Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 28 March 2011

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462, 463, 464

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

Coconut oil

I added these two sources to the article:

• Norton, D.; Angerman, S.; Istfan, N.; Lopes, S.M.; Babayan, V.K.; Putz, M.C.; Steen, S.N.; Blackburn, G.L. (2004). Comparative Study of Coconut Oil, Soybean Oil, and Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies 29 (1–2): 76–89.
• Kabara, Jon J. (1978). The Pharmacological Effect of Lipids. Champaign IL: American Oil Chemist's Society. pp. 1-95. ISBN 9991817697.

and they were removed. I do not see why they cannot stay. The Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies is a journal that turns up in the UN FAO's AGRIS International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology Database. The second is an expert writing a book for a professional level audience. Are they improper? Also in general I must ask is it proper to remove sources? Isn't that vandalism? Even a source that isn't of the most preferred kind imparts information. Removing sources unless they are terribly shoddy ones would seem to be inferior practice in comparison to supplying more sources representing the other side (if there is another side—something that is proved by supplying sources). Lambanog (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussed on the article talk page here and here. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The first study appears to be a primary study, which should be avoided per WP:MEDRS for sourcing health claims. I also note that the journal does not appear to be indexed in MEDLINE, which is a red flag when discussing biomedical journals.

The second is over 30 years old and would be only useful for medical information from a historical perspective (i.e. what was thought mainstream in 1978) - it would be inappropriate to be used for medical claims now (see again WP:MEDRS).

Removal of inappropriate sources and information from inappropriate sources is certainly not vandalism, it is an integral part of building a respectable encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog, Ronz, please accept my apology for being slow to expound in Talk. Lambanog, if you had bothered to look at the history, you would have seen that there was a reason given (although brief) for each removal. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Kabara, I noted "Remove statement not supported by the claimed reference." Perhaps I should have left the footnote alone as its own paragraph? Apart from the extremely novel claim in the removed statement that atherosclerotic plaques are caused by infection (microorganisms), a search of the book did not disclose any use of the term "atherosclerotic plaque." I did not look at the referenced page because you referenced pages 1-95 of a 199 page book. It appeared to me that the reference (and the statement it was alleged to support) were nothing more than vandalism. However, rather than drop a "V-bomb" in my summary, I gave a very brief reason. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

After removing the suggestion that only pp. 1-95 should be read, I have now restored the Kabara reference and moved it to "Further reading." — Jay L09 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Norton & al., I noted "Remove statement supported by advertising circular claiming to be a scientific journal." Ronz has already provided a link to my discussion in Talk of why I consider Norton & al. to be an "advertising circular claiming to be a scientific journal." Again, I apologize for taking so long to add the expanded discussion to Talk. In any case, the summary of Norton & al. and the reference appeared to me, after careful examination, to be nothing more nor less than vandalism. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a citation of a scientific paper. I do not see how adding it could be construed as vandalism—unlike its removal. I am troubled with the seeing ease with which editors remove sources which appear to me to be valid pointing vaguely at WP:MEDRS. In any event I have provided an update. Aside from the sources already in the article could you please give an example of three high quality sources about coconut oil that are in your view acceptable, so that I can have an idea of what will go unobstructed? For example would you oppose the other Kabara source that I have provided under Further reading if I was to use it in the article? Lambanog (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am troubled with the seeming ease with which editors characterize specific observations of why an alleged scientific paper seems to be a hoax and of low quality as "pointing vaguely at WP:MEDRS." — Jay L09 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Norton 2004 is pretty preliminary, as was noted on the talk page. They mention that they'll do a final paper - better to look for that. It should be noted, however, that I think it should be cited when that final paper is found. I am not aware of any other RCTs on coconut oil, and Misplaced Pages would not be satisfying the level of detail that its readers expect if it did not mention the only RCT that has been done. It shouldn't be cited in therapeutic or disease articles, obviously, but a different standard exists when we're talking about the page of substance. As far as Kabara, I don't see why it was removed. People who actually read medical literature know that sources from 1978 are cited often, and scientists do not often repeat the basic research establishing certain findings. There's no evidence that it is incorrect. II | (t - c) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, do not believe that Kabara even mentions the claim that any component of coconut oil kills microorganisms that cause atherosclerotic plaques. I would certainly remove my objection if a clear, short quote from Kabara (together with the page number), were included, which quote made it clear that Kabara was talking about coconut oil preventing atherosclerosis. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, the reliability of a source is dependent on what facts it is supposed to be sourcing. The sentence that it is being used as a source for states matter-of-factly that microorganisms cause atherosclerotic plaques - this of course, is not widely accepted in the medical community (although there has been interesting but inconclusive research into Chlamydia pneumoniae as a possible factor in atherosclerosis). As someone who reads the medical literature on a regular basis, I know that citing a 1978 book for controversial (and largely incorrect) statements probably isn't the best idea. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, yeah, I didn't read the diff carefully. There are two claims: medium-chain fatty acids have some antimicrobial properties, and microbes cause heart disease. I was talking about the former - the antimicrobial thing is something that I've heard a few times and is easy to study scientifically. I don't know much about it or whether there's evidence that it is antimicrobial in vivo or anything. The latter statement about microbes and heart disease, I agree, is dubious. Certainly the source can't be used without a specific page number. II | (t - c) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Norton is, aside from it's other flaws, a primary source and shouldn't be used for any medical claims. Kabara is from 1978. That's 31 years old. If this information has merit, surely it has been extended and reported in more recent sources? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem a good idea to have a higher standard for sourcing when it comes to medical claims and to heed WP:MEDRS. Primary sources aren't completely disallowed under the guideline, though. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some new questions then in light of some of the statements made here. Would this source be acceptable?

• Kabara, Jon J. (2008). Fats Are Good for You and Other Secrets – How Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Actually Benefit the Body. North Atlantic Books. ISBN 1556436904.

Also would it be okay to start a new section about coconut oil/tropical oil controversy using the following as a source?

• McNamara, Donald J. (2010). Palm Oil and Health: A Case of Manipulated Perception and Misuse of Science Journal of the American College of Nutrition 29 (3) Supplement 1: 240S-244S

Lambanog (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

McNamara appears to me to be a good source (no, I have not yet read the entire article, so I could be mistaken) for a completely new Misplaced Pages article. But it should be joined with at least two other good sources reaching the same conclusions. — Jay L09 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yobol and WLU are removing the following source for no valid that I can understand except that it is old. But then it is also argued on the talk page there aren't many sources on the topic. I think it inappropriate to remove the source as removing it serves no purpose. It supports a statement by The New York Times on a non-medical claim although even alone on a medical claim it cannot be just removed.

• Kintanar, Quintin L. (1988). Is coconut oil hypercholesterolemic and atherogenic? A focused review of the literature. Transactions of the National Academy of Science and Technology (Phil.) 10: 371–414.

Yobol and WLU also prefer the statement

Due to its high content of lauric acid, coconut oil significantly raises blood cholesterol primarily through its impact on high-density lipoprotein ("good" cholesterol), though the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known.

Which does not address what the exact "impact" on HDL cholesterol really is. Is it a favorable or unfavorable impact? Is HDL lowered or raised? Is the total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio improved or not? The wording is needlessly vague on a critical point. In my preferred version that uses a direct quote from the meta-analysis source shows what the impact on HDL-C is:

It has been found that while lauric acid the primary fatty acid found in coconut oil raises total cholesterol—the most of all fatty acids—most of the increase is attributable to an increase in HDL "good" cholesterol. As a result, lauric acid has "a more favorable effect on total:HDL cholesterol than any other fatty acid, either saturated or unsaturated".

For easier evaluation the source is Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials.

Diff

Opinion on the appropriateness of the changes is sought. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A source should not be removed just because it's old. WP:MEDRS says this in regard to the recommendation that articles rely on recent research reviews: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Those removing this source must show that it's been superseded by more recent research, and by reviews of that more recent research. If this meta-analysis hasn't been superseded, it can be used, and I would think that you would be able to quote from it. Regarding the book by Kabara, it could possibly be classified as popular media, and not allowable under MEDRS. I'd say it depends on whether it's evidence-based — that is, whether all of his assertions are backed up by published peer-reviewed studies. including citations to those studies. Regarding the article by McNamara, primary sources aren't completely disallowed under MEDRS. Secondary sources are better, but primary sources can be used, as long as they're not cherry picked to make a point and as long as they aren't obviously superseded by more recent research and research reviews. But an article should mainly be based on secondary sources. The impact factor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition is good: 2.36. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Note that if the article by McNamara is used, you'd need to attribute to him and include his affiliation with the egg industry. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mensin, the AJCN article linked above, also states that "Total:HDL cholesterol is more sensitive and specific than is total cholesterol as a risk predictor (8–10), but the favorable effects on this ratio by such factors as coconut fat, which is rich in lauric acid, do not exclude the possibility that coconut fat may promote CAD through other pathways, known or as yet unknown." Hence the far more equivocal statement. This is a discussion that should occur on the coconut oil talk page, where it is pretty clear that most editors do not think it is a good idea to present coconut oil as recognized as a healthy fat, or to portray it as unjustifiably maligned.

