been reviewed and approved by a mainstream publishing house which decided to take the financial and reputation risk on publishing it. It is argued by some editors that it is a primary source since it's written by a source very close to the subject.

I was curious what other editors thought about this issue, which would it be considered? --Wingsandsword 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular books on martial arts styles and schools are notoriously superficial, marked by innumerable errors and clichés. The vetting process in publishing houses is primarily 'will it sell and allow us to recoup, with a profit' the publishing costs, not whether it is 'reliable'. There are excellent books in Chinese, Japanese and Korean with detailed historical accounts of the various traditions surrounding these schools, and those sources are the best. In-house traditions handed down from 'masters' to 'students' who in turn are nominated as masters are highly tendentious, and often reflect sectarian needs to promote an ostensibly novel approach and theory, established by the founding master, to restore a 'tradition' that other schools have lost. In fact, the asserted difference is grounded on commercial calculations (to open a school with a secret tradition passed from one master to another means you can lock in students at higher rates. The tea ceremony or Zen archery can be learnt more quickly than the 10/15 year training formally required by a master to give you a teaching certificate. The lengthy span of time does not indicate difficulty: it simply means more income to the teacher, and more authority over his charges) or personal rivalries, and rarely based on a proper understanding on the intricate politics of martial art schools. The snippets, especially, dealing with 'oriental philosophy' are mainly hand-me down clichés that take on bizarre forms when re-expounded by Westerners who do not have a grasp of the doctrinal backgrounds.Nishidani 09:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear, I don't mean general-purpose books on martial arts as references in general on martial arts, or mass-market books being used in general martial arts articles. I mean books about specific small arts/schools in articles about those arts/schools. This would seem like an ideal source, but some editors have raised a controversy over these books because they were written by people closely tied to those schools/arts, even if they were published by an outside entity.

Let's say sources are needed for a specific article about (fictional example, there are a number of martial arts articles in this general scenario, I'm using a generic example) Fubuki-ryu Jujutsu, a new style created 40 years ago in Hawaii. This school has a number of newspaper articles and a short magazine article or two about it, but none in particular depth. For the article to be more than a stub you'll need more in-depth sources. However, an instructor of this school has written a book about Fubuku-ryu and it was published by a mainstream publisher in the US. Even an excellent book in Chinese, Japanese or Korean may discuss jujitsu as a whole, but not that form of jujitsu specifically in terms of it's history, doctrine or how it differs from other forms of jujitsu. Some editors have cast doubts on the validity of these books as references because they could be considered Primary Sources since they were written by someone close to the subject of the article, even though they were published and edited away from the source. Thus, I was asking for opinions on whether or not a book in such a circumstance would be considered primary or secondary sources, not whether or not a mass-market book on martial arts would be a good general reference for martial arts articles. --Wingsandsword 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Article about Smail ferroudj verification source

if someone knows about this player please send us more informations about him your help is appreciated

Maybe the Reference Desk is what you are looking for? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Using Michael Neumann as a source for remark on Raul Hilberg

I've been asked to repost this here from 'Reliable Sources'.

'I've been slightly worried, I think needlessly, but I am not expert on these rules, about possible objections to my using Michael Neumann as a source for a remark on Raul Hilberg as a life-long Republican voter. He wrote an 'In Memorian' article in Counterpunch recently. Michael Neumann is, for some (not myself) a controversial figure: Counterpunch is attacked as an, intrinsically, 'unreliable source', a view I find questionable (it depends on who wrote the article: they host people there who have long public records as senior administration officials and tenured academics).

Michael Neumann happens to be the son of Franz Neumann, who was Raul Hilberg's Phd supervisor, and oversaw the drafting of that historical masterpiece. There's a family connection, in short. If someone out there thinks this questionable, I'd appreciate a note.Nishidani 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)'Nishidani 08:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch

Recently, a feature article by Debbie Nathan appearing in Counterpunch was challenged as an unreliable source in a biographical article. The article is factual journalism, not editorial content, and the challenger has not stated specific concrete objections to the article, since there may be BLP issues. Nathan is a feature writer for New York Magazine, as well as a published author. I don't personally see the sourcing problem, but I respect the editor who's raising the objection, so I wanted to get the views of more editors. --Ssbohio 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading CounterPunch, I'm not really sure if they're really a reliable source. They have an editorial staff of two people, with the intent to bring "stories that the corporate press never prints". Just my .02 though Corpx 06:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading some of their articles, they write from the partisan fringe position that thinks the Democrats are insufficiently liberal. That fringe really exists, but it is very much a minority position. Using Counterpunch as a source is likely to suffer from WP:UNDUE problems if not handled carefully. As Corpx pointed out, they don't have a great depth of review in the editorial department, and the combination of lesser review, a muckraking attitude, and a strong political bias makes them somewhat suspect as a source. GRBerry 23:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but is this an article where that bias towards the left makes a sufficient difference? I'm not that sure. Hornplease 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, CounterPoint published a feature story from Debbie Nathan, a mainstream journalist (New York) and author. Her work has also appeared or been referenced in Slate, Gawker, and other publications. My view is that the distinction between a news article and editorial content is important in determining whether the source is reliable, and, in this case, Nathan's article is not advocating a political position, but covering her subject in more depth & with a more critical eye. It's a crime story, and none of those involved are "political people," for lack of a better term. The slant of the publication would be more important if we were referencing its editorials rather than its factual articles. --Ssbohio 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder. Counterpunch is of course a muck-racking, if highly informed, minor netmag, but it has actually proved far more reliable than the New York Times and the Washington Post on the Iraqi war. It is for example perhaps the only Western newspaper to have a Western reporter in Iraq who doesn't rely on field informants, but risks his neck to travel all over the country and provide eye-witness accounts of local conditions. The NYTs and many others, as far as I know, have given up on this as too high a risk for their inhouse professionals. It specializes in publishing things that the major news outlets ignore. It is certainly a better source than Fox News, or any corporative media operation controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Both those middle-of-the-road centralist and unquestionably reliable sources, as defined by fame and print-run I suppose, had to backtrack, apologize, release staff writers, and generally readjust much of their editorializing when it came out that very little, if any of their reporting, proved to be reliable. Judith Miller got into hot water for proving to be a handy syphon for administration officials deliberately seeding false information on Saddam's arms. Most of the usually unquestioned 'reliable sources' in the newspaper world have terrible records both for accuracy and reliability in that extensive period. We still cite these as 'reliable sources' and worry the death over Counterpunch. I don't think it matters much where a comment appears, as long as the person quoted or writing has a very good track record as a serious and attentive analyst. I don't read many Counterpunch articles, but usually one a day is written by a very good inside source, or analyst with a proven track record and high academic or career standing, to warrant close reading. This is of course, and will remain, a minority view.Nishidani 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: In this case, the article appeared in the print version of Counterpunch, not the online version. Because the print version is sold by subscription, a lot of their "best" articles don't appear in the Web version at all. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the author of this piece, Debbie Nathan, has a very good reputation as a journalist and is something of an expert, having written a book on the same subject. --Ssbohio 19:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did some further research... Debbie Nathan is particularly reputable on the topic of this article, child sexual abuse, having written a book on the subject that's been published by a major house. The book, Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt, is well-regarded by reviewers such as Philip Jenkins, Prof. Robert A. Baker, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Women's Review of Books, The American Enterprise, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Nation, and the Brisbane, Australia Sunday Mail. It is considered a seminal work on the topic. It is required reading in Prof. Cecil Greek's graduate seminar in the University of South Florida's college of criminology. I believe that Nathan is a bona fide specialist in this field. Considering the evidence, how does that affect her reliability as a source? Please let me know what you think of the critical and academic opinions of Nathan and her work on this topic. --Ssbohio 04:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GenerationQ

A similar challenge has been made to the use of GenerationQ as a source. GenerationQ is an online magazine aimed at LGBT young adults, particularly young gay men. It covers news of particular interest to this community. In its favor, it enjoys a broad international readership. However, it is an online rather than a paper source, and some of its reporting has been used in a biographical article that's part of WikiProject LGBT Studies, but that the article's subject self-identifies as not being part of the LGBT community. The article specifically cites facts (and includes references) demonstrating that the subject of the article's business dealings are inconsistent with his public statements. Additionally, the facts stated in the article are supported by two primary sources written and posted online by the article's subject. Similar to the question of CounterPunch, an editor is challenging a reference to this source backed up by references to the two corroborating primary sources. How is the reliability of a source like this determined, and how is that applied when the article is a biography of a living person? Fundamentally, I want to know: is this a reliable source? --Ssbohio 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us a link to at least the magazine's website? GRBerry 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that... GenerationQ --Ssbohio 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, parts of it clearly are not. It has a "Community" subsection of user posted content. Anything there is right out.

The organization is based in Australia. Their staff page is currently blank; this is not a good sign. Their page for prospective reporters indicates that writing positions are unpaid, and for those seeking exposure. This is also not a good sign. Frankly, I wouldn't use it for anything contentious given this data. BLP sourcing is supposed to be of the highest standards; and GenQ by itself does not appear to meet these standards.

It sounds like you don't think that the primary sources lack reliability, or at least you aren't asking that question. If the GenQ site is really only being used to support a synthesis of inconsistency, a viable solution might be to cite each source and leave the synthesis unstated. GRBerry 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Collective (BBC)

Is this site reliable? This is in reference to its use as a reference in Optimo for a statement that an anonymous editor has just removed for the third time. It seems like some of their content is user-submitted and I kind of doubt they're held to the same editorial standard as the rest of the bbc, although the article in question was at least written by a freelance journalist.--P4k 06:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would take the article at face value if it's attributed to the author. Also, this seems to be a writeup of an interview for which the audio is available on the Collective site. If this is an interview with the actual musician, and if you listen to it yourself, that might help to confirm what you say. (I didn't try to straighten out all the people's names, so I don't know if the person interviewed is the one whose song is being discussed). The item that this provides a reference for seems to be a fairly minor point, so I don't know how hard you are planning to work to get that fact included. EdJohnston 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America sourced for contentious factual claims

I have added tags to those statements in Battle of Jenin for which I could not replace CAMERA with a journalistic reliable source. It seems clear to me both from WP:RS and past editing experience that partisan pressure groups are not generally used as reliable sources. According to the wikipedia page for CAMERA: "News media cite CAMERA as an advocate of Israel and discuss the organization's mobilisation for the support of Israel in the form of full-page ads in newspapers , organizing demonstrations, and encouraging sponsor boycotts. Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases." No editors appear to be disputing their partisan nature; according to User:Isarig "You are confusing 'partisan' with 'non reliable'. The two are not same, or even similar. CAMERA meets every requirement WP has for reliable sources." (Note that I am not arguing with use of attributed POV statements from CAMERA expressing their analyses, rather I take issue with their use as a source for wikipedia-voice statements of fact like "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y.")