Though McNamara would probably be OK as a source (it appears to be a review article) the abstract seems to focus on palm oil. I'd like to see a full text. I'm concerned that the page is being used to promote coconut oil as a healthy fat when the scientific consensus doesn't clearly support this. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the above equivocation was deemed necessary as inelegant as it is, but there is absolutely no reason to remove the explicit findings on the TC/HDL-C ratio while still retaining the wording indicating lauric acid raises total cholesterol. Total cholesterol is an inferior risk indicator to the TC/HDL-C ratio; to be clear on the lower quality indicator but vague on the higher quality indicator is simply misleading. I'm concerned the latest information is being blocked for unfounded reasons. I do not object to presentation of evidence regarding coconut oil whether favorable or unfavorable—indeed I was the one to include the reference to the stand of the FDA—but it is incumbent on those who disagree with the indications of the presented evidence to provide evidence of similar or higher quality to support their views. Currently those who are disagreeing with me are resorting to the removal of valid sources or downplaying the significance of the results by obscuring key findings. I myself would be interested in finding the strongest opposing views based on science but in my own attempts to get to the bottom of the FDA's spiel on saturated fats I could not find anything that looked solid in light of the latest evidence. Lambanog (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the RSN though, it's meant to only discuss whether specific sources are reliable. Discussions on how reliable sources should be integrated and summarized should take place on the talk page of the specific article. It's too confusing to track this across multiple pages and the RSN commentors may not be interested in specifics of how the sources are summarized. You may want dispute resolution if you feel the talk page isn't addressing your points, but this kind of thing should really be brougth up at talk:coconut oil. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution includes noticeboards like this one as an appropriate venue to resolve disputes but I have discussed and will continue to discuss on the talk page as well. Lambanog (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Meta-analyses removals

The inclusion of these two meta-analyses is being disputed and they are being removed for unclear reasons Diff of short version removal Diff of more detailed version removal:

• Siri-Tarino, Patty W., Qi Sun, Frank B. Hu, and Ronald M. Krauss. (2010). Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 91 (3): 535-546. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725.
• Mente A, de Koning L, Shannon HS, Anand SS (2009). "A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease". Arch. Intern. Med. 169 (7): 659–69. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.38. PMID 19364995. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Free full-text

I would like to include them especially given the parade of health organizations put forth opposing basing their recommendation on the research on saturated fat. My own look suggests the data is rather ambiguous and comparison of the meta-analyses behind the guideline statements is required for a good understanding of all pertinent facts. Lambanog (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is disputing these two articles are RS, so this is the wrong noticeboard for this. Yobol (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

They were removed nonetheless as seen in the above diffs I've now included and it was unclear if you considered them reliable sources or not. I take it from your comment that you will not remove them if I use them in the article again? Lambanog (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, see the extensive discussion on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Then my request here for opinions from others remains. Lambanog (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading removals

I'm sorry for coming here yet again to make another request for an opinion but the following have all been removed from the further reading section and is an indication to what I have been facing in trying to add sources: Diff.

• Hegde, B.M. (2006).View Point: Coconut Oil – Ideal Fat next only to Mother's Milk (Scanning Coconut's Horoscope). JIACM 7: 16-19.
• Kabara, Jon J. (2008). Fats Are Good for You and Other Secrets – How Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Actually Benefit the Body. North Atlantic Books. ISBN 1556436904.
• Applewhite, Thomas H. (Ed.). (1994). Proceedings of the World Conference on Lauric Oils – Sources, Processing, and Applications. The American Oil Chemists Society. ISBN 093531556X.
• Leonard, Edward C., Edward G. Perkins, and Arno Cahn. (Eds.). (1999). Proceedings of the World Conference on Palm and Coconut Oils for the 21st Century – Sources, Processing, Applications, and Competition. The American Oil Chemists Society. ISBN 0935315993.
• Nevin, K. G. and T. Rajamohan. (September 2004). Beneficial effects of virgin coconut oil on lipid parameters and in vitro LDL oxidation. Clinical Biochemistry 37 (9): 830-835.
• Norton D, Angerman S., Istfan N., Lopes S.M., Babayan V.K., Putz M.C., Steen S.N., Blackburn G.L. (June–December 2005). Effect of dietary fats and fatty acid chain length on plasma lipids and lipoproteins in healthy men. Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies 30 (1 and 2): 1-12. ISSN 0115-3463.

Are these sources okay in further reading? Note the value of some of these articles go beyond just medicine, but also cover social and economic dimensions. My view is that the pattern of removal of these sources is imposing a Western POV which given the subject is wholly inappropriate and unjustified and is in violation of WP:NPOV aside from the violation of WP:Preserve which are both policies not just guidelines. The extent of opposition I am receiving to the adding of sources—something that is supposedly to be encouraged—is of concern. It should also be considered that while those opposing the addition of my sources claim to be speaking for the mainstream, a search of Google books appears pretty lopsided against their supposed view of mainstream. I have asked the opposing editors to supply sources to balance out anything that they feel is too one-sided but they seem to be removing more than they are adding. Opinions? Lambanog (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly these are all reputable sources. Some are primary sources, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason for deleting everything. The only current guide we have seems to be WP:FURTHER. Plus, there's the proposed guideline WP:Further reading. Following the latter proposed guideline, I'd say, off the top of my head, that the list be secondary sources, balanced, and short. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading removal again

Another source removed from further reading:

• Dayrit, Conrado S. (2005). The Truth About Coconut Oil – The Drugstore in a Bottle. Anvil. ISBN 9789712716959.

Reason given for removal in edit summary was "scholarly only, thanks". Author was a well-respected doctor, arguably the leading expert on the subject. Lambanog (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Monolaurin, coconut oil, and human breast milk

Discussion on talk page seems to have resolved this sub-issue. Lambanog (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Well I thought it might have been but apparently not.... Lambanog (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes I know.

I wish to include the statement: "Coconut oil also shares many similarities and fats like monolaurin found in human breast milk"

I don't see anything controversial about it and supported the statement with the following sources:

• Thormar, H; Isaacs, CE; Brown, HR; Barshatzky, MR; Pessolano, T (1987). "Inactivation of enveloped viruses and killing of cells by fatty acids and monoglycerides". Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy 31 (1): 27–31. PMC 174645. PMID 3032090
• Amarasiri, Wadl (2009). "Coconut fats". Ceylon Medical Journal 51 (2). doi:10.4038/cmj.v51i2.1351

Nonetheless the statement and sources were removed (diff of first removal) per supposed SYN and NPOV problems was the reason stated in the edit summary although I think the statement being supported is pretty factual and straightforward and the complaint groundless. Still because of comments on the talk page (talk page diff) I added it back without the supporting sources since some of the comments in those sources were being objected to although they were extraneous to the statement being supported. Another editor comes in and removes the statement once again (diff of second removal) this time for not having sources. Are the sources above enough to support the statement? Should the statement be reworded? If so, what would be a suitable rewording? Thank you for your patience. Lambanog (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Both of these studies appear to be basic (as opposed to clinical) research and as such appear to be reliable sources. I would think that you could use them in a limited way for information about metabolism of coconut fats and the antiviral effects of human milk. But any medical claims regarding health benefits would probably need clinical studies and ideally a research review of those studies. And any similarities between human milk and coconut would would need to be explicitly contained in the source. We can't ourselves, as Misplaced Pages editors, make such observations. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Arxiv lecture notes

The question was, and is: Is there a reliable source for the assertion "The physical states lie in a single orbit of the affine Weyl group, which again implies the Weyl–Kac character formula for the affine Kac–Moody algebra of G."? If there is, presumably one of the most senior mathematical editors on[REDACTED] and one of the world experts on these particular topics can put their heads together and find it. As far as I understand the rest of this, it seems either wrong or irrelevant. Julian Birdbath (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Birdbath appears to be indiscriminately removing references that have a free link to ArXiV regardless of whether these references appeared in the peer-reviewed literature, or whether the papers were published by notable experts on the subject (e.g., he finds Grigori Perelman's ArXiV papers objectionable in an article about the Geometrization conjecture, which is simply ludicrous). I have corrected most of the damage, I think. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sławomir will have noticed that I started a section at Talk:Geometrization conjecture precisely to discuss that very issue. I did not say they were objectionable, but I will say they are primary for an evaluation of Perelman's work and of course as secondary they are not peer-reviewed. What is needed is an authoritative independent peer-reviewed account of the work. If Sławomir knows of one, please would he disclose it? By "undo damage" I think he means "disagree about the inherent reliability of certain authors". Mathsci's comments seem not to be directed to the issue in hand and it is hard to make sense of them: he seems to be evading the question. Julian Birdbath (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By undo the damage, I mean reversing you removal of references to the peer reviewed mathematics literature, like the American Mathematical Monhly and the Mathematical Intelligencer, and restoring references to preprints and notes published by uncontested experts that were indiscriminately removed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For more context, see WP:SPS, especially the part about experts being considered reliable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are several independent published peer-reviewed reviews of Perelman's work already cited in the geometrization conjecture article, so it is disingenuous to suggest that there are none. Hundreds, maybe thousands, more can undoubtedly be found, but there doesn't seem to be an urgent need to add more. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Does an unpublished and non peer-reviewed paper on the ArXiv constitute a reliable source (the Perelman case would be an exception as it amply supported by a multitude of other sources)? The ArXiv has the advantage of being freely accessible but standards of inclusion of papers in the ArXiv, although they do exist, are very low, and once a person is admitted as a contributor, often because of historical reasons or because of institutional affiliation, they can submit almost anything without challenge. If a paper were published in an established refereed journal, that would make it a reliable source and an ArXiv paper that had been published in such a venue could be accepted as a RS. The issue comes up in the Paul Dirac article where an IP from Slovenia has inserted an unpublished Arxiv paper from authors in Slovenia. Of course, the issue of something being a RS is quite different to the issue of whether the item is notable or relevant. What do editors think in general and in respect to the Dirac article? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

I think the thread below might offer at least a partial answer to this question (although I don't entirely agree with some aspects of the assessment of ArXiV). So I'll just summarize my own point of view. If the author of the paper is an expert on the subject or the paper is also published in the peer-reviewed literature, then per our WP:SPS, it can be considered as a reliable source. In any event, in the case you describe, the author seems to fail the "expert test", and the edit probably also fails on other counts (COI, OR, etc.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Summing up the portions relating to the original question and on-topic for this discussion board. Mathsci, origical contributor of the reference, asserts that Wassermann is "one of the world experts on these particular topics", and that Birdbath is "mathematically naive" and unqualified to judge. Is there any other opinion, and is this enough to say that an Arxiv posting by Wassermann is an WP:SPS which still qualifies as reliable because Wassermann is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? Southend sofa (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Given than Wassermann has published work on the subject in Inventiones Mathematicae, one of the very top journals in mathematics, and has published several papers on this very subject elsewhere, the answer seems to me to be "yes". He also collaborated with Vaughan Jones on the subject, taught a Cambridge part III course and an MSRI course on the subject. He is clearly regarded by the community as an expert. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Arxiv in general

Without commenting on the specific issues above, it has been agreed several time, at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Nature_Precedings, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_68#ArXiv.org, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_77#Interpretation_of_WP:SPS for example, that arxiv is in general not a reliable source per WP:SPS. I would expand that by saying arxiv is deficient in authority (almost anyone can post), authenticity (weak control over the true identity of those posting), accuracy (no checking or review) and stability (differing versions may be posted at any time). It does score well on availability of course. Of course SPS has an exception for an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications but this would have to be established on a case-by-case basis. One might use the checklist at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_source_examples#arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You are definitely wrong about stability. It's almost impossible to withdraw an arXiv paper, and it's completely impossible to change it once it's published. The only thing you can do is publish a new version, but the old versions always remain accessible. It's also possible to cite a specific version. Hans Adler 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was I wrong? I said "differing versions may be posted at any time" and that is true. Arxiv papers can be, and are, withdrawn: consider, for example, 1102.3648 for which version 2 dated Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:11:03 GMT states This paper has been withdrawn. It took me only a couple of minutes to find this entirely random example. If you don't cite version 1 by number then the content of the current version changes under your feet (radically in this example); if you do cite version 1 then you are citing something the author is no longer prepared to vouch for. It is possible, but extremely rare, for conventional journals to modify content: it seems to be quite usual for arxiv, which is more of a collaboration tool than a journal of record. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy this. For those arXiv papers which we can legitimately cite it's no more of an issue than for journal papers. The withdrawn paper in your example remains available simply by clicking "Version 1". But we probably don't want to continue using a citation to a withdrawn paper anyway. That's not a stability issue. A stability issue is when a website suddenly disappears (like GeoCities), reforms its structure in such a way that all the old links break, or changes articles without noting the fact. ArXiv is free from these problems. Hans Adler 23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely that we would want to use a paper that the author has withdrawn. The consensus is that an Arxiv preprint is like a preprint posted on an author's web page at his university: a self-published source. It starts off with a modest degree of assurance that the author is who they say they are and that they are not a complete outsider but the mode of publication conveys almost no assurance that the paper is correct: in particular it has not been subject to anything like peer review. The credibility of the paper, and its acceptability as a reliable source, comes from the reputation of the author, and does not derive in any way from the mode of publication -- this is quite different to a scholarly journal article, where the journal and its editors and referees stand behind the paper. If an author is not prepared to stand behind a preprint any longer, and withdraws it, its value as a source goes down to zero: the availability of the repudiated version is hardly an issue at that point, its credibility has vanished. This happens frequently, and is perfectly normal. It seems to me that Arxiv preprints, like preprints on personal pages, are far more subject to significant change or withdrawal than papers in mainstream journals: I found that example on Arxiv in a few minutes, I see a change or withdrawal in a journal perhaps once in a few years. Is there really evidence that withdrawal or major modification of Arxiv preprints is "no more of an issue than for journal papers"?

As to stability - since we are using the word in different ways (I am talking about the content of the preprints, you about the website as a whole) it is not too surprising that we have come to different conclusions. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

It's most important to use good judgment. Many ArXiV preprints have been published in the peer reviewed literature (that's most of the issue in the above thread), and it is important to determine if this is the case before branding them as unreliable sources. Although the ArXiV publication field often shows where the paper appears, it is not always the case and one frequently needs to do a google scholar search to see if the paper has been published elsewhere. Similar care should be exercised in determining if someone is an expert. It can sometimes be difficult to determine this, but in the cases I was referring to above, there is very little question about it: George Lusztig is a world-renowned expert on affine Hecke algebras, Zoltan Szabo and his long-time collaborator Peter Oszvath are world-renowned experts in gauge theory, Borwein, Borwein, and Plouffe are reliable sources (at least, as primary sources) on their eponymous algorithm, and so on. So, I generally think it is a good idea to exercise every bit of caution when removing references to ArXiV, which is the issue in the above thread, although I prefer not to add references to ArXiV myself except in very limited circumstances. As a general rule of thumb, things that are obviously wacky can be removed without careful consideration: there is plenty of garbage of this kind on Misplaced Pages to clean up. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater: if something doesn't seem like bollocks or WP:OR, then check google scholar and check the authors to give it the benefit of the doubt. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with the issue about weak control over identity of those posting. I think this reflects a common misconception about the ArXiV, that posting is just as easy as posting to any other web space, with no safeguards to content and identity. But ArXiV does take a number of measures to authenticate posters (I know because I was shocked at what I had to go through for an account recovery after moving to a different institution and losing my password). These include: (1) the email address of the poster must be a university account corresponding to the claimed individual, with the claimed university affiliation, (2) individuals who have not posted before need to be "endorsed" by someone else. These two requirements are perhaps only slightly less than someone publishing in the peer reviewed literature, so if one is worried about impostors on ArXiV, one should probably also be worried about impostors in the regular literature as well. (In fact, in some ways it is probably easier to publish under a false name in the peer reviewed literature: Nicolas Bourbaki as one of the most famous examples, but there are others.) Finally, the ArXiV is a mainstream source with many eyes reading it: if there were an impostor, it would likely be detected by readers almost immediately. So I don't find the weak authenticity to be a legitimate concern. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

More excellent advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Franklin coverup hoax

This is about the Franklin coverup hoax. Three people alleged that several prominent persons in the Omaha, Nebraska community were guilty of running a large scale child prostitution ring: bringing orphans from Boys Town, a large Catholic orphanage for boys, across state lines for purposes of child prostitution. The wild accusations claimed that the child prostitutes were flown all over the country, including to Washington DC for a midnight tour of the White House, to service prominent politicians.

None of the accused was ever indicted or convicted as a result of these ridiculous fantasies. The investigating grand jury explicitly described this as a "carefully crafted hoax" and instead indicted the three accusers for perjury. One of them, Troy Boner, wisely recanted his testimony and was spared a prison term. Another, Alisha Owen, was convicted of perjury after her attorney withdrew from the case and then served 4-1/2 years of a 10-year prison term for perjury. Owen's attorney later testified that she knew Owen was going to commit perjury, which is why she withdrew. Owen was released early due to good behavior in prison, not to any reversal on appeal. The third accuser, Paul Bonacci, was determined by the trial court to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. So what we have here are an admitted liar, a proven liar, and a proven nutball.

Since then, a broad assortment of conspiracy theorists and political extremists led by Lyndon LaRouche and other political partisans, determined to sling whatever mud they can find, have persisted in alleging that these results were produced by a coverup, not the usual grand jury process. Those are the facts that can be proven through truly reliable sources such as the New York Times. Two WP editors have persistently attempted to back up a truckload of conspiracy theory and dump it into the article from two extremely dubious sources. Relevant discussion can be found here.

The first of the two dubious sources is a self-published book by John DeCamp: The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder. DeCamp was Bonacci's attorney and paid advocate; and that fact, together with the fact that it was self-published, should demolish DeCamp's book as a reliable source.

The second is a book by so-called "investigative journalist" Nick Bryant entitled, The Franklin Scandal: A Story of Powerbrokers, Child Abuse & Betrayal. Rather than being self-published, this little tome was published by a small, fringe extremist publishing company called Trine Day. The website of Trine Day has described the company as "a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key 'defect': a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America's corporate 'culture.' " One of these two WP editors described Bryant as "widely published," but his work has appeared on single occasions on a freelance basis in Playboy, Gear and Salon.com, not as a regular feature in the New York Times or any other reputable, mainstream publication. There is no indication that he has ever made journalism, let alone investigative journalism, his principal source of livelihood.

I respectfully ask the community's comments and consensus decision on whether these two books are sufficiently reliable sources to overcome the ironclad prohibitions of WP:BLP. Lawrence E. King and all the other persons accused by Owen, Bonacci and Boner are living persons. They can sue Misplaced Pages for libel. We must be absolutely certain of the reliability of these sources before two WP editors are allowed to back up a truck full of this garbage and dump it into the article mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sources you are talking about almost certainly don't meet WP:RS but I think you have to be more dispassionate about assessing them. Also, the conspiracy theory itself may be worthy of coverage, as long as it is not presented as a reliable account of the events. I understand your annoyance, having argued about the subject myself but it would be better placed in a discussion forum than here. At the moment, it's hard to assess this. What, exactly, is being stated? Which articles do the statements appear in? And how the sources used to support those statements? Maccy69 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Maccy. I have really tried to be dispassionate but it's becoming very frustrating dealing with Apostle12 in particular. We have at least one editor, and likely two, who believe that Nick Bryant and John DeCamp are as reliable as the New York Times and present their little books as reliable accounts. As far as I know, these statements only appear in the Franklin coverup hoax article -- that title is now being redirected to the renamed article, Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, which itself reflects the amount of Misplaced Pages's credibility that is being loaned to these false allegations. Before I reverted the truckload that was dumped into the article this morning, it looked like this: And the entirety of this morning's dump can be seen here, highlighted in red: Thanks again for your kind attention to this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of bad sources are just the beginning of problem behavior on that article. Some of the edits have been wildly POV in support of a WP:FRINGE topic. DreamGuy (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Please elaborate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently editor Phoenix and Winslow (P.& W.) has persisted in his ad hominem attacks, claiming that all those who disagree with his point of view must be "conspiracy theorists and political extremists led by Lyndon LaRouche and other political partisans." Where there is a LaRouche connection, that information has been left intact in the article as per P. & W.'s request, however I and other editors have resisted being tarred by the LaRouche brush because we have no connection whatever with LaRouche or his organization. I know little about LaRouche, but I must say my impression of him is negative.

P.& W.'s idea of "political extremism" and "partisan bias" is the article's longstanding mention of the fact that Lawrence King was "a prominent Republican," or "a rising luminary in the Republican Party." This information is reliably sourced, is an accurate descriptor and has much to do with King's notability. (For the record I am a registered Republican, and I have no partisan agenda that might bias me against Republicans.)