On a related issue - and uninvolved editors feel free to refactor out this comment if it's clearly in the wrong place - is not the removal of such maintenance tags (,) without some approximation of consensus built on talk considered very bad practice if not outright disruptive editing? Eleland 16:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA's claims stated as "Palestinian Minister Abu said X on date Y." are footnoted with the name and date of the publication where the quoted individual made the statement. Interested parties cam easily check the named reference and verify it says what is claimed. CAMERA itself denies it is partisan, and WP:RS does not disallow partisan sources - it only asks that they be used cautiously on BLPs. The claims sourced to CAMERA (as a secondary source) which you are objecting to are not 'contentious factual claims' at all - they are quotes of primary sources, with name & date of the primary source provided. Isarig 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant footnote is simply "19. CAMERA". see (]) Eleland 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The "CAMERA" part of that is actualy a link to a specific CAMERA article, namely this one, where all the claims are duly described with the primary source, e.g.: "April 13, Erekat, on CNN", or 'April 10, Sha'ath claimed, “We have 300 martyrs in Jenin in the last few days.” (Agence France Presse)" Isarig 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

comment by involved editor - it doesn't matter what side a source is allegedly supporting as long as it's references and statements are reliable. for the same reason, i cannot remove The Guardian articles or the BBC despite their anti-israel bias (and countless errors). there is nothing beyond "they say they support israel" or "they only correct anti-israeli POV" to justify the claim that the source in unreliable. on top of this many of the "needs more reliable reference" statements have similar statements expressed on other references and up to now camera notes have been fairly easily verified. we are discussing reliability in report and there is no validated reason to suspect camera as more unreliable than the major news medias they are quoting or criticizing... to the contrary even. Jaakobou 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by involved editor - there may be times we use CAMERA for facts (about Israel sources - not about Palestinian sources as we've done in this case). But in general we'd have to treat them as extremely dubious because of their aggression and distortion. Here's a fairly random example of the latter, quibbling about words spoken (likely repeatedly) by Israel's most famous militarist. Moshe Dayan wasn't in the business of claiming land for Israel by buying it! PalestineRemembered 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source. Isarig 18:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest that Moshe Dayan was going round lecturing students on the acquisition of land by purchase (which in any case only amounted to quite a small proportion of the land of Israel). Dayan was a war-hero with a black patch over one eye, that's why people wanted to here him speak. He was quite open about these things, he said to Rami Tal "in the period between 64 and 67 when there were a lot of incidents on the border between Israel and Syria about 80% of these incidents were started by Israel".

And nobody reading CAMERA's claims would think they were capable of being RS (though I don't doubt many of the individual facts are true, and in some cases, one might wish to quote them). And their "refutation" in this case is based on their insistence that Dayan only said that Israel was all built on places where Arabs had lived once at this particular lecture. Pilger quotes him saying it at his retirement, so CAMERA simply have no idea what he said, they're grabbing at straws. PalestineRemembered 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA did not correct a misquote, full stop. It restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it. Dayan, properly cited, remarks:'-In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages.'

The paraphrase runs:'In the misquote, the key phrase "we purchased the land from Arabs" is omitted, and thus Dayan's meaning is reversed. Dayan was not saying that Arabs were dispossessed. On the contrary, he was indicating that though Arabs sold the land of their own free will, given their presence in the region, the Israeli goal is to live peacefully together with them.'

This is highly dubious, if not indeed, an intentionally misleading gloss. For the paraphrase drops the crucial In a considerable number of places (meaning implicitly, '- in many other places what I am saying about buying the land from Arabs where our villages now are does not apply. I.e. that land was taken without purchase). Dayan, contrary to what CAMERA writes, is admitting that in many cases dispossession did occur (He was, admirably, more objective than CAMERA and is on record as admitting many ruses were employed to grab disputed land by pure force). One could name any number of reasons why this is bad reporting (who were the Arabs? The fellahin driven off the fields they had traditionally worked? Or absentee landlords in Beirut and Amman, who sold the lands to Jewish agencies, who then dispossessed the tenants, as was often the case?)

This then is not an example of 'Accuracy', it is a matter of unilaterally spinning information to one party's advantage. Were it to live up to its name 'Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America' it would have a huge amount of its work cut out just correcting the almost systematic way most Middle Eastern Countries neighbouring on Israel are also subject to misreporting. Hence its very name belies, and indeed misrepresents its partisan focus. I commend them for defending the cause of Israel, but they shouldn't pretend that this is an undertaking for a spirit of dignified neutrality on The Middle East. It is a mediatic lobby, which cherrypicks the news like Fox, and, I suggest, most major News Sources, and has an agenda, as we can see in its cleverly misleading paraphrase above, one as strong as Counterpunch's, or any other radical paper. Were it as honest as we are rightly called on to be in here in drafting wiki articles it would replace 'Middle East' with 'Israel' which it won't do, I think to its discredit. For there is nothing intrinsically wrong about a committee devoted to defending any one country's image, and pursuing an ideal of checking and combating perceived abuses in reportage on it. Many countries practice this.Nishidani 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight - the CAMERA article, which as you conced restored the original text, and then went on to paraphrase it is 'spinning information to one party's advantage' because it omits the qualifier ("In a considerable number of places"), but the article they were critiquing, which compeltly omitted the conetxt of Dyan talking about buying land - that text is ok, and should not be critiqued? Isarig 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A point on syntactical implications that you appear to be unaware of. You wrote: 'Your example shows that CAMERA corrected a misquote. Nobody is claiming the text, as provided by CAMERA, is incorrect, and tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate. It appears to substantiate that it is a reliable source.'

You are saying that, 'no one is claiming . .tha(t) the text CAMERA complained about was, in fact, inaccurate.'

In fact it was claimed, by CAMERA that the text they complained about was inaccurate. That was the reason for their just emendation of the truncated text. You meant, I presume 'accurate'?

(2) It was reliable in correcting a quote, wholly unreliable in explaining that quote, wilfully misrepresenting one of the meanings in Dayan's text. In restoring the quote, they then proceeded to distort its meaning. It's not difficult to check sources. It is quite difficult, I gather, to read them correctly, and CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote, and a completely unreliable source for its meaning.Nishidani 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to your analysis and opinion of the CAMERA explanation, but please realize it is your personal POV. The standard on WP is verifiability, not truth, and we do not engage in editor-generated analysis of sources. If the above quote was used in a WP article, I'd expect it to be presented as CAMERA's opinion, and if a RS commented on their explanation along the lines you have outlined, that could be presented as well. None of this has anything to do with CAMERA's status as a reliable source, certainly when the issues at hand are direct quotes, not explanations of them, cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As you wrote - "'CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote" - that's all that this dispuet is about.

Okay we are getting seriously sidetracked here, what are we talking about the Moshe Dayan quote for exactly? I mean PR is right, and anyone who knows the full context of this quote (where he talks about provoking border wars with Lebanon in order to steal farmland, etc) can see that, but this quote is not at all at issue in the article I was talking about. Eleland 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What you were talking about is the use of quotes by CAMERA, where the direct quote is cited to a primary source by CAMERA. As Nishidani points out, CAMERA here is a 'reliable source' for the quote,. Isarig 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at this reference - I don't believe the encyclopedia should ever be treating as an "RS" an article such as "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference .... despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'". I've not deleted the references, but it is essential that we source this somewhere else. PalestineRemembered 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In general, this noticeboard should be used to solicit opinions from editors previously unaware of the concern. I see this is not precisely true in this case. Moving to the specific item of concern, it seems self-evident that CAMERA is an advocacy website, and should be used with caution. If the only source for certain quotes is CAMERA, it is reasonable to ask for substantiation of the quotes from an alternative source. Using only quotes available through a single article in an advocacy website leaves us open to the risk of unbalanced reporting, so that should be kept in mind. In this case, CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

comment to User:Hornplease, please look into this part of the article - - and see where my previous comment above said reference fits in. btw, thank you for giving this issue a look. Jaakobou 10:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that section is by and large not problematic; however, I think if a particularly outlandish claim by a Palestinian spokesman is sourced to a TV interview quoted by CAMERA, I can see why a dubious tag might apply. I certainly would wish to alert the average reader to the antecedents of the quote. Hornplease 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

continued talk with User:Hornplease - please note these bogus statements have been repeated on other references on that same subsection. i agree that we should strive for less POV sources, however, there is no indication to CAMERA beying more unreliable than the sources they cite; to the contrary even. anyways, i appreciate your input (hope other uninvolved editors will give one also). Jaakobou 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Isarig I would ask you kindly not to cherrypick my words. I quite explicitly said that on this one quote, CAMERA correctly gave Dayan's words. It is reliable on this one specific quote. It is not reliable, to judge from the way it handles the quote, and generally quotes to a POV purpose. I.e. 'Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' CAMERA is partisan, not trustworthy in that scrupulous editorial oversight which RS thinks important as a criterion was lacking in the paraphrase, and not authoritative in relation to the subject at hand' (Middle East), since it is dedicated exclusively to promoting Israel's POV Nishidani 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A general comment. In war all sides lie (Walter Lippman 1924) to swing public opinion about them, and if you want to know what is going on in specific actions, months must pass if not years. Sometimes decades. To document minutely the day or day battle for the 'hearts and minds' of distant onlookers, with the profusion of understatements and exaggerations, may be a useful exercise, but it is not going to last long. In a few years, this trivia will be, by a proper historian, summed up more or less as Wildly exaggerated reports by Palestinian spokesmen of massive casualties, running into several hundreds of civilian deaths - competed with understatements by the Israeli government, for attention in the world's media. At the same time, Israel was sufficiently worried about the havoc caused by the assault to block an independent UN team from investigating in the aftermath to ascertain exactly what had occurred at Jenin. What is know is that the casualties were one-tenth of what the most exaggerating Palestinian report said they were, and these deaths,52, were evenly divided between innocent civilian bystanders and Palestinian fighters.