Contrary to P. & W.'s assertions, DeCamp's self-published book is not cited as a source in this article. Former Nebraska State Senator DeCamp is mentioned on two occasions, however the sourcing for these references has nothing to do with his book. DeCamp's book is listed in the "Further Reading" section--DeCamp served multiple terms as a Nebraska State Senator, he is an attorney in good standing, and his continuing, legitimate interest in the Franklin case, including a re-edit of his book, cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a "conspiracy theorist." DeCamp's interest matches that of two other Nebraska State Senators, Ernie Chambers and Loran Schmit. Both senators were members of the specially convened Nebraska State Franklin Committee that recommended empanelment of a Douglas County grand jury investigating the associated charges. Senator Loran Schmit chaired the Franklin Committee. I do not intend to use DeCamp's book as a source, though I do support its mention in the "Further Reading" section.

Nick Bryant's recently published book (The Franklin Scandal 2009) is another matter. I was skeptical when I first purchased this book, however as I read I became impressed by Bryant's professionalism. He is a published author, he invested many years in researching this case, he interviewed most of the key players, and his book incorporates much valuable material that was not previously available--e.g. original correspondence between Franklin Committee Chairman Senator Loran Schmit and William Colby, copies of articles published by the Omaha World-Herald that are not available online (Omaha World-Herald publisher Harold Anderson was one of the accused), and various affadavits. The legitimacy of this material is beyond question. There is no hint in Bryant's book of the "conspiracy theorist" tone; in fact during his investigative work he debunks anything that might tend to veer in that direction. The book has been favorably reviewed, though not by the NYT or other major reviewers. I do consider Bryant's book a reliable source, and I would encourage P. & W. and others to evaluate it on its merits rather than summarily dismissing it; to the best of my knowledge they have not seen, much less read, Bryant's work. As for publisher Trine Day, their reputation as a publisher is growing; I would not commend their entire lineup, but I do endorse Bryant's book.

An important issue here is that the Nebraska State Franklin Committe heard a great deal of testimony, after which they insisted that a Douglas County grand jury be convened. Just as important is the fact the Franklin Committee felt stymied during their investigation by the FBI, by the Nebraska State Patrol, and by the Omaha Police Department (Omaha Police Chief Wadham was among those accused). After the grand jury findings were published, the Franklin Committee condemned them as a "coverup." This charge was leveled by two sitting Nebraska State Senators, Loran Schmit and Ernie Chambers, as well as the other committee members. Others associated with the case who alleged a coverup included Carol Stitt, Director of Nebraska's Foster Care Review Board (who had interviewed many of the children involved), former State Senator John DeCamp, former employees of Boys Town, and many others. Whether charges of a coverup are true, is not within the purview of this article; it is legitimate, however, to include the fact that coverup charges were leveled by parties who are known to be responsible. (Needless to say the parties in question have no connection whatever with Lyndon LaRouche, nor are they "political extremists," as P. & W. might assert.) The reasons for calling the grand jury report a "coverup" are also relevant and important to this article--these reasons are reliably sourced through articles published in the Omaha World-Herald and elsewhere, however P. & W. removed them in a wholesale revert that cannot be justified by any concern about the Bryant sourcing.

Here is the article as it appeared before P. & W.'s wholesale revert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Franklin_child_prostitution_ring_allegations&oldid=419804541

I intend to restore the unjustly deleted material as soon as I find the time.

I have no agenda in editing this article, and I have detected no agenda on the part of any other editors--save one, Phoenix and Winslow. He continues to voice untrue statements about other editors, and he has repeatedly engaged in reckless, disruptive editing. Apostle12 (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We cannot use self published sources, except in articles about the authors themselves. That excludes the DeCamp book. The Bryant book is not self-published, but it is issued by an unusual publisher, Trine Day. It qualifies as a source, but we should be cautious about using it for any exceptional claims. IIRC there have been disputes over the use of the Omaha World-Herald. It's a mainstream newspaper. If they've retracted any articles then of course we wouldn't use those, but otherwise it's a reliable source. Primary sources, like court documents, should not be used except to provide illustrative details or quotes for issues already discussed in secondary sources. There are undoubtedly many living people who were involved in this scandal, so sourcing should be BLP-level.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Apostle12 and my own edits have been restricted largely to Bryants book (he includes copies of a substantial number of primary sources), the Nebraska State Franklin Committee and legal documents such as affidavits that are linked directly when possible and identified as such. Following the Grand Jury findings the mainstream media pretty much dropped the issue despite the Nebraska State Franklin Committee later condemning their findings. Phoenix and Winslow has repeatedly tried to exclude the committees findings despite it's standing as a non-partisan reliable source. Several newspapers that did continue coverage did not archive articles from the 1980s and 90s when this was big news so we have linked to copies contained in other sources such as Bryants book, which explains a larger reliance on it than would otherwise be the case. There are very few, if any, edits from Bryants book not supported by primary sources. My edits have been small and include comments to allow legitimate reverting or discussion if any have problems but P&W mass reverts with no comments except occasional ones similar to this one I am reverting all this garbage. His reversions generally include my grammar fixes and the references that I have added for existing text as separate edits, which makes it hard to work on the article. P&Ws edits are often very POV, such as insisting that the Senators and the Nebraska State Franklin Committee be called conspiracy theorists, excluding only Knight and DeCamp from that pejorative which is odd considering that he rejects using DeCamp as a reference. I'm not claiming the article is perfect with my edits, but P&W is effectively asserting ownership that prevents improvements. Apostle12 and myself have often compromised but P&W seems to reject making any concessions. I reply to some of P&Ws specific claims here only because he has made them here and it gives an indication of his problematic editing:

• The Franklin Committee stated that the accused should have been indicted and the Grand Jury itself said the only reason King wasn't was because he was facing other serious felony charges.
• Paul Bonacci was never determined by the trial court to be mentally incompetent. He was cited by the State psychiatrist as having psychiatric problems stemming from the abuse he suffered, which he himself admitted but he never actually saw or was treated by a psychiatrist, so is not a "proven nutball". The sentence was merely reworded to avoid the implication he was "proven" incompetent not that he wasn't.
• Owen's attorney had earlier testified before the State Bar that Owen told the truth and that she had withdrawn due to a conflict of interest. In her testimony eight years later where she said Owen lied she also admitted that while she was still representing her she was having an affair with Owens primary accuser and was passing him documents. P&W doesn't want mention of her earlier testimony.
• The article already says that Owen's appeal was denied and that she was released early due to good behaviour. As no one has tried to change that I have no idea why P&W brought it up.
• Why P&W is making Lyndon LaRouche and his partisans seem like major players in the article is strange because his committee is only referenced once and that is for mention that they wrote a book.
• Apostle12's and my edits are generally supported by statements by a government appointed investigative committee and where other sources are cited, by RS if BLP issues exist so the edits shouldn't have BLP problems.

Although DeCamp's book contains considerable detail due to his personal involvement it has not been used at all as a reference so I fail to see why P&W brings it up. The only real issue is whether Bryants book is a RS. Wayne (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the version I reverted yesterday afternoon, Nick Bryant's book was cited as a source several times. When protecting Misplaced Pages under the command of WP:BLP, it's far better to err on the side of caution. Any source that treats Owen, Bonacci and Boner as reliable cannot be treated as reliable. For the record, I read a substantial part of Bryant's book a few months after it was first published, before tossing it back on the shelf at the used bookstore. Like Tarpley's book, it's trash written in a scholarly style. The fact that Nick Bryant disagrees with the LaRouche cult doesn't mean he isn't a conspiracy theorist or political extremist with a slightly different set of wacky beliefs. Reputable publishers refused to publish his crap, and we should refuse as well. The Franklin Committee's rejection of the grand jury findings was in the article already, without being larded up by half a dozen sentences that cite Bryant as their only source; and the Franklin Committee's rejection of the grand jury findings remains in the article, reliably sourced.

I bring up DeCamp's book because it has been used as RS in the past, and because a certain editor seemed to be defending its use. That defense demonstrates poor judgment regarding WP:RS. The same editor is now defending the use of Bryant as RS. All I'm saying is that he's been wrong before, and it seems to be a consistent effort to lend Misplaced Pages's credibility to fringe theories. See WP:FRINGE. If you're offended, I'm sorry. If a few good edits (such as the grammar corrections) were thrown out with the mountain of truly bad edits, I'm sorry about that too; but that has definitely cut both ways.

Beyond the WP:RS issues we come to the WP:WEIGHT issues. This isn't really the place for it, but generally, the findings of a grand jury should be given a great deal more weight than the findings of a legislative committee, which may be swayed by partisan political motives. The fact that Loran Schmit is a Republican and agrees with the rabidly partisan Democrat Ernie Chambers only underscores the fact that the GOP is not monolithic, and is divided into factions that occasionally feud with each other. Claims by Nick Bryant, that are unsupported by reliable sources (or online primary sources such as the Vuchetich deposition), should be dismissed as WP:FRINGE. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Grand Jury is being given too much weight by Phoenix and Winslow. Several of the jurors submitted affidavits stating that they had been told to accept hearsay evidence such as accepting Wadhams unsupported claim he had taken a DNA test that had exonerated him (the judge refused to allow the existence of the test to be confirmed), and that during their deliberations they were shown written statements never presented in court that "played a significant role" in deliberations and which "mysteriously could not be located" after the trial and that they were also shown a television program reporting that the accusers were telling lies. The term "runaway" grand jury comes to mind. The claims made by Bryant that are used in the article are not unsupported by reliable sources. Bryant is used as a source because the reliable sources he quotes are not online. Primary sources not being online is not criteria for exclusion. Unsupported claims by P&W that the Republican Senators have an agenda is WP:OR and has no place in determining their reliability. Until Bryant has been excluded as a reliable source we shouldn't block use of his book as a reference, especially when he provides copies of the primary sources in support.Wayne (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Where Bryant has provided the supporting affidavits in PDF form on his website, I've compromised. These include the Vuchetich deposition and the Boner affidavit, in which he changed his story a second time. We've previously discussed Nebraska law regarding hearsay evidence on the article Talk page. Evidently Nebraska law is more permissive than some other states regarding hearsay in child sexual abuse cases, and I do know that many states have hearsay exceptions for such cases, in one form or another. Laws vary from state to state.