The drift of the passage, with its meticulous citation of outlandish reports, is to document the unreliability of Palestinians. There may be point in devoting some space to this with regard to Jenin. Anyone who reads what Amira Hass or Gideon Levy writes regularly in Haaretz in the aftermath of some missile strike or reprisal raid by the IDF, in which they visit the area, interview the families, and give intimate details of how the families of numerous civilian casualties saw events, with the usual IDF reports filtered to newspapers on the same events, will appreciate that the relevant facts are mainly edited out in the latter. The Palestinian dead rarely have an identity, are 'suspected' of terrorism, or otherwise ignored, and the whole event is summarized as a strike with an array of statistics framed in a narrative of generic provocations by terrorists and reprisal by a righteous army dedicated to 'purity of arms'. Any slipup is an unfortunate mishap. The central fact, that the land where most of these incidents occur is foreign territory under military occupation, and that Israel is obliged under International law to evacuate its illegal settlers, is ignored (As regards these settlements, the ICJ notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” ). As is the fact that:-

'4. Israel denies that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which it has signed, are applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory..' International Court of Justice ruling 2004 para.102). I.e. Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza, in Israel's view, have no right of appeal to International Covenants protecting their economic, social and cultural rights' even when Israel itself, the Occupying Power, is a signatory to these covenants.

In all these issues then Israelis have the protection of law and the IDF: the Palestinians have neither, as an occupied people. If you say this of course, you are accused of having a POV.

So, until there is a real stable political settlement, all of these articles will continue to suffer from instrumental editing: we will have chronic 'incidents', innumerable pages created where pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors will battle for the minds and the hearts of those unfortunates who think Misplaced Pages is a reliable source for the Middle East, pages subject to incessant edits, challenges of POV, revert wars, and subtle plays to adjust the language so that, in any one section, my side gets the subliminal assent which, in a tradeoff, your side got earlier etc. It is a huge waste of effort, and quite pathetic to watch. The only people whom a bystander can trust in this area is one who shows him/herself willing to correct POV from pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis with an equally firm hand, because he/she takes on an effort to look at the record as far as it can be objectively ascertained, and not at the powerful, often militant interests behind various, mostly trivial, accounts of that record.Nishidani 12:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your symapthy for the Palestinian cause. But this is not USNET nor a blog, and your long psot above has zero to do with the question of CAMERA's relaibility and credibility. Kindly keep politcal POV-pushingout of the encyclopedia. Isarig 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your sympathy for Israel's cause. No intention of blogging. My point is that you are never going to get a decent article on any Israeli-Palestinian issue by scouting through Internet resources culling material from newspapers, since such reportage is factitious, ephemeral, and the sources are almost invariably partisan.If we stuck to printed books by scholarly publishers, and official documents by independent bodies, most of this frigging about would disappear, and wiki would have a decent set of articles. The results so far are lengthy articles full of trivia, and huge threads of squabbling over what are, mostly, relatively simple issues.

I am, on another page, suffering a revert battle by people who will not explain to me why they consider the 2004 International Court of Justice decision POV. Why? Because they don't agree with the Court personally, and have a newspaper source by a journalist-politician who questioned it before the judgement was even passed down. I don't believe they are in bad faith. I think they are so accustomed to looking for sources in newspapers to justify their take on things, that they have forgotten the primary issue, which is a purely technical one, easily ascertained, from UN documentation and ICJ decisions. Unlike them, I make no pretence of not having a POV. What I do do, is try to keep it off the page, and stay open to queries by whoever suspects in the edits I do make that my decisions are affected by personal bias, and not by considerations of fidelity to the complete and relevant historical record. This is my last comment on the matter here.Nishidani 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record. This is off-topic, but illustrates a larger problem. 8 minutes after my posting the above, Isarig reverted Palestinian territories without apparently, unless he/she is a remarkable speed reader, reading the Talk page where a lengthy series of expositions justified my edits and those of Tiamut. He/she joins User:Humus sapiens and User:Tickle me who have over the past day reverted attempts to improve the page, each twice. Neither of the latter gave anything but a vague POV warning in the revert edits: when pressed, a very brief note by each was forthcoming, the first revealing the reverter's ignorance of niceties of English usage; the second was adequately answered, with missing RS requested, amply supplied. The page before my edits was bannered with 'neutrality debated'. That is the article all three have restored, preferring the obvious POV of that earlier page to our efforts to improve it.

I suppose this passing the baton is to avoid the 3RR rule. All three are not working on the page, but simply revert insistently, while refusing discussion. POV is evidenced not only by explicit declarations, but also, far more frequently, by this kind of behaviour, which lazily employs the POV charge to suppress unwelcome edits.Nishidani 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, what you're describing is a content dispute, and the danger to articles in the encyclopedia is something that cannot be addressed at the "Reliable Sources" page. (There is some suspicion that well-funded outside influence is at play). In theory, discussions held here can have a significantly beneficial long-term impact on the encyclopedia by reducing the influence of distorted, angry material such as published by CAMERA.

One of the regular watchers of this page (who might be able to help us resolve this RS business in a consistent fashion) has reminded us that article-involved editors shouldn't really be playing a part in this discussion. However, one of the very most experienced editors present may have led everyone else astray right at the beginning of this section, for reasons that are difficult to understand. It might be best if this discussion were left to try and get at least one part of the process back on track. PalestineRemembered 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment from someone else

CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. It is of course reliable for giving its own opinions, and it is sufficiently notable that its opinions on developments are often newsworthy. But when its material is republished by a RS, then it can be indirectly quoted as , eg. NYTimes , based on... That does not seem to be the question here--the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? An interesting side issue seems to be whether it can be used as a source for the statements about people whose position it agrees with. I think in general not, as no such source can be trusted to report them fairly rather than reinterpret them in a more favorable light. DGG (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how I feel. I did make an effort to find the originals, or more reliable sources which replicated the originals, and I replaced the CAMERA cites where I could. The "verify cred" tags only went on those quotes which I couldn't find. Interestingly, there are a lot of purported direct quotes on the CAMERA report which return only one Google hit - CAMERA. Check , , . Objectively, these materials should have been removed entirely, but I gave the benefit of the doubt - apparently a mistake on my part. Eleland 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Summary - this section was overwhelmed by people party to the original debate (and I joined in, sorry).
• There were two "un-involved" editors, the sense of their contributions seems to have been as follows: "CAMERA is not serving as a 'convenience link' in the sense in which some advocacy websites host duplicates of print articles from more reliable sources. CAMERA is quoting from secondary sources. Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found. User:Hornplease 10:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"
• And "CAMERA is obviously not a generally reliable source for controversial material. .... the initial question is can be be used for its copy of another source. I think the solution then is to quote the place it copies, e.g. the Jerusalem Post, and then say (as reported by ), But if the original source is accessible, why not find it and cite it? ..... User:DGG 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• There was a third semi-involved editor, User:Number_57 had visited the article 5 days earlier hoping to mediate. His involvement may have led him to make this comment: "Talk about selective interpretation! Yes it might be reliable for quotes, but as Nishidani also points out, it is a completely unreliable source for its meaning. Can you guarantee that the source will only be used for quotes and that it will not be referenced for meaning? I very much doubt it. Number 57 08:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)"
• In conclusion, I believe the community, as discovered from this noticeboard, finds that CAMERA is a source that should only be used with great care". PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• CAMERA is currently cited 4 times in this article, and all the tags have been removed. PalestineRemembered 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment - (1) number57 is VERY involvedin ME articles. (2) "Thus it should be used with care, and preferably minimized, with alternative confirmation of those news stories found.", (2.1) from as many as 50! citations from that article page, we've managed to find replacements to almost all of them. (2.2) the quotes/statments that have not been replaced are all (best i'm aware) repeated by the same people on close dates and referenced by other sources. Jaakobou 10:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Houston Freeways

Houston Freeways is a comprehensive self-published book about the freeway system of Houston, Texas. I know that self-published sources are generally bad, but this seems to be a rare exception. It's well-cited (which, of course, means that I could go to those sources, but I don't have access to them), and has been listed alongside a number of non-self-published books on the FHWA's site. Is it reasonable to use this book as a factual reference? --NE2 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that he was awarded the 2004 Excellence in Journalism Award for the book by the Houston Branch of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Can I assume that this is enough? --NE2 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, "However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study." I'd say the New York Times quoting the author (one of nine news pieces listed on the book's web site) is substantial evidence of that recognition. —David Eppstein 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What about his other works, like TexasFreeway.com? --NE2 07:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaijin, Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, and William Wetherall

A single-purpose anon IP user wants to know if Misplaced Pages can cite as definitive FACT the following sentence from the Encyclopedia of Japan.. The only question I have with this quote is the issue of weasel words like “many” popping up to implicitly endorse some kind of faulty logic, so I asked if the user knew who the author was. His reply wasn’t too helpful, so I looked up the source myself.

The article is entitled “foreigners in Japan” by William Wetherall (Volume 2, 1st ed., 1983, p. 314). It doesn’t cite any sources, and the only thing that I could find that Wetherall apparently published related to the subject is a report on foreigners in Japan for a partisan think tank entitled “Minority Rights Group" (Report No. 3, new 1983 edition) That source gives Wetherall’s bio. It reads: “William Wetherall is a graduate student in Asian Studies at the University of California Berkeley. His Japanese research covered popular culture, modern literature, contemporary cinema, and minority discrimination.”

Any ideas on what to do with this source:

1. Cite it completely as fact? 2. Cite it as Wetherall’s opinion….something like “Wetherall writes….” 3. Cite it in part with ellipses that remove words like “many”? 4. Don’t use the source at all? 5. Keep looking for another source that says “some” instead of “many”?

Experienced editors haven't expressed an opinion on the gaijin talk page yet, and I suspect some of the single-purpose users are getting restless. Comments from experienced editors here would be most helpful. In good faith, J Readings 10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

William Wetherall is a perfectly respectable source, as is the Kodansha Encyclopedia, since it is one of several standard sources for articles on Japan, even if like many respectable sources it can often get things wrong, usually by not fully covering nuances. The word gaijin (外人) originally meant 'someone outside of the group to which the user belonged', hence someone estranged from the primary group. In the Heike monogatari it is used of people who should be looked on as enemies. In modern usage it is employed quite innocuously in most cases, and it not thought derogatory, but it can often take on negative connotations according to context, especially since it implies frequently, in a Japan that is increasingly open to foreigners, that foreigners cannot as gaijin, ever belong to the national group. When the Aids epidemic began, 'gaijin' was punned on to create the neologism' (I modify for clarity to outsiders) 'Aidsjin', implying Aids was something 'foreigners had'. This is too brief a reply, but for the moment Nishidani 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've carefully studied the Heike Monogatari and what scholars think on the subject (they all don't agree that it means "enemy"), but let that pass. What's at issue here is the word "most" and I certainly agree that we're talking about its modern post-war usage here among foreigners. What do experienced editors recommend: going with 1,2,3,4, or 5? J Readings 11:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, didn't have time, it was lunch, to check through your links. Impressive research (original by the way, but I have no objections). Tthat original research however in no way affects what I said above, since it is overwhelmingly focused on ancient philological questions, which by their nature cannot throw light on the issue you asked an opinion on.

On 'most' you strike me as making a storm in a teacup, or rather suffering from needless scruples over a point of minute valency. If that point is sustained as policy, then no poll results could be cited on Misplaced Pages because they make illations about most people on the basic of a statistical sample. You yourself on the linked page use the word 'many' or 'most' without proving that the generalisation implied covers the whole field of dictionaries or scholars. It refers to the extensive sources you have checked, which by no means cover the whole field.

I was thrown off by your mentioning that you checked out who this W Wetherall was. All Japanologists of my day knew and know who he is, and I surmised, not reading your research, that you were someone who had to check up the background of a scholar everyone in my day in the field was familiar with.

You write:'The point all along here, Bendono, is whether these old usages of gaijin and their examples, regardless of its reading—tohito, kotohito/kotobito, etc.—are useful for understanding whether the gaijin of today’s vernacular is by definition or etymology a term of disparagement—an epithet. My argument all along is that they are not, because the current-day term referring to foreigners and the old term referring to the other, another person, other persons, those outside one’s ingroup, strangers, potential enemies enemies (by virtue of not being members of the ingroup)'

Of course etymology is no guide to meaning, so all that research is useless for understanding the contemporary sense of 'gaijin', but it certainly warrants a full scale academic elaboration. In IE languages, the word guest/host and hostile are all interrelated. That doesn't mean there is an intrinsic tinge of hostility in host-guest

relationships, even though, on a psychological plain, tensions exist.

Your second point puts the finger on a problem you seem unaware of. The distinction between the modern concept of 'foreigner' and 'the old term' for 'other', those outside one's ingroup' etc. is a non-distinction, because the former term is simply an extention of the latter set of terms. Japanese social structure strongly demarcates 自/他 boundaries, within Japan and between Japanese and non-Japanese. The problem you pose is sociolinguistic, not etymological. All ingroup/outgroup distinctions carry, by that very distinction, a contrast between people you trust, and those you trust less, between social situations you are comfortable in, and social situations, constituted by outsiders, in which you are not too comfortable in. 'Gaijin' thus tended naturally to bear a connotation of an outsider in whose presence one's customary ease of interaction is destabilized, in early Japan as today. Over the decades this has decreased, but people who lived in Japan from 1945 to 1985 at least, know from innumerable personal experiences that their being foreigners often created embarrassment, confusion, unease and sometimes shock, in everyday transactions (shocked storekeepers going blank when you asked, in Japanese, for a packet of cigarettes, endless occasions of being blocked at the door of restaurants and bars because 'No gaijin' cries of alarm when the club's clientale or owner set sight on you). Wetherall is just stating this obvious fact, at least to my generation of scholars. I fail to see why you find it problematic because it says 'many'. That was empirically true at least for the period I specified.

One might add that the word 'gaijin' is certainly less pejorative in Japanese usage, referring to as it does to obvious ethnic outsiders, than the words 'burakumin/yottsu/eta', which refers to a Japanese pariah group.

You write:-'WP guidelines states that we should not give undue weight to extreme minority views on any given topic. Considering that most dictionaries and Japanese academics do not consider the word 外人 in the prewar period to be (1) pejorative, etc'

We have to take your word for it. Note you say 'most' but have problems with weasel words like 'many'. You haven't by any means justified 'most'. Kojien is not by any stretch of the imagination an 'extreme minority view', even if as you note, many other authoritative dictionaries disagree ( nor is Wetherall, for that matter.) Regards and best wishes for your research and the page, which looks like it is in eccelent hands Nishidani 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani: Thank you for the thought-provoking reply and kind words. My explanation was not very clear, but a full review of the back history will show that the gaijin article and its talk page to be an unstable mess, with a focus on elaborately unsourced POV explanations and unreliable internet material to debate whether the word CURRENTLY is a derogatory "racial slur" (my opinion, based on the sources, is that there's no reputable third-party source supporting that sweeping characterization, including Wetherall, but that's something to discuss on the talk page).

In any case, a few editors are now trying to resolve this problem by following the 5 pillars of Misplaced Pages and grounding the main article with reliable in-line citations.

You're probably right that this concern about Wetherall's background and word choice ("many") might be unnecessary, but the troubling “Everybody knows….” rationale to insert weasel words, unsourced assertions, and further contentious edits to the main page hopefully explains a little bit better my query here. Best regards, J Readings 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

Per WP:N a subject is notable if it has recieved non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. I was looking at the article on Claus Elming, a Danish football player and TV personality who has recieved significant non-trivial coverage in the Danish media. Ignoring for a moment that the reliable sources in this context are not used solely to satisfy WP:V what is the general concensus on the use of foreign language sources as reliable sources, especially when such sources are in a language only understood by a small minority of editors? Is there a generally agreed upon concensus on a threshold for how minor a language may be before such sources are disregarded? MartinDK 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Such sources are never "disregarded"... it is simply that equally reliable sources in English are given preference. A reliable source is a reliable source, no matter what language it is written in. Blueboar 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. -- FayssalF - 10:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Lutherans

Almost none of the entries on this list have any citation to show that they have professed to being a Lutheran. The 3 sources listed:

• Famous Lutherans List at website of Faith Lutheran Church, Groton, CT.
• Famous Lutherans at NNDB.
• Famous living Lutherans from the ELCA site.

do not seem at all reliable. Any thoughts on what to do here? Kevin 11:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Go slow... The fact that someone is identified as a Lutheran is not all that harmful, but we do have policies about verification that we want to uphold. Place a {{fact}} tag on those entries that are not cited. Raise the issue on the talk page (including your concern about the reliability of the three sources that are used). Then wait... give people time to respond and find proper sources. If you get no reply by the end of (say) a month, then raise the issue again with warning that you might start deleting uncited material. In the mean time... see if you can find better sources yourself. The goal should be to try to keep the list, but to improve it with solid references. Finally, after due time you can delete those entries that are still uncited. Blueboar 12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And I guess a further question I should have asked before, what about the reliability of the sources listed? I know NNDB has been discussed before as non-reliable, and the ELCA site states that they are not sure of the accuracy. Kevin 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Overlawyered

• Overlawyered (redirect page to Walter Olson)
• Overlawyered.com

Will Beback is systematically eliminating links to Overlawyered, added by multiple editors, without discussion on talk pages, and against consensus. Though it is in the form of a blog, it qualifies as a WP:RS: it features writing by multiple writers (including Stuart Taylor and Michael Fumento) and is edited by the leading expert in the field, Walter Olson; it is regularly cited by books, law reviews, newspaper articles, and magazines (including a number that just plagiarize us without citing). Even if it is considered a self-published source, it qualifies as a source under WP:SPS. (COI disclosure: I occasionally write for Overlawyered. I added an Overlawyered link to one page after consulting with other editors to the page.) I don't challenge all of the removals, but it seems improper to remove cites to the site when it is cited as an example of an opinion of leading legal reformers. THF 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP directly bars the use of blogs for biographies, except those written by the subject. The author of the postings in question is not Stuart Taylor, Michael Fumento, or Walter Olson. It is someone called Ted Frank, who is not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages biography. If he is being advanced as an expert in his field then we need to have evidence of that. One editor who restored a few links asserted that a poor source is better than none. This directly contradicts our philosphy on reliable sources. If we can't find reliable sources for an assertion then it's better to leave it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank RS evidence: The American; Business Week; Wall Street Journal; Forbes; Washington Post. Let me know if you need more. The Frank article was CSD'd as an attack page about a year after someone created it after it was vandalized to remove all useful information. THF 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The exception to RS allows for citing an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Have any of Ted Frank's opinions on the case been published in reliable sources? I don't see that author being attributed in the previous versions of the McDonalds citations, perhaps we say, "According to Ted Frank of the AEI..." that would clarify the context of the blog postings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank is cited on legal issues. When we cite to William Connolley's blog (which is cited to multiple times on Misplaced Pages), we don't ask if he's been cited on the specific blog topic, but whether he's generally reliable on environmental issues. THF 19:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you object to having Frank's opinions labelled as his own? Where the citations go to ostensibly objective information that wouldn't be necessary, but when we're talking about viewpoints I think it'd be informative to know the speaker. The issue is contentious, and Frank is unabashedly partisan. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:COOL and some other guidelines, I'm withdrawing from the conversation, and ask that you hash this out with CHL and other editors. THF 19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is better to leave unreliable assertions out. If you have a problem with the claims, remove the claims (and their sources). Removing the source but keeping the claim (as you've done) is just bizzare. A sourced claim is better than an unsourced claim. Cool Hand Luke 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two distinct issues: one whether Overlawyered is a reliable source in the general case. The answer to that appears to be no, especially given the lack of apparent editorial oversight. The next question is whether we can use Overlawyered as a link of convenience for some documents that are hosted there. The answer to that seems to be a clear yes. The final question is even when overlawyered is not necessarily reliable is its material notable(that is, can we on BLP say something like "According to _ at Overlawyered _" the answer to that seems to be yes given that the material is frequently cited by mainstream sources. JoshuaZ 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first two points. For the third point I'd say the current exemption to using blogs applies to authors, not entire blogs. If the author has been "published by reliable third-party publications" on the topic in question then it's OK to use on that topic with caution, though it's still preferable to use inherently reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your analysis is on-target. Straight BLP claims are not appropriate, but as a source of opinion it is acceptable. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, per Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reason_for_reverting_ban_on_self-published_external_links, that this discussion implies that Overlawyered (when posts are written by reliable-source bloggers) can be used as an external link in a biography article. I request reversion of Beback's deletions to EL. THF 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Which propsoed links are to blog postings by "recognized authorities"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