My "claim" that the state senators might have an agenda is contained on the Talk page, not in the article mainspace. The question isn't whether Bryant's book should be excluded, but whether it should be included, because the default setting in WP:BLP cases is to leave it out, and to err on the side of caution; the burden of proof is on those seeking to introduce questionable material. Trine Day's mission statement is an enormous red flag. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In particular, see the section on questionable sources here: See also the appropriate sections in WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor trying to add or restore material." Since there is no consensus, the material stays out. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V also summarizes WP:BLP: "unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." So don't ask me, however politely, not to remove this poorly sourced contentious material about living persons. There's another good section of WP:V, one of the three principal policy statements of the Misplaced Pages project. It's called WP:SOURCES:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. .... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.

Please explain Trine Day's fact-checking process to me, and post a few links demonstrating their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Prove to me that it's a "respected publishing house." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• My contribution was solicited on the basis that I regularly participate at RS/N. DeCamp is not a RS: SPS. Bryant is published by a poison press. The reason for unreliability is not that the press has a mission. AK Press, Mises, and most other presses have social missions. The unreliability is due to the fact that the press routinely publishes FRINGE conspiracy theory outside of any sociological or historical standard of truth; and, that the press exercises no editorial control over content (see the null submission guidelines). This is the same reason that, for example, Transaction Press is a poison press. Neither source is reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I, too, was solicited as a regular contributor at RSN. I concur with Filelfoo's analysis that neither book is acceptable. TimidGuy (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute about DeCamp and he is not used as a source in the article. Phoenix and Winslow knows this and I have no idea why he keeps bringing it up. What needs to be kept in mind is that Bryants book is only used when supported by primary sources that are not online but are provided as photocopies (legal documents) or attributed copies (of newspaper articles) etc by Bryant. Trine Day is used as a source in many WP articles including 9/11 conspiracy theories which is very tight on excluding unreliable sources and the publisher is also used in many biographies. P&W has an obvious bias with the article (such as renaming a section Grand jury findings: a carefully crafted hoax which is hardly encyclopaedic), claiming that mention of the Franklin Committee should be minimised because the members all have agendas against Republicans and adding Trine Days mission statement to the mention of Bryants book. P&W refuses to work with editors who do not agree with him despite attempts to address his concerns.Wayne (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute about DeCamp and he is not used as a source in the article. That wasn't always the case.

... Bryants book is only used when supported by primary sources ... Again, that wasn't always the case. And it must not be used at all.

P&W has an obvious bias with the article ... I have an obvious bias in favor of WP policy and its strict enforcement, particularly in BLP cases like this one. Large scale child prostitution is what was alleged here. Not just child molesting, but child prostitution: flying these children all over the country to service prominent politicians, all of whom conveniently happening to be Republicans. The entire thing stinks like three-day-old roadkill. Vicious political smear campaigns have no place in Misplaced Pages no matter who is targeted: Republicans, Democrats or the Bull Moose Party. It doesn't matter to me. In this case it happened to be Republicans.

These two editors, after application and continuous citation of WP policy, have finally backtracked from their original position (one baby step at a time) that all of this conspiracy theory should be dumped into the article without regard for WP policy. I must admit that being outnumbered by people who wanted to violate policy was pushing me to the limit of my patience, and I want to thank Fifelfoo, TimidGuy, DreamGuy and Maccy69 for intervening here. I hope that in the future these two editors will continue to become more compliant with WP policy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You slander both me and editor Wayne when you state you were "outnumbered by people who wanted to violate policy." You do the same when you say you "hope in the future these two editors will continue to become more compliant with WP policy." Our discussion here had nothing to do with "violation" or "compliance." The issue is reliability with respect to the Bryant book--an honest disagreement despite your continued ad hominem attacks. Obviously you are a person who considers ad hominem attacks fair play. I do not. In addition such attacks violate WP:PA.

Previously you said "Where Bryant has provided the supporting affidavits in PDF form on his website, I've compromised. These include the Vuchetich deposition and the Boner affidavit, in which he changed his story a second time." Now you are saying that you believe Bryant "must not be used at all." Perhaps you refer only to the text of Bryant's book, rather than to the original sources he includes in full form in an appendix, most of which are not available online. As you have stated, it is unlikely these have been fabricated. Please clarify your position.

I still believe that the Bryant book is a reliable source for factual, non-exceptional matters related to the Franklin case. Administrator Will Beback agrees (see above), commenting "It qualifies as a source, but we should be cautious about using it for any exceptional claims." I will solicit further opinion on this matter. Apostle12 (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here a few days ago. The issue of "slandering" other editors needs to take a backseat, and is for WQA if warranted. I don't see it. Let's stick with the content...

Sourcing is one of the very most important and often overlooked things in WP, IMHO: it's one reason why there's a relative thimbleful of FA's and GA's compared to the oceans of articles. While Ripley's Believe It or Not is an extreme example, look at my userpage for some interesting claims from that source. Much older sources are even more dicey: I have an encyclopedia set from 1904 {"The Historian's History of the World") that is downright racist in some parts, let alone inaccurate. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing" is exactly right: but so is what you say about some sources being acceptable only for "factual, non-exceptional matters". I could justifiably use my 1930 copy of Ripley's to back up that the Kiwi bird is a "native of New Zealand, where it was once very common, but is slowly becoming extinct"pg.105; but many things in that book would be laughed right out of here. It's what a consensus of reliable sources say, especially with exceptional claims and exceptionally for BLP's. WP:NPOV must be adhered to, and even sources that are otherwise reliable must be referenced with this carefully in mind.

If there's any possibility that something's going to be challenged as a "conspiracy theory": certainly don't use a source like this one to back up things in the article. The only other thing I see any of this publisher's works on in WP is conspiracy-related subjects: Frank Olson, Skull & Bones, etc. I would not use this source for this article. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 08:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate, Bryant is only used for claims supported by reliable primary and secondary sources so claims of his conspiracy theorising are a red herring. This RSN is supposed to be about the reliability of Bryants book which it clearly is when it is referring to reliable sources itself. No editor is asking to use Bryant for any unsupported claims. Again Phoenix and Winslow is continuing his poor editing behaviour and muddying the waters by making false claims in an attempt to influence editors. He wrote:

Large scale child prostitution is what was alleged here. Not just child molesting, but child prostitution: flying these children all over the country to service prominent politicians, all of whom conveniently happening to be Republicans. The entire thing stinks like three-day-old roadkill. Vicious political smear campaigns have no place in Misplaced Pages no matter who is targeted

Not only is the above long standing text which was not added by either Apostle12 or myself, it is sourced entirely to the New York Times and Washington Times and NOT Bryant, it also makes no mention of any political party at all. In fact Bryant is clear that both Republicans and Democrats were accused however, there is not a single mention of any political party in the article. P&W also wrote:

These two editors, after application and continuous citation of WP policy, have finally backtracked from their original position (one baby step at a time) that all of this conspiracy theory should be dumped into the article without regard for WP policy.

In fact neither Apostle12 or myself have backtracked on anything with one exception, most sources state that King was a "rising star in the Republican party" and a prominent fundraiser for them. Three editors supported using only the descriptive "Republican fundraiser" but eventually accepted "political fundraiser" because P&W didn't want Kings link to Republicans mentioned. Wayne (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If it refers to other reliable sources, why not just use those sources instead? This publisher (and that's a strong indictment) looks like trouble, IMHO. Doc talk 12:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Doc. Bryant's book is iffy as best, and should be avoided in articles dealing with living persons. There appear to be plenty of better sources to use.--Cúchullain /c 13:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not online. Bryant provides photocopies of legal documents and newspapers. For example the Omaha World-Herald reported on the case extensively but did not archive articles then. Please point out these "better sources" Cúchullain and we'll use them. It would be helpfull if you could explain why you think the book is iffy. Wayne (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a reference be available online. If stories were published in the World-Herald, then go take a look at the back issues and cite the paper itself, rather than taking Bryant's word for it in this era of Photoshop. Purported copies of legal documents are far more dubious, and unsuitable for linking to. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, on TrineDay's own website they say they publish their books despite "consistent refusal of the corporate press". That corporate press is mainstream publishing houses whose tomes fill the bookshelves of every retail bookstore and library. TrineDay isn't one for a good reason. I can think of another "alternative press" book I bought out of curiosity years ago, but it was only at an Army/Navy store. Iffy publisher = Iffy books. Doc talk 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Doc. The less reputable the publisher, the less reputable the source, especially when better ones are available. As to the better sources, Wayne, you yourself mentioned the Omaha World-Press. I am confident they do have an archive; just because it's not as easy for you to access it as you'd like doesn't mean the sources aren't available.--Cúchullain /c 14:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a search and they do have an archive but it will cost more than $1000 to access the relevant articles. Regardless of what you think of Trine Day it is the authors reliability that is relevant. As no one is editing to include anything not supported by primary sources he should be a reliable source for what they say. Wayne (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Doc and Cuchullain, for weighing in on this matter. Making exceptional claims (i.e. the grand jury process was rigged) in a BLP article that alleges sex crimes against children requires the finest sourcing in the entire WP: sterling and solid gold, nothing less. This is not an article about a video game. I am truly sorry for losing my patience with these two but as you can see, they are persistent and accusatory; and before I came here I was outnumbered. I will try to be patient. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention anywhere in the article that the grand jury was rigged and no one had attempted to edit it to say so. As a State appointed instrumentality the findings of the Franklin committee are not exceptional claims any more than the Grand Jury findings were and you excluding them entirely is POV pushing. Wayne (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never attempted to exclude them entirely. I only want to give them an appropriate amount of weight as the minority opinion. But I think the WP:RS question has been resolved completely and decisively, so any further discussion should be done on the article's Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual you assume you are right. There is still no consensus. Saying that a publisher that is acceptable when used in other articles is not a reliable source for this one doesn't count for much without an explanation as to why such a division should exist. Currently there has been no evidence given that Bryant is not a RS, apart from his book being published by a source that must be used with care and such care has been taken. What do you mean by minority opinion? A poll of Nebraskan residents by the OWH found that more than 70% supported the Franklin Committees findings (The OWH themselves supported the GJ findings). Wayne (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, and the Koch brothers

In the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, Jane Mayer, a prize-winning investigative journalist, published an long article on the Koch brothers: "Covert Operations. The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama". Mayer was also interviewed about the story by Terry Gross on Fresh Air on August 26: "The Brothers Koch: Rich, Political And Playing To Win". The Koch brothers responded to the story by issuing a detailed rebuttal: "Jane Mayer’s Sources with Undisclosed Biases and Potential Conflicts of Interest". Is there any reason why this article should not be considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles, including BLPs?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Where the claim is opinion, it must be cited as opinion and not as "fact" per WP:BLP. Where material is from "anonymous sources", WP:BLP discourages use of anonymous sources for any contentious claims. Use of "investigative articles" where factual claims are made can absolutely be rebutted by sources showing the factual claims to be wrong or inaccurate. For example, the use of "robber barons" is clearly a matter of opinion, and use of such material is not to be accepted lightly in even the BLP of the most despicable person on earth. Similarly, statements that people engaged in criminal activity is per se "contentious" and must be strongly supported by reliable sources, and not be supported as one person's opinion. In short, all the usual requirements about presenting opinions as facts in BLPs are in force. Collect (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I see no evidence that it's intended as an article, rather than an OpEd column; perhaps there's such evidence in the hardcopy of The New Yorker. Even if there were such evidence, it doesn't read like an article, but as a polemical essay, so should be treated as Mayer's opinion, and given appropriate weight as such. Mayer's statements in the interview are clearly Mayer's opinion, and cannot be used as fact in regard a living person. The interviewer's interpretation might be usable, as he's apparently speaking with the editorial voice, although further research would need to be done as to the intent of the interview. NPR, like the New Yorker, is generally a reliable source, but they both also publish editorials and guest columns/stories, not subject to full editorial review.

The response also cannot be used as "fact", but can be used in regard the statements made by the Koch brothers and/or Koch Industries, as the statement attributes them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of Mayer's statements used (at one point) in Koch Industries are contradicted by reliable sources already in the article, and by the primary sources. If Collect has other specific examples, they would be helpful here and in Jane Mayer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, what evidence do you have that a 10,000 word article by an investigative journalist was intended as an OpEd column or a polemical essay? I don't see any independent sources which refer to it that way. Please lay out the specific issues and sources where the article is contradicted so clearly that the reliability of the source comes into question.

Regarding anonymous sources, WP:BLP says: Be wary of sources ... that attribute material to anonymous sources. Wariness is good when using any source. However the policy does not prevent their use.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's under the heading "Reporter at Large", which is clearly not an opinion heading (the New Yorker has a "Comment" heading so the distinction is clear). Journalists sometimes need to use anonymous sources. Mayer is an awardwinning journalist, and this is a reliable source. (Which BTW doesn't have to mean that it's error free, though in any case I'm not aware of any errors being demonstrated, as opposed to claimed.) Rd232 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with this source. If a reliable source comments on the Koch brothers' rebuttal or on Mayer's alleged conflicts of interest, that can also be included, but I'm not sure their self-published thing stands up to a news article in a publication like the New Yorker. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The New Yorker is an AAA-level source. I can scarcely think of a better source on the planet. The Economist, maybe. They are certainly more reliable than the New York Times or the LA Times or the Washington Post, for instance. Their editing is legendary for being of the highest possible quality, and this includes their fact checking. It is a byward in the industry that nothing gets into the pages of the New Yorker without being carefully checked, including for veracity, by some very able and high-powered editors who have a lot of authority. If Mayer used anonymous sources, we may be certain that she was grilled ruthlessly to prove the veracity of her sources to the satisfaction of her editor. There has never been a scandal involving a reporter lying of the type that the Post and the New Republic and other journalistic entities have endured, and I would say that such an scandal there is very unlikely. On the rare occasion that they do make an error of fact, they say so. So I would say that if someone says (as an editor did above) that "Some of Mayer's statements... are contradicted by reliable sources" that's it's very likely that it is those other sources that are wrong. In fact, it is probably generally safe to say that if 1) it's in the New Yorker and 2) the person contesting can't point to a retraction, then 3) it's true, or about as nearly true as anything can be on this planet. Herostratus (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this source can be used (and assumed to be reliable) for statements of fact only, anything else should be labeled as Mayer's opinion and used with caution. For example, if the article says "The Koch brothers donate $15 million to various political causes" then we can assume the New Yorker fact checked that statement. If, however, makes a claim that is a matter of opinion such as "By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement.", then we should qualify that statement with something to the effect of "according to Jane Mayer..." That's been the problem with the Jane Mayer article all along, that people want to quote the opinions printed therein (and there are a lot of opinions, almost all hostile to the Koch brothers) without regard to relevance, neutrality or weight. Even if we buy the absurd gushing of Herostratus above, statements of opinion are still just opinion. For example when the article claims "Another former Koch adviser said, “They’re smart. This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves.” then the most we can assume is that that person really said those things. There is no further fact checking possible on statements of opinion like that. Bonewah (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of that is true of any source.   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The New Yorker article should be considered a reliable source. Obviously, clear statements of opinion should be attributed, but without anything specific to go on, it's hard to say more than that about this thread. The fact that Koch Industries was unhappy with the article does not invalidate it as a useful encyclopedic source. MastCell  03:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec x4 or so)

For what it's worth, "reporter at large" indicates to me an invited column, not necessarily fact-checked; in other words, the New Yorker trusts her to fact-check, but we cannot do so. I'll defer to User:Collect for specific inaccuracies of fact, as I believe zhe has a more complete list than I do. Many of the statements in the article (some which have been included in the articles) are clearly Mayer's personal opinions, as Bonewah noted above. Even if, the article, as a whole, were reliable (which I still dispute) doesn't mean that all statements in the article are reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll defer to User:Collect for specific inaccuracies of fact, as I believe zhe has a more complete list than I do.

I don't see any list. Where is it?   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

re "...not necessarily fact-checked; in other words, the New Yorker trusts her to fact-check..." No, the New Yorker does not work like that. Yes I know that Harold Ross and William Shawn are dead, but still... the New Yorker just doesn't do that. I note that this 2010 article in the Columbia Journalism Review points out the New Yorker has sixteen fact-checkers, more than the NY Times Magazine. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting the editor's objection to Mayer's statement "by giving money to educate, fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement." The editor is saying that this is just a personal opinion, but what, exactly, does the editor believe is not accurate in that sentence? Is it by giving money? If they didn't give money, what did they give? Nothing? Happy Meals toys? Coupons for free back rubs? What? Is it to educate, fund, and organize Tea Party protesters? If it wasn't for this, what was it for? To retire the war debt of the Austrian Empire? To establish a Mark Twain Memorial in the city of Port Moresby? To put a penguin on the moon? What? Is it their private agenda? If its not their private agenda, whose is it? Ğabdulla Tuqay's private agenda? Ernest Stackelberg's private agenda? Whose? Is it mass movement? If the Tea Party is not a mass movement, what it is? A minor league baseball team? A 19th-Century English boarding school? A factory turning out 1937 Nash Ramblers? What? Look, I'm perfectly aware of the possibility of bias, particularly liberal bias in the Misplaced Pages, and I've pointed this out recently at Talk:Pamela Geller and Jimbo's talk page (where I said "it's a problem") and elsewhere. But the example given looks like a pretty clear English sentence, I don't see the problem here. Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

By quoting "educate", as in the original, Mayer is redefining the term. Who knows what Mayer may mean? And who knows what the Kochs' "private agenda" might be. If it's private, Mayer is not going to know. Perhaps their private agenda is to discredit Mayer by planting hints as to their "private agenda", and then doing something completely different. (Perhaps a worthy goal, if Mayer really were a credible reporter saying bad things about the Kochs.) Furthermore, the claim that (I don't remember who it was) "gave money" to ... "Tea Party protesters" is sourced only to Mayer's interpretation of statements of people who could not know. (Furthermore, you added the interpretation that the Tea Party movement is what Mayer implied was the mass movement supporting the "private agenda"; perhaps it's there in context, but it is not rationally implied by the sentence.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see evidence supporting the dubious claim that Mayer's article is an opinion piece. The byline "A Reporter at Large" is more like "reporter in the field" (especially given her credentials as investigative reporter) than "invited column" -- though it's understandable that pro-Koch readers will frown upon such exposure and thus attempt to dismiss it. But please don't insult our intelligence here. In the example above, Mayer is not redefining the term educate -- there is ample context for her figurative usage (on 2nd page of web article): Venable a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994 ... explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” -PrBeacon (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, this version http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all is easier to search and print. -PrBeacon (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Investigative reporting, not opinion. The article is certainly a reliable source for information on the Koch brothers under our standards.Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Herostratus' response illustrates my complaint nicely. That the brothers Koch give money to groups that support the tea party is a demonstrable fact. That they do so to "support their private agenda", opinion, unless Ms. Mayer is blessed with telepathy. Consider: Herostratus edits and comments on Misplaced Pages to support his (or her) private agenda. Is it his private agenda? If its not his private agenda, whose is it? Ğabdulla Tuqay's private agenda? Ernest Stackelberg's private agenda? See? Here, as in the Mayer article, the 'private agenda' portion is assumed, it is opinion. Bonewah (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Private" does not equal "secret" or "unknown". If a highly reputable source says that actions are being taken to pursue an agenda which isn't public, then we can assume they have evidence for that. It's not our job to second guess reliable sources and assert that anything they haven't proven to our satisfaction is just opinion. If a reporter writes that "the car which hit the pedestrian was a blue Toyota", we don't say that's just an opinion simply because it isn't directly attributed to another source.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your simply assuming your conclusion, that this source is reliable, and that, therefor, I cannot question its reliability. More to the point, why the Koch's do what they do is known only to the Koch's, Mayer didnt interview them, this isnt a case of Mayer saying "according to the Koch brothers they support the tea party to advance their private agenda". Mayer simply declared that this was the case. But again, this supports my original concern here, that a (reasonable) finding of reliability here will be used to justify the inclusion of opinion (such as why the Koch brothers donate) without regard to relevance or neutrality. Your declaration that we must assume that all of Mayer's assertions are backed by evidence, even in the case where no such evidence can exist (again, she cannot possibly know what their private motivations are for a fact, she can only speculate) is exactly what i fear will become the norm if we dont make a point of saying that this article can only be considered reliable for factual statements, opinions expressed therein are still just opinions. Bonewah (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this author or this publication are not reliable? I haven't seen any.