90% of Overlawyered posts (and 100% of the ones before June 2003, when it was solely written by Olson) are by Olson or Frank. I don't have time to go through everything you deleted, and I don't know how many people added how many links that you removed. If I revert you, I'll be accused of a conflict of interest. So I'm politely asking you to self-revert edits you made based on a mistaken view of policy, and continued to make even as we were still discussing the issue and you knew the edits were contested. I know you removed the link (along with Olson's PointofLaw site) as an EL from tort reform, for example, where there weren't even BLP issues. THF 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've posted elsewhere, I believe that the authors must be recognized authorities in the topic of the article, so unless Olson and Frank are known as experts on Ed Fagan, Ralph Nader, etc, we should use blog postings as external links. In what topics do you contend Olson and Frank are recognized authorities? Tort reform, of course. Anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Studios of Key West

All of the sources for this page are self-references or links to partners. Are this, this and this reliable enough to add to the article? Corvus cornix 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The fla-keys one is a generic travel web site of the type that regularly gets removed as spam from tourist-destination related articles (one problem with this sort of source being that it's difficult to tell whether sites are listed as part of some sort of independent editorial process or whether they pay for their listing). The other two may be from more reliable publishers but give fairly trivial mentions as part of longer articles. I did find a news article from the Miami Herald, "A new lease for the arts in Key West", Jan. 23, 2007, that looks sufficiently reliable and nontrivial, altough it's not available online for free I think. —David Eppstein 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone lend a hand with reference formatting?

As you all seem to work with references regularly, so I felt this would be an appropriate place to ask for someone to help me.

I've been adding references, but many are untidy. See DiGard_Motorsports#References to see what I'm talking about. Anyone willing to lend a hand? I especially am unsure what to do with things I found off of Google Books.

Also, does References go above or below External Links?

I'm primarily looking to see if anyone would be willing to help work on the ref coding. I can fairly defend the references used if anyone takes issue with the refs.

(crossposted at )

Guroadrunner 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the Google books one using {{citation}}. Hope that helps as an example. I see that someone else already used that template for another reference of a different type. —David Eppstein 06:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in the United Arab Emirates

Hi, I'm not sure this is the right place but in this article the World Sex Guide is used as a source... I'm not sure this is the right kind of source for this kind of article... Cperroquin 14:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Abusive Hosts Blocking List

Is The Abusive Hosts Blocking List a reliable source? Does citing it violate WP:BLP?

Water fluoridation

Are the sources listed in question two here: Talk:Water fluoridation#RfC reliable? · jersyko talk 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Internal Information

Can I get a clarification on whether internal information, like manuals, memos, etc pertaining to an organization, that is distributed only for use by members within the organization is considered "published" and hence reliable sources? I scoured through a few pages of reliability and its archives, and i didn't find anything specifically addressing that point. The Jackal God 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For an article about the organization (or its subsidiaries), such items would either be self published sources (see WP:SELFPUB for guidance on handling them) or, more likely, non-published private correspondence. Ask the question - can someone go find a copy of this source and verify that it says what the editor here said that it said? If they can, use WP:SPS guidance. If they can't, it is probably private correspondence. GRBerry 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Problematic personal pages in Scientology articles

These amateur anti-Scientology personal homepages keep recurring as references on Scientology-related articles. Some of them make some rather threatening-sounding statements that I find every bit as ominous as the "Religious Freedom Watch" lone-nut hate site (whose article was recently deleted). It seems clear to me that these kind of religious-partisan rant sites are no better than personal blogs, of no use to us as sources, nor trustworthy for courtesy links:

• Operation Clambake - One man (Andreas Heidal-Lund)'s personal site, as his FAQ clearly states. The site also, unprofessionally, urges people to spy on their local Church of Scientology - look at this. And don't forget this. Clambake's crudely written, misspelling-laden pages are used as sources on many articles, some hotly-POV-debated, like Space opera in Scientology scripture.

• Holysmoke.org - This amateurish site compiled by one man ("Shy David") consists mostly of unverifiable material like personal emails (like this page currently used as a reference on the Gold Base article!) and Usenet posts.

• Arnie Lerma's homepage - read his FAQ here in which everything is "me", "my website", his life story, etc. This is one guy's personal rant page, plain and simple. Pops up as references in articles such as Universal Life and Office of Special Affairs, and I've recently removed it from several other articles.

• Dave Touretzky's Page - Pretty much self-explanatory as a personal page, yet some editors often attempt to cite it as a reference. See Talk:Dianazene for more discussion.

• Why Are They Dead, Scientology? - More of the same. Primitive poorly-written rants and potential copyright violations. Improperly used as a source reference on many hotly-POV-debated articles like Lisa McPherson, Kenja Communication, Cults and governments, etc.

• Gerry Armstrong's page - Personal opinion sites don't get much more personal and opinionated than this. And yet it's cited as a reliable source on Office of Special Affairs and many more.

• Da Sloth's Home Page - ditto. Used in many articles, such as Fair Game (Scientology).

Furthermore, these sites are also seeded in a very spammy fashion across the External Links sections of almost the entirety of the Scientology articles.

The Anti-Scn editors will likely cry that I'm seeking to silence all criticism of Scientology. Far from it - I want lots and lots of criticism, but criticism with airtight sources, not these homepages of people ranting about their holy mission to "expose the global scam of Scientology". If these criticisms are so encyclopedic, we should be able to get all the dirt we need from reliable sources, not some angry conspiracy-theory personal webpage made by persons with evident grudges. User:AndroidCat has done a great job recently supplanting CoS articles with solid newspaper articles as sources, so let's follow his example and lose these childish "Scientology sucks" pages. wikipediatrix 04:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my two bits to this. I recently made these edits to the David Miscavige article. I found that Lerma's site had altered the title of the article to sound much more sinister than it actually was. Right there, that seems to disqualify it as a reliable source. As someone else pointed out to me the source is the source, and not a website who is hosting the article to make a point. I would personally like to see less criticism in the Scn-related articles, but I know that's not going to happen. So, if there has to be criticism, then let it be well sourced from reliable sources, as well as make sure the article says what the source says (if you notice my edit, once I changed it to reflect what the article actually said, changed the tone of what was being said quite a bit).HubcapD 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Although the authors of these self-published web sites are occasionally quoted by the media and occasionally termed "expert" in that context, there is a difference between using their statements as reported by the press (i.e. by reliable sources) and considering their personal websites themselves as reliable sources. The authors of these "Scientology Sucks" web sites are, IMO, extremists, if, by "extremist", we simply mean someone that is as far from center or from NPOV as is possible. When an extremist makes a statement to the press we have a number of factors at work. 1) The extremist will tone down his rhetoric and limit himself to provable facts or sustainable opinions; 2) the reliable source should fact-check and only print those portions of the remarks that check out; and 3) the reliable source will also publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes a reliable source "reliable".
  
  For an example, look at this San Francisco Chronicle article, Scientology link to public schools, in which anti-Scientology "extremist" David Touretzky is referenced not an "expert" but as simply what he is, a computer science research professor that has a web site; a web site that, according to the SF Chronical, "includes some controversial material." This is my opinion but I see that "controversial" as a codeword for "biased", "not reliable", even "dubious". The SF Chronicle did not use Touretzky's attack site as a source. They were able to write quite a critical article without using these dubious personal sites as "sources". That is responsible publishing and the standard that we must maintain here.
  
  Self-published personal Scientology attack sites are under no constraints to 1) limit the rhetoric to provable fact or sustainable opinions; 2) do any fact-checking at all; or 3) publish opposing or countering opinions or statements. That is what makes such sites not reliable. They are self-published. They are polemic. They are biased. They are unreliable. We do not need them. --Justanother 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources

Please see WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns, particularly: WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself, which pertain to questions pertaining to reliable sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well). Thank you. --NYScholar 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

TV Squad

Is TV Squad reliable? It's called a weblog, but it seems to be run more like an online newspaper. The TV Squad page says

"Eventually a core group of bloggers for the site was realized, with several other WIN bloggers contributing on an irregular basis. TV Squad currently has approximately 17 regularly contributing bloggers. As with most other WIN blogs, TV Squad has editorial lead bloggers. These lead bloggers are responsible for activating posts, managing bloggers, assigning features and working with outside media contacts."

Peregrine Fisher 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No because a) they are self-published and the only self-published sources that qualify are from leading experts and b) we have no way of knowing that they check their facts. WP:V and WP:RS are actually quite clear on this - the disputes occur when people try to argue their way around the rules (or even worse claim that there aren't any actual rules to begin with). MartinDK 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They have an editor, and the "bloggers" are paid. Also, they do not allow any interaction between marketers and bloggers. Basically it's a newpaper, except it's online, and the reporters are called bloggers. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not buying it. The site specifically states that anything written is the opinion of the individual blogger and not the site it self. So I ask again: how do we know that they check their facts? MartinDK 06:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Google news recognizes them as a news source. - Peregrine Fisher 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They state that they don't control the opinions of their writers. I don't think newspapers are supposed to tell their reviewers what to say either. Do newspapers say a review is the opinion of the newspaper, or of the writer? I think it's the writer. As far as checking their facts, they have a supervising editor and and assistant editor. How do we know newspapers check their facts? It seems like we rely on the fact that they have an editorial staff. I don't frequent this page much, so maybe we have some good way of evaluating editorial staffs. That would be cool. Otherwise it seems like a paid editorial staff should be what we're looking for. TV Squad's parent company was started by Mark Cuban, and they're owned by AOL now, so it's serious business, not some fly by night website. - Peregrine Fisher 07:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go. A reliable source talking about it . That should help us decide. - Peregrine Fisher 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bose Corporation and the intellexual web page

This debate has been going on for over 2 years now and it has re-surfaced again. The debate is whether this article should be included in the Bose article or not. If you check the talk page not only do I believe that this article does not qualify because it is blatantly POV but it fails the tests of verifiability and being a reliable source (detailed listings of this are on the talk page). But this can be summed up by this comment:

the intellexual.net review is unsigned and is published on what appears to be an unknown individual's personal web site, its subject was a technologically unremarkable product which is long defunct and whose performance may bear little relation to that of its successors, and it discusses the product in a gleefully negative framework that is anything but neutral and unbiased and is thus of dubious value as an encyclopedic link Besides, if that stale and biased review is the most credible link that we skeptics can come up with, I'd say that's pretty sad. Rivertorch 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please can you help lay this issue to rest? -- UKPhoenix79 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is being used to support the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells deficient equipment. This occurs in a section which also contains the assertion that there exists a significant viewpoint that Bose sells high-end equipment. In order to accurately portray the dispute, we must represent both viewpoints. We have worked hard to ensure that the section issues no judgment on the quality of the equipment itself, but merely provides an exposition of the dispute.

Our last discussion uncovered numerous articles in traditional newspapers that referred to the article in question as an encapsulation of the viewpoint it represents; it has become something of a classic and makes use of laboratory-measured frequency response data from Sound and Vision, a reputable audio review publication.

To use this source to support an assertion over the equipment itself would be a grave mistake, but there is no one advocating that. We merely wish to represent all significant viewpoints, and this article is a touchstone for one of those viewpoints. —ptk✰fgs 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also support keeping this link in the article. While it's a personal site, the individual provides detailed rationale for his or her opinions. I would argue this intellexual.net review has more relevance and credibility than the non-specific assertion of "high-end" in Forbes Magazine (a magazine that depends on advertisers like Bose for its survival). Frankly, these days Bose products are not subjected to stringent critical review by vertical publications dedicated to audio and video. Bose doesn't compete in that market anymore. As an encyclopedia, we can let the reader draw their own conclusions about which sources they choose to embrace. Furthermore the quoted observation that the intellexual.net review deals with a discontinued product does not really matter. The article has many references other past events and products - why single this one out? Mattnad 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A self-published web site does not qualify as a reliable source, in my opinion. It makes it worse that the review has no author who is willing to take responsibility for it. Elsewhere on the web some people attribute these views to Richard Wang, who is the owner of the intellexual.net web site according to whois. The current Bose Corporation article includes plenty of criticism, and readers have their pick of many reliable sources for criticism, including the Wall Street Journal. The commenter who argued we have to 'represent both viewpoints' can only mean that we should reflect the diversity of opinions found in reliable sources. That doesn't give carte blanche for self-published sites. EdJohnston 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I have NEVER said that we shouldn't cite a credible source, actually I REALLY want to find one. But I have not been able to find any. This website CLAIMS to use Sound and Visions audio equipment for the testings but I could claim the same and say whatever I wanted to. I also agree that the "high-end" sources are problematic and even in the talk history said that this just doesn't make sense. But from what the discussions came down was that Bose is "high-end" consumer grade audio equipment which seamed to made sense to everyone involved.

Now I put this in the talk page but I thought that I'd post it here to help with the discussion.

If you check you would see that it does not meet the standards of Verifiability:

• third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
  • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
• If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.

This web page fails everything, it has NO reputation for fact checking, these claims have not been cited from other reliable 3rd party sources, This person is not an expert or has he been credited as being an expert in the audio field, and has no notable published works aside from this single page.

Nor does it pass reliability:

• Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand
• Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
• In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.
• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
• Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.

I don't think that I really need to list this one point by point but check out the last one. Yes this is extremely valid with this persons notable anti-bose and blatant POV throughout the web page.

No other reliable site can be found with these claims only forums and most link back to this article. Hence all the debating for over 2 years on this issue is focused on the reliability, verifiability, and POV of this particular website. according to the Official Guidelines of Misplaced Pages this website fails every test...

This is an encyclopedia and I just don't see how it can be used here... -- UKPhoenix79 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric, and anyone else who has not edited the Bose article, in your opinion should the many quotes in there from reliable sources /outside their areas of expertise/ be regarded as aceptable sources? In particular Bose's PR would appear to claim that they make 'high end audio' gear (whatever that means), and this is often quoted in reviews of Bose gear by non-audio mags. It seems to me that quoting Pop Sci, Forbes, or a PC magazine, on that subject is like quoting Sound & Vision on Bose's finacial standing - just quote picking.

As to the site in question, raised by our voluble friend, we are attempting to link to an objective test, a graph of frequency response. This is the only objective measurement of a Bose system we've found so far. Greglocock 22:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you checked the archived talk page I have said that I thought all the "High-end" references were dubious so please realize that I agree with that statement. The only reason I have not removed them myself was the case for them to stay was it was from well respected sites like Forbes Magazine, Edmunds Inside line, Popular Science, PC Magazine and C|Net. Now it is VERY noticeable that NONE are Audio magazines but regular Consumer magazines. So it was decided to keep because it was stated as being High-End consumer Audio products. Even though I think this makes sense it is still... well... odd. Though if you ask regular people on the streets if Bose is High-End audio I'd say 9 out of 10 times you will hear a resounding yes.

Going to the second point Anybody can make a graph of anything out there and claim that they are using this or that to test on this or that product. It is actually very easy to mess with numbers & tests to make them come out whatever way you want. When it comes down to it this is a personal website stating questionable results in a anything but an objective manor (yes I do mean that in both senses). The fact that this is the only website on the net that claims such tings should tell you something also, and its not that Bose will sue them, because I'm sure that after +5 years of this site being on the net the would have done that by now if they wanted to.

I just don't see how this site will ever pass verifiability or ever be considered a reliable source. -- UKPhoenix79 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are my points logical? Any other comments? -- UKPhoenix79 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Summing up. UKPhoenix79 and EdJohnston oppose the link to intellexual.net. Mattnad, ptkfgs and Greglocock are in favor of keeping it. There was also some discussion of high-end versus low-end that I may not have fully understood. This thread might have got more participation if previous comments weren't quite so verbose. (It's better to link to policy than quote it verbatim in mass quantities). Greglocock addressed Eric but I don't know who Eric is, or what his position was. I seem to be the only person who hasn't edited the Bose article to enter a comment here at RS/N.

I don't actually see how the other editors' thinking can fit with WP:RS, which provides that self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. That implies that however much we might want to have intellexual.net's results, we arent allowed to use them. But we don't have to continue this discussion if there isn't a demand for it. EdJohnston 05:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I meant you, not "Eric". Greglocock 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the mass word for word extractions of Wikipedias policies. I have found that after 2 years debating this and other topics that people don't always read the links posted stating policies. So I generally bring them into the discussion by posting them as stated. -- UKPhoenix79 06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, but it's more a symptom than the problem. Its inclusion will no longer be an issue when the article achieves a more neutral tone. I mean, I like my ancient 301s, but I don't think they are contributing to world peace. Flowanda | Talk 22:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dkosopedia

Dkosopedia is in about two dozen articles where it should not be.

The site flunks WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "13. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" and "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." THF 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is so subjective as to be meaningless. Given that it's linked on every page of DailyKos suggests it has a lot of editors. As for providing information beyond what a FA would have, I looked at a few, and they might fit the bill, with staff listings and phone numbers, etc. FA status doesn't seem to guarantee uniform comprehensiveness. ←Ben 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

An FDA document, obtained from FBI files: Does its use violate "reliable source" and "verifiability" policies?

This is a dispute I wish could be resolved one way or another soon. It might be my misunderstanding, but we need external input with convincing arguments. The case is currently an open RfC, but I wish this was settled soon. It's about a Food and Drug Administration document, found in the FBI files, now available from this FBI web page (it can be ordered, or consulted at the FBI headquarters). Also available for a few dollars at the paperlessarchives.com. That FDA document contains a note that a specific product can be used for iron-deficiency. There is no mention that it can be used for anything else. The FDA statement from that letter was used in an article as follow: "The tablets had in fact only been approved as a supplement to counteract iron-deficiency anemia.". If you want to comment on this issue, I rather you do it at the RfC of the talk page of the article in which the dispute is ongoing, this will save me to have to notify all the person involved to have their say here. Thank you. Raymond Hill 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Please look at the referenced RfC for comments by both involved and uninvolved editors. Short story short, FOIA is NOT published. It is AVAILABLE. Not published. In the specific instance, the desired edit was not "sourced material". It was WP:OR based on an unpublished primary source (granting that the letter is legit). Big difference. But more important, the cited source of the letter (xenu.com) is not RS so we cannot use the letter. RS is published material, not FOIA material, or interviews you go and do, or pictures that you take, etc. I quote WP:RS: "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources." Emphasis as original. Or as WP:V puts it, I quote: "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source." That specific letter has not been published in a reliable source. Nor has reference to that specific letter been made in a reliable published source. For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, that letter does not exist. Personally, I could care less and the letter adds little to what we already have from reliable sources. My concern is OR and poor sourcing, that is worth addressing here. --Justanother 22:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Raymond Hill, but I don't want to weigh in on the actual dispute, so I won't be posting there. I will point out why the FOIA source seems valid to me. They are primary sources, and here is what some policies and guidelines say about them:

WP:OR says: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source...Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.... and most importantly Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.

WP:RS: The FBI is a RS, is someone saying they aren't?

WP:V: The FBI is a Verifiable source too since copies can be ordered from them. (There is almost no difference between asking someone to order docs from a gov't office and trying to get a book ordered that a local library doesn't have.)

Anynobody 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AN, you make my case for me. Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources. The primary source is an FDA letter. Supposedly, that letter is in the FBI's file on Hubbard and one can obtain it by ordering it from the government. But it is not PUBLISHED. Not by the FDA, not by the FBI, not by anyone. I can order a pastrami sandwich from my local deli but that doesn't make the pastrami sandwich "published". You order PUBLISHED books from your local library - you order UNPUBLISHED material by FOIA. Big difference. --Justanother 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Justanother maybe the problem is a difference in definition of what it means to "publish" something.

Publish

To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.