As for "private" views, that term doesn't mean they haven't been shared with associates, some of whom may have been Mayer's sources. It just means they aren't disclosed publicly. The fact that a reporter reports on what has been said in private does not mean they are making the assertions up from whole cloth.

Let's stick to the topic at hand. If there's any concrete reason to doubt that this source is unreliable please present it. This speculation doesn't get us anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, this conversation serves to illustrate exactly what I have been saying all along. The reliability of Mayer's factual statements arent the issue, I said so at the onset of this conversation and even before that. No, the real issue is the lengths that editors will go to turn Mayer's every statement into an undisputed fact that, therefore, cannot be challenged. Frankly, I think you have done more to prove this point then i ever could. Im content to merely going on record as having expressed this concern. Bonewah (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the Mayer article is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a reliable source. As to the "private agenda", it's not a secret agenda. It's a well-known fact. David Koch ran for Vice President of the USA on some of this! He's expressed his views quite often and they match the Tea Party's POV. There is nothing pejorative or negative about her use of the phrase. It's an objective description of well-known facts about the Koch brother's POV and agenda. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this comment by User:Arthur Rubin on Talk:Politics of global warming (United States) related to this discussion? 99.19.46.122 (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OMG! I wasn't sure what specific comment you were referring to, but it looks like he's all over that page seeking to undermine any mention of the Koch brothers. Nothing new. I doubt any source could ever be used without it meeting some wikilawyering from him, unless it was favorable to them, in which case any source will do. His contribution history tells a very clear story of an agenda driven admin, so more eyes are needed to follow his activities and prevent political whitewashing activities. He's calling any negative mention "libelous", which is nonsense. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The only "libelous" references I made to were the claims that Koch Industries made contributions to politicians, which would be a felony. If a phrase such as (through their PAC) were added, it would not be libelous. The fact that that made it into the individual articles on the Kochs is another problem, being completely irrelevant.

And I tagged some favorable assertions made about the Kochs as unreliable, being in an OpEd.

You seem to be under the assumption that I like what the Kochs are doing. I don't, really. It's just that, after reading Mayer's articles, I've come to the conclusion that she's only interested in smearing the Kochs; even if she may be a reliable journalist in other fields, she only "investigates" negative information about the Kochs. If people are sure that the New Yorker is fact-checking, then we may be able to use her articles as sources for facts which can be checked, but not for conclusions which cannot.

In other words, we can use biased reliable articles as references, but only for facts. Opinions of the writer (in which I would include "facts" that cannot be checked) are not allowable in a BLP article, and require balance in non-BLP articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that she's only interested in smearing the Kochs - With all due respect, your opinion (or mine) of Mayer's intentions are not relevant. Conclusions based on facts may still be reliable. Where the journalist indicates that something is an opinion, such as prefacing it by "in my opinion" or "I think that", then of course it should be treated as an opinion. But we shouldn't be deciding on our own that the bulk of the article is just the writer's opinions. We also need to be careful about deciding that it is biased or partisan source.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My view is that reliability depends on the medium not the messenger. Academic publishing imposes standards on writing that allow us to write neutral articles regardless of the political viewpoint of the writers. This subject came up recently in the Tea party movement article. Several liberal historians have written articles for popular publications comparing the movement with other right-wing movements. We should be using articles that have entered academic discussion so that we can determine the weight that should be provided to these views. If there are no articles, then we cannot assume that the views have notability. TFD (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are tens of thousand of stories in the US media repeating verbatim every last detail of Mayer's story. We do not use those as sources, as they did not do their own fact checking. However, the fact that they are repeating the statements makes Mayer's article ever more important. If this was science, Mayer would get an citation index of 10,000!

As for the OpEd claim. The following source is an OpEd and opinion, as stated in one of the very first discussion on this issue. Mayer is not.

• Rich, Frank (August 29, 2010). "The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party". The New York Times: WK8.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

pissedconsumer.com

The website http://www.pissedconsumer.com/ allows viewers to submit complaints regarding products and services. It allows people to register as users, but also allows unregistered users to post complaints. Per its' editorial policy (http://www.pissedconsumer.com/publications/faq-2.html) it does not "investigate" complaints. This seems to mean that they do not seek to verify or refute postings made by its viewers. With these factors in mind, pissedconsumer.com should be considered WP:NOTRS.--S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a completely user-generated site, doesn't even come close to being reliable for any assertions about companies or products. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I did a search for pissedconsumer on WP and came up with some stuff. Its been deleted.--S. Rich (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't cite Yelp or Angieslist either, for the same reasons. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't cite Yelp? Are you sure? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are "U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs" publications reliable sources?

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, “Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey,” January 2006

The PDF of publication says

"Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice."

I see no sign of peer review. Reliable source?

Zimbazumba (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, hmmm. Reliability depends to some extent on the author as well as the publisher - her credentials, reputation, and evidence (or lack thereof) of fair-mindedness.

The report is by Pat Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes. It says here that Pat Tjaden is a Ph.D. and (former) professor. This says that Thoennes is also a Ph.D., but a think-tank person rather than an academic. And it makes sense that the DoJ would engage people with substantial credentials.

If it's true that no one checked their facts or work that's not good. But it doesn't invalidate the source as necessarily unreliable if there's no claim and no evidence of incompetence or bias by the authors. This is my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, there are similar Government publications from the UK and Canada that on occasion most would consider unreliable. I was not sure what the case in US is. 'Think Tank' bothers me, I'll check her out further.

Zimbazumba (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment What exactly is this source being used to support, knowing that would help alot in deciding whether its "reliable enough." I think that this is probably reliable for almost anything. DOJ drug policy article would be dubious but Rape statistics are probably reliable in my book. Google Scholar shows based on its limited search is been pretty well cite thus indicating it is considered reliable by alot people. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obituaries and vanity publications as sources for cause of death

Heath guru Max Gerson died in 1959 at the age of 77. No death certificate seems to be on-line. His family thinks that if he hadn't been poisoned he'd have lived to 110 or something. Naturally, the issue of his cause of death comes up on TALK:Max Gerson. His family believes that he was poisoned by arsenic by a secretary and contracted pneumonia as a result of this. There are rumors that he had lung cancer on X-ray, but no autopsy was done (apparently). His obituary in the New York Times (which I have not seen) apparently states "pneumonia." Gerson's daughter and her son (who have both run Gerson health Clinics) have both written books on the man, and the daughter says "viral pneumonia caused by arsenic" and the grandson says "fungal pneumonia caused by weakened immunity caused by arsenic".

Problem: none of these sources are very reliable. When I attempted to post something about this controversy in the Max Gerson article, I was reverted by an editor who didn't like my reference to a film made by Gerson's daughter (in which she states arsenic and viral pneumonia) and an online review of yet another family member who has written a Gerson bio, which follows the arsenic theeory (this biographer claimed radio communcation with the spirit of Gerson, for the ultimate difficult to fact-check reference).

I think I'm the victim of double standards. All of this information comes from the Gerson family anyway. Obituaries do not fact-check, but simply print what the family tells them. It doesn't matter if it is the New York Times, if it's obituary repeating family reports. The biography written by the grandson is no better: not only is it vanity-published (thus, self-published) but the grandson has no way of having any special insight into this grandfather's death, either (he was 15 years old at the time). Ultimately, these two sources were used by yet another editor, who has been at odds with me on this article from the moment I started editing it.

So-- do you think that family tradition becomes reliable, just because a newspaper prints it in the obits, and one of the grandkids pays to have it published as a vanity book? I know that's a terribly loaded way to phrase a question, but so what? It's my question. For the full argument, see

For extra credit: what is the purpose of this place, anyway? Do you-all think you can determine for WP-purposes, which sources are "reliable" to get knowledge from, and which are not? You-all must be really, really universally smart about epistemology, then! Why are you not out teaching philosphy classes? SBHarris 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ending a four paragraph scenario with a snarky insult. That's gonna make us all want to spend time answering you (I know it motivated me). Not even sure what you are asking: you want to include a reference to the arsenic assertions and the other editor took it out as unreliably sourced? If yes, we would be interested in knowing whether the person accused is still alive, which would probably make the assertion untenable under biography of living person rules. Even if the accused person is dead, we would look at WP:SELFPUB, which says self-published material may come in if "1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources." The arsenic claims as sourced seem to flunk 1, 2, 3 ("subject" meaning the author) and 4. Your point that New York Times obits are essentially also self-published is not pertinent here under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; I suggest raising it to challenge some other article sourced to a Times obit. Thanks for playing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times is generally considered a reliable source and its obituary page is no exception. There appears to be confusion between obituaries, which are usually written by staff, and death notices, which are paid announcements. If an obituary gives a cause of death, I would treat that as reliable, although subject to subsequent revision, for example by an inquest. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I do not know if the article in question was a paid death notice or obituary. It's hard even to get a paid notice into the NYT these days (people are dying to get in, har) but this was doubtless easier, in 1959. However, if it were actually an obituary for a person famous enough to rate one, it doesn't seem likely that anybody would be fact-checking items like cause-of-death--I know of no newspaper that does that (there is not even a mechanism for it, at the time the obit is written-- the hospital doctor is not going to tell a journalist anything even if a journalist manages to contact him).