Ordering FOIA information is public distribution. Because the same info is available to anyone who wants it, it can be verified. The definition you seem to be insisting on is info from private publishers only, which seems unnecessarily limited since a reference like this currently used in the article about the Virginia class submarine would be invalid by your argument. After all the gov't didn't publish this like a regular book. Anynobody 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com

For example, , this is cited extensively in Rogerian argument. I noticed this site yesterday when an anon added links to several pages. We have 300+ links from articles. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as any other web hosting site: the content should be considered self-published, and used as a source only if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, I think. A relevant quote: "Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic for distribution." —David Eppstein 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've stated on Tom Harrison's talk page, I feel that this site differs from other web hosting sites...in that it has served to be truthful as many times that I have looked over it, meaning that I have not personally seen any inaccuracies with it...yet, and so there must be some sort of condition that they have in making sure who types there is typing the real deal. I feel that Misplaced Pages would be losing a great source of references in discouraging (or eliminating, for that matter) the use of this site as an independent reliable source. I really have not seen any objection on Misplaced Pages to the use of this site as an independent reliable source until now. Flyer22 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd treat it the same as links to another wiki. They're self-published, so I would not use it as the sole citation for a fact in an article. I'd avoid using it in BLP's. On the other hand, if the link is in an "External Links" section and the AC article simply happens to be a good, useful article, I'd keep it. I'm against removing links to AC simply on principle. Squidfryerchef 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyer22, we aren't supposed to even use other Misplaced Pages articles as a source. We may refer readers to other articles of related content for related info, but since an article can change at any moment they are not appropriate for an actual reference. This site has the same problem, as David Eppstein pointed out:(emphasis mine) Associated Content is an online publishing showcase where everyone -- from experts and enthusiasts to amateurs and professionals - can become a Content Producer and submit original material on virtually any topic... Essentially it's describing Misplaced Pages. Anynobody 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that we are not supposed to use other Misplaced Pages articles as a source on Misplaced Pages, of course, but I don't see associatedcontent.com as truly the same as Misplaced Pages. For one thing, there is no worry of vandalism to their articles or other editors inaccurately adding things to their already published articles. And as David Eppstein also pointed out, associatedcontent.com can be used as a source if we have some reason to believe that the author is a recognized expert on its subject, except David Eppstein stated only. For me, I feel that it can go beyond that. What also separates it from Misplaced Pages is even if a Wikipedian has expertise in a certain field, that still does not stop Wikipedians from not being able to use Misplaced Pages as a source on Misplaced Pages. Associated Content has actually been used a source in some good articles on Misplaced Pages, and from what I've seen of it so far, I cannot change my mind on the subject of its use. I still feel that it should and can be used as a reliable source quite often here at Misplaced Pages. Flyer22 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't given any reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT from treating it any differently than any other self-published source. —David Eppstein 16:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have given other reasons besides WP:ILIKEIT. I don't even frequent there often, not out of personal interest, I mean, though I often and only see their articles accurately written (so far, that is). Frankly, I don't have a lot more to state on this subject. I feel that it's a waste to disregard that site, and I'm not up for stating the same thing over and over again on this matter, in different variations. Flyer22 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestory.com and USsearch?

Recently an editor has added information to an article (Jaclyn Reding) that I'd previously deleted due to the fact that I couldn't find any reliable sources. The information in question being her supposed maiden name. When asking him where he'd gotten the sources and if he could put them in the article he was slightly rude and claimed that he used Ancestry.com to find her parents through a deceased brother and ussearch.com to connect her to her husband. I am wondering what are the reliabilities of these sources? The author is vague on her own website not stating where she was born, what her husband's name is, or if she has any family at all. I hate to get into a conflict with an editor in the first place, but I'm concerned that this borders on original research. I don't want to remove the information without merit because that could escalate this situation into an edit war, which I'd like to avoid so if anybody could shed some light on these two places I'd appreciate it. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestory.com is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content. USSearch cannot be used either, as it would violate WP:NOR. If that information is not available in a secondary published source, we should not put it in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All right that makes sense. Thanks a lot! --ImmortalGoddezz 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of United States Presidential religious affiliations

Repeated insertion of the claim that George Washington was a Deist... without any source or reference to back the claim up. Also repeated deletion of Thomas Jefferson from the list of Episcopalians even though there is a source for this. Other material boarders on WP:SYNT and OR. This article needs serious help from neutral editors. Blueboar 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Institution website as reliable resources?

Are institutions websites (Colleges, Universities, etc.) reliable sources to use for referencing articles. Like for example the Technological Institute of Piraeus? Link to the site: and link to the information: Can they be used in a wikipedia article as a reference or are they inadequate? 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To give you a clear answer we would need more information. It depends on what why the websites are being cited ... They are certainly reliable for information regarding the college, university or organization - its courses, facutly, official policies, and stances on issues, etc. They might or might not be reliable as cites for other kinds of information, depending the specifics. Blueboar 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One of these links is for a thesis. If the thesis was published, it can be used as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites archaeological evidence

Can someone please comment on the Archaeology section in the Ebionites article and the source document, Buried Angels, that supports that section. The source document claims to report on archaeological research published in an Italian journal in the chapter on Archaeology. I have concerns that Jacob Rabinowitz is more of an armchair commentator than a biblical scholar, since the "book" is self-published on the Web. I would like to get the broader perspective of editors that have not been working on the article.

1. Is Jacob Rabinowitz for real as a scholar or is he simply recycling the research of scholars?

2. Is the source sufficiently well researched that it supports what is claimed in the article?

3. Even if Rabinowitz is not a real scholar, is the reporting of research that is otherwise only available in Italian a valuable resource for the article?

4. There is no other published archaeological evidence claiming to support the existence of the Ebionites. Is this "fringe research"? Is Rabinowitz making "fringe claims" based on the research of others?

Thanks for looking into this. Ovadyah 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanity press, not reliable. ←Ben 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a vanity press (sells teeshirts more than books)... Possibly reliable if directly attributed to Mr. Rabinowitz... but that depends on whether he is considered an expert on the subject or not. Blueboar 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of the questions we need to resolve. Is he an expert or not. Ovadyah 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rabinowitz is the owner of Invisible Books online publishing company, so this work is self-published. Ovadyah 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been able to determine that Rabinowitz has a Ph.D. from Brown University and is listed as an independent scholar. Here is a list of his prior publications: publications

Jacob Rabinowitz (Rabinowitz, Jacob) Catullus's Complete Poetic Works by Jacob Rabinowitz and Gaius Valerius Catullus Softcover, ISBN 0882142208 (0-88214-220-8) The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, Continuum Intl Pub Group, ISBN 0882141171 (0-88214-117-1) Jewish Law: Its Influence on the Development of Legal Institutions by Jacob Rabinowitz Hardcover, Bloch Pub Co, ISBN 0819701734 (0-8197-0173-4) Rotting Goddess: The Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, A K Pr Distribution, ISBN 157027035X (1-57027-035-X) The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Early Kingdom Period by Jacob Rabinowitz Softcover, ISBN 1570270155 (1-57027-015-5)

He is described in several websites as a practicing neo-pagan. One website has examples of his original poetry:

Here are some poems by Jacob Rabinowitz, another Neo-Canaanite. I thought they were so powerful that i asked his permission to have them here.

Jake is the author of several interesting books including: The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology As Hebrew Theology, The Unholy Bible: Hebrew Literature of the Kingdom Period, and his great book on Hecate, The Rotting Goddess: the Origin of the Witch in Classical Antiquity The last two are published by Autonomedia.

Canaanite Poems by Jacob Rabinowitz

Does anyone have more opinions on his scholarship and the online book Buried Angels? Ovadyah 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Domenic 'Mick' Gatto

In your biography on Mick Gatto, it says he died on 17th August, 2007.

This is absolutely incorrect. I know for a fact he is still alive today. In fact, an associate of mine is having lunch with him today.

So can the information on him be fixed please.

This wasn`t the right spot to report this, but it seems you are quite correct that erroneous info was added to the Mick Gatto article. I have removed it.--Slp1 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative newspapers

I've used these as sources a lot. My guess is that Misplaced Pages doesn't actually consider them reliable sources, though. Correct?--P4k 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're writing about music, so that's probably going to be where many of those articles are published. The good alternatives are going to meet the RS standards -- independent editorial oversight, good history of fact checking, knowledgeable writers, etc. Another good sign to me would be being part of an association that requires certain editorial standards for membership. I looked up the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies and here's a discussion of the 10 newspapers that applied for membership (only four made it): http://aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewArticle?oid=oid%3A166087 . I've cited Creative Loafing before and felt comfortable it was a reliable source. Are you concerned that citing these pubs would weaken an article's chance of surviving an Afd or the edits would end up being challenged or removed? I noticed you cited the living daylights out of your Cosmic Disco article, and it barely survived Afd. To me, the alt sources were the strongest part; all the citations and a seemingly trivial mention in a Guardian travel article just made it look *way* too eager. I don't mean to offend you, just help -- I got the article's notability, but I think it got buried. Flowanda | Talk 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that worried about AfDs, I'm just wondering whether there's any point in using alt-weeklies as sources, or if it's just another way of mimicking an encyclopedia format for subjects that don't actually meet Misplaced Pages's rarely-enforced standards. I mean the canonical response in an AfD to "that's probably going to be where many of those articles are published" would be "if the subject isn't covered in reliable sources, it shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages." Also I don't want to be introducing or perpetuating false information, which is a real possibility since I often work on subjects that I don't really know anything about. Thanks for that link, I guess it's good to see that most of the papers I've been using are members of that association. As far as cosmic disco goes, I certainly know how borderline that article is. I never would have created it myself, I just tried to save it from unjust speedy deletion and improve it as much as I could. In general I tend to cite whatever I possibly can for a couple of reasons, although it's true that making things look notable is one of them.--P4k 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway thanks for the thoughtful response.--P4k 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of Witold Lawrynowicz as a reference