There is an idea proposed that that "reliability" of a source like the NYT should apply to all sections of it. This is not true even for obits (for example, the NYT managed to make seven separate errors in the Walter Cronkite obit (and that's counting really general ones like the date of the moon-landing). But now I get the opposite argument which is supposedly made in Misplaced Pages's OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (essay) which doesn't really have a coherent message, as you see in its nutshell where the first bullet completely contradicts the second two bullets. The essay points out that OTHERSTUFF is how WP has decided that high schools are notable and junior highs are not, and is the mechanism by which much policy is codified, and can rationally be used in arguments--except when somebody doesn't want to (!) As a whole, it has no message. However, if you believe in using (just the the first part) of a self-contradictory "guidance essay" as a weapon in service of inhomogeneity and nonpolicy, then why bother with what goes on at WP:IRS, a "content guideline"? Or on this page? Is there a point to that, except perhaps as encapsulated in ILIKETHISOTHERESSAY? It seems to me from your comments that there are enough contradictory guidelines and essays and policies (yes, there is an RS section in the WP:V policy, which speaks of source "reputation") that it seems one may argue for, or against, inclusion of any non-BLP material one likes in WP, and fight anybody who wants to apply the same in another WP article, just as easily, using some other essay. "Thanks for playing," indeed (you seem to be touchy about insults-- it's good that I AGF).

As for the questions from JohnathanWallace (assuming he's not just playing), the the family poisoning-suspect from 50+ years ago is not identified by name any where, so that isn't an issue. As for sources being "self serving" they can't help but be self-serving one direction or the other. "Natural causes" serves the interests of the quackbusters and AMA (who was interested enough to do their own death-notice in JAMA), while murder serves the causes of the family and guru-followers. Right now, I have one editor who is using the same source (a grandson bio) IN PART to advance the argument of natural causes, but has suppressed the rest of the same source, apparently with the judgement that that OTHER part is self-serving. I believe this is constitutes SYNTH on the part of the editor, as it selectively sythesizes data in an argument toward a conclusion. I you use a source you need to fairly summarize what it says on the subject. I would simply like to put everybody's claims in, and say where they came from and what their sources are.

No, I myself doubt Gerson was poisoned-- evidence is lacking. However, that is a very widely held view among his followers who are numerous (Google it). It is notable. In case you want to know my own view of the medical facts, I think Gerson's followers of today could be fairly labeled as quacks, since they are still practicing and making ever-more exaggerated claims, but I think Gerson himself practiced in a time (the 1930's to 1950's) when really too little was known about biology to say he was badly wrong, and before which medicine was really a "science" as we know the term (the medical doctor of 1940 did not rely on statistical p-values, in case you didn't know). Indeed, our modern cancer prevention diets, high in fruits and vegetables, are suspiciously Gersonish, but they didn't even start to appear as official recommendations until the 1980's (before the 1970's the official American Cancer Society position was that cancer and diet were not related). So the official view now is that Gerson was partly right only by chance, and deserves no credit at all for his unscientific observations and treatments. Not something we'd say about Galen or Hipocrates, of course! SBHarris 16:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unhappy with WP:V, you've tried to change it and, at various points have pleaded to have it (essentially) ignored. Failing that, you're here on the reliable sources noticeboard challenging the reliability of the New York Times to verify a piece of data that everyone seems to agree with (official sources, those disputing the official sources, etc.). Someone brings up WP:WAX, so now you're challenging that. What policies, guidelines and/or essays do you generally agree with, other than WP:IAR? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see you've sourced your claim about the NYT making errors to, gulp, the NYT. Presumably you either have them fessing up to screwing up on the Gerson obit or, better yet, have a reliable source for them making mistakes in the Cronkite obit... The only person disputing his cause of death is... well... I don't think even you, as you have said he died of pneumonia. Still, you're arguing that the NYT is not a reliable source for this simple piece of info that everyone seems to agree on. Why? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We are really clued up on epistemology, nice of you to point that out. Ask me a question about epistemology. Some of us teach epistemology. Great to find someone interested in it. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

An obituary in The New York Times would generally meet the requirements of WP:RS. A paid death notice in the same publication may be used for non-controversial material. Jayjg 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, did you read the above? If the NYT does not fact check parts of obituaries or death notices like cause-of-death (which they do not) but instead rely on family who has this private information to supply to the paper, then why does republication in the NYT confer ANY extra reliability on such information? That is a triumph of surface-value over substance, but it's no progress epistemologically (comment, user:Itsmejudith?). In fact, this actually detracts from whatever information-value the material has, since it tends to HIDE the original source, just as is happening in this case. See churnalism. It's one thing for WP:IRS to mention "churnalism"- apparently it's something else for WP to actually incorporate the consequences of it, into policy or even guideline (which it has not). The family tells the NYT that the guy died of pneumonia, and this is considered by WP to be RS because the NYT prints it, but when the family later decides the cause was arsenic leading to pneumonia, the editors at WP refuse to accept this, ostensibly because it comes from the family. We don't know what the NYT would have printed if the family had initially claimed death-by-arsenic, or by Martian ray-gun. My guess is that they'd have refused to print anything on the cause of death, if it was too odd-sounding. But again, that fact adds no information, if what they DID print was noncontroversial. We already know that the NYT is likely to print non-controversial causes of death, but probably wouldn't print something outrageous or even odd (death by Humboldt Squid attack in a death notice), since they can't fact-check either one. So the fact that that they print "pneumonia" adds no level of likeliness that it actually was pneumonia as an ultimate (rather than only proximate) cause, since we already know the paper has an "unusual claim" filter at this level in death notices (which is not the same as fact-checking system-- it's just a skeptic-filter).

To SummerPhD: I merely gave an example of the NYT "fessing up" to their own errors (which they didn't catch;somebody else did) as a shortcut to get around argument that maybe they actually didn't make that many errors. Perhaps you think that an error by the NYT counts only if they admit it, or that if I can't find them admitting it, it doesn't count? If so, that is wrong. There are plenty of errors the NYT makes they never "fess up" to. For example, Judith Miller's NYT "exclusive" stories on Iraq's WMDs (which helped the drumbeat toward that war) were based in no small part, but without attribution, on Ahmed Chalabi's claims, a fact that the NYT (as noted) didn't include at the time, and has never appologized for, as an "error" (any more than the US government has). In this gaff, Chalabi's claims took on the NYT's reputation, and in doing so, made the government sound like their own WMD claims had been independently verified, by being taken up as a story (without attribution to Chalabi) by a liberal newspaper. BUT, you must read about this gaff in OTHER media, who (of course) lose nothing in making the NYT look like the rumor-spreading fools that they were in this case . Like the game of "telephone," but one where each player gets more and more reputation as the chain elongates, it's a mess. Example: Curveball (informant)'s claims eventually taking on the reputation for accuracy of Colin Powell, who hadn't fact-checked them, any more than anybody ELSE had.

Consider Dan Rather and CBS's defense of the authenticity of the Killian documents, which they say their experts checked. It's a separate question from the problems of churnalism per se, of whether any given news medium (or government agency, for that matter) has a "reputation for acuracy" better than it deserves. If so, who is to say, and how would one know? From some other source? And what about THEIR reputation? Without application of science, this is ALL just a game of "he-said, she-said" more or less as happens in any nasty-divorce-trial, but without any primary evidence admitted anywhere. user:Itsmejudith, can you tell us about the epistemology of he-said/she-said? It's the method WP uses for much of its material. Do you see a problem with that? In examples above (Curveball) jounalists and government have ignored even legal rules of evidence, and admitted not only hearsay, but hearsay about hearsay! And when this goes to press, it all is transformed to WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. Come on.

Oh, yes, and in answer to SummerPhD asking which WP policies I do agree with, see the end of section at . I think WP:MEDRS is the best standard that exists at WP:IRS, which otherwise flails around a lot. Even as journalism is decaying, and journalism even admits that it is decaying, WP at the same time has enthroned journalism as a major source of reliable truth. That is bad. SBHarris 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

SBH, I think that your point about supposedly reliable sources is absolutely uncontroversial. However, what can we do about the fact that all reliable sources are actually imperfect and sometimes wrong? Logically this means we can never use any sources? Or WP would have to become a research organization itself. Instead, surely the standard procedure here is that we focus on reputation for fact checking rather than trying to judge the fact checking (or truth) independently ourselves. Nearly every Wikipedian has of course drawn the line somewhere when there is clear consensus and evidence of an article or book being a bad apple from a normally reliable source, but is there any clear evidence that this particular case is one of them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and there is nothing further to discuss here. The article currently has no mention of cause of death. If people want to discuss whether the "poisoned by arsenic" theory should be mentioned in the article, that's a weight question. A statement "an obituary in the NYT reported the cause of death as pneumonia; the family have argued..." raises no sourcing problems. Of course, the NYT should not be referenced unless at least one editor has had access to the whole report and ascertained for sure whether it was an obituary or a death notice. General questions of newspaper reliability can be discussed elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does have a mention of cause of death. It says: "Gerson died March 8, 1959 of pneumonia, contracted while exploring bat caves in Escondido.". The two cites are from the 1959 NYT notice (which is not on-line so I cannot check it), and the second to Gerson's grandson's book. This is the guy (Howard Strass) who was 15 years-old when his grandfather died, and on his way to studying physics, not health (later in life he would attempt to make money by running a Gerson clinic in Sedona, and write Gerson's bio). Strass also has much to say about the poisoning conspiracy, but this part has been ignored by the same WP editor who uses this part of his book as a cite to back up the NYT. That's SYNTH, as it uses souces selectively to argue toward a conclusion.

Example: "...after exploring bat caves..."? This is relevant, how? This is used by the grandson to argue for cause of death of histoplasmosis, but this is the same guy (and the same source) that/who argues for arsenic poisoning to start immunosuppression. However, since no specific diagnosis of the lung problem was made, we don't know. The suggestion that Gerson had fungal pneumonia, thus probably lung nodules on X-ray, doesn't help, and so far as I can tell, comes from the grandson. Lung nodules can result from any number of causes, including (of course) TB and cancer. Both of which make Gerson's