As illustrated by this diff , User:Piotrus thinks that the chemist Witold Lawrynowicz (bio at ), is a reliable source for a statement phrased as a fact. At issue is the Lithuanian motivation for not joining forces with the Poles during the Polish-Soviet War (a featured article). Lawrynowicz's assertion is not trivial. Novickas 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement phrased as a fact? Lawrynowicz writes "Lithuania joined the Soviet side in the war against Poland. This decision was dictated by the desire to incorporate Vilno into Lithuania and fear of the Red Army standing on Lithuanian borders", and this is what our article states (Lithuania's decision to not join forces with the Poles was dictated by a desire to incorporate the city of Wilno (in Lithuanian, Vilnius) and nearby areas into Lithuania and, to a lesser extent, Soviet diplomatic pressure, backed by the threat of the Red Army stationed on Lithuania's borders). As for his reliablity, while his professional degrees are in chemistry, he has been quite active in the area of history: prepared a series of lectures on "Armored Forces in the War of 1939", " Armored Units of Polish Armed Forces in the West" and "Polish Armored Forces before 1939". Participated in the organization of two historical exhibitions ... Worked on exhibition preparation, commentaries to the documentary films and descriptions for the exhibits and photographs ... prepared and presented series of lectures for the Polish National Alliance in Canada on the most important issues in the history of Poland... He has written numerous articles (101) printed in Poland, Great Britain, Canada and the USA discussing Polish and European history... A member of the editorial board of "Hetman," a historical magazine issued by the Polish Militaria Collectors Association in New York. He has published articles, edited and translated, and also lectured on military history for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association in New York... as well as in other periodicals. The site cited above contains the list of about 150 articles and 1 book, on subjects of history. I think his reliability is pretty high.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sidney Blumenthal in Salon

Sidney Blumenthal wrote what certainly appears to be a fact piece in Salon.com. An editor called it an opinion piece and removed it. Is it reliable? ←Ben 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is an opinion piece that is based on fact. Since Blumenthal is a noted journalist who specializes in politics, and Salon.com is a notable e-magazine, it certainly fits as a reliable source... but I would phrase any statements based on the piece with direct attribution, as in: "According to journalist Sidney Blumenthal..." Blueboar 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. An opinion cannot be asserted as fact, and needs to be attributed to the person that forwards it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Gush Shalom

The following article is being used to reference an quote in the Battle of Jenin article to present "evidence" of an Israeli war crime, could I get some input on whether this source meets RS: . The wikipedia article seems to make me think that it wouldn't due to the WP:REDFLAG that the statement it is presenting causes. Kyaa the Catlord 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Of particular note, the Gush Shalom article here notes that it is an activist group with a clear agenda against the Israeli "efforts" in Palestine. Kyaa the Catlord 07:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Daily Telegraph linking to the document, describing it as an "eyewitness account". Here is Human Rights Watch citing the article and noting that a Gush Shalom translation is available, effectively vouching for it. Here is Teddy Katz referring to the article in a UN document. Here is the actual journalist discussing the article on a nationally syndicated American radio show - or perhaps they hired a voice actor? Can't trust those left-wingers!

Really, now, I previously brought to this noticeboard some alleged quotations that only showed up once on Google and was shot down for it. We are currently using one quote on the basis that a single editor says he called the news agency and verified that yes, an article with that title was published on that day (but he doesn't know what it said.) Now you're telling me that this extremely well-corroborated piece isn't good enough? I think the operating principle here is not WP:REDFLAG but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Eleland 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your ability to AGF startles my mind. I'd like to point out that I did not remove PR's inclusion of this material, I just asked for an uninvolved opinion on it. End transmission. Kyaa the Catlord 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not remove it, certainly. You asked around if there were grounds for removal. I.e. you were minded to remove it, if there was backing for your intention. Your second post talks about an 'activist group' with a clear agenda. Nearly all established RS sources on Israeli-Palestine issues are 'activist' in the sense that they publish articles for and against Israel's policies on the West Bank and Gaza. Eleland is correct. Uri Avnery has been in Palestine/Israel since 1933, fought in the 48 war, was elected to the Knesset, can be said to be an insider intimately knowledgeable about Israel's politics and policies and his organization has not, to my knowledge, a reputation for falsifying documents. Samuel Katz's opinions are cited as evidence, correctly, for certain establishmentarian views on the Palestinian territories. I edit them, knowing them to be completely erroneous in substance, but do not erase them. Nor should Avnery's Gush Shalom perspectives be hustled off for having an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Look at the claim. A drunken, destitute former Israeli conscript claims that he drove drunk a piece of heavy machinery he did not know how to operate in an effort to lay waste to as many Palestinians as possible. This is simply linked to by reputable press agencies, not directly quoted, not swarmed by Christianne Ampour or any of the pro-Palestinian media. This exceptional claim does not have the sort of media coverage required by WP:REDLINK to meet the standards. Yes, I'd like to see it gone from the article, but rather than merely removing it myself, I came to the proper place to have sources checked against our RS standards. And I get gruff for it. Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This would be better addressed by posting a Request for comment, as it is clearly a content dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is a translation of a piece of reportage published in Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most widely circulated tabloid paper. Yediot Aharonot articles are cited all over Misplaced Pages. No one questions the reliability of it as a source. It fits all Wiki criteria. You take exception to the 'exceptional' claims made by the driver,i.e. you dispute the content. But the claims made don't have to be true, the source that prints them however has to be reliable. The only valid objection you might raise relates to possible errors in Gush Shalom's translation. I very much doubt that in a long article of that kind, you are going to encounter a systematic linguistic distortion of the claims made by the bulldozer driver. The source is Yediot Aharonot, not Gush Shalom.Nishidani 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TV Squad as a reliable source

I asked this question above and didn't get much of a response. I have researched it some more and I believe TV Squad is a reliable source for television information, but they use the word blog so I'd like help making a determination. They're a part of Weblogs, Inc., like Engadget. This National Business Review article says about Engadget "If that sounds like a magazine, it should. Although it looks like a blog and acts like a blog, Engadget is a webzine (web-based magazine) dressed up like a blog." It says of Weblogs, Inc., "the content areas are covered by people who treat content production as a job." Also, that "An expert writes alone or in conjunction with others about a "hot" topic (gadgets, say), links to outside material and solicits feedback from the readership." They describe the system as "artificially-viral" and as a "blog-like, content-specific, web-only publication." TV Squad is indexed by google news. According to the Weblogs, Inc. site, they're "bloggers" are paid, they have a team of editors, and have a clear separation between advertising and editors. Their also part of AOL now. Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

QuackWatch

Is Quackwatch considered a Reliable Source?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering whether the Russell Blaylock article should mention that the three publications mentioned in the article as being associated with Dr. Blaylock are all listed as "unreliable" by QuackWatch. See discussion on the Talk page. NCdave 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Variety on Dragon Ball Z

An editor is contesting Variety, a trade paper for the Hollywood industry, as a reliable source at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z (film). While I am not arguing for the article to be kept, the editor does not believe that the information at the Variety article (seen here) is credible. Variety has been a completely acceptable resource per reliable source criteria, and I am having difficulty explaining to the editor that this is the case. His reason is that if it does not come directly from the studio, it does not count. I am completely positive that Variety is acceptable and have incorporated its information at Dragon Ball Z#Live-action film adaptation, but I'd like independent opinions to show the editor that Variety is acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet external sources are not everything, every media can have its weakness, and in the context of the Dragon ball movie there has been so many bogus reports, that just a website is not enough. Fox has never confirmed the Variety report, and considerig the mass of fake reports about the DB movie, there is not enough reliability in it. Folken de Fanel 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Folken's comment, Variety is not "just a website". It is a trade paper, and the article in question has been published offline. Certainly, there have been bogus reports about details of the Dragon Ball Z film (see such reports here), but there is no reason to doubt the credibility of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Folken has not made a case to dispute the two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I never disputed the Hollywood Reporter, which contains actual quotes from Fox employees. Which is not the case in the Variety article, which is, in absence of any concrete element, not a reliable source.Folken de Fanel 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can an independent editor weigh in on the validity of Variety as a source of verifiable coverage about this project? By all counts, Variety is a published, third-party source, and its mention of the project ought to qualify. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Variety is about as solid a source as you can get for potential new movies. I think though, this is a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't. Movies get announced, cancelled, reborn, etc all the time in Hollywood. I'm still waiting for the ADV live action Evangelion.... Kyaa the Catlord 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

references used in Religious conversion and terrorism

Religious conversion and terrorism was an article that was deleted after an {{afd}} a few months ago.

I am considering initiating a full deletion review, because I thought the {{afd}} procedures followed did not conform to policy. I'll try to talk about the procedural flaws as little as possible here.

I asked for temporary content review and userification. The major complaint of the wikipedian who nominated the article was that the article was unreferenced. But they made this nomination after deleting all the references, and I thought at least some of those references were perfectly valid. And, after the nomination, they kept removing good-faith attempts to introduce new, valid references.

The first reference the artle referenced was published in the in 2004, entitled: "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". A link to the online version of this article was provided when the article was first written. It seems to have expired, or otherwise gone 404 by March of 2007.

Here is my first question. If a reference cites the publication, the date, the page number, the title, and the byline, then does it remains just as valid a reference as when it was available online? Surely the article is just as authoritative when it is taken down from the newspaper's web-site? With the date, page number, title, etc, doesn't it remain verifiable? In this particular case we have the publication, title, date, but we don't have the page number. Is that all that is lacking to continue to use that reference?

There is another site that seems to have a copy of that article. If the site with the mirror has some kind of claim that the original copyright holder has given them permission to republish the material, it remains a valid reference? Correct? If so, which publication should one list as the publisher? New Yokr Times articles often remain freely available to non-subscribers only for about two weeks. But the New York Times bought the International Herald Tribune a few years ago. So, when we reference the copy of a New York Times article republished by the International Herald Tribune, do we list the NYT or the IHT as the publisher?

How much trust should we extended to republishers, that they formally acquired permission to republish material that has expired from the original publisher's web-site? The Toronto Star article I referred to is mirrored, in full, on the following sites:

• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". Rotten Tomatoes.
• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". Canadian Coalition for Democracies.

The two sites mirror the first couple of hundred words.

• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". altermedia.info.
• "He embraced Islam, then terrorism". SITE Institute.

Presumably the last two didn't get permission, and think the first hundred words qualifies as "fair use"? The SITE quote actually contains enough material to substantiate that Dhiren Barot was accused of being a terrorist. But policy proscribes using it as a source, correct?

Thanks! Geo Swan 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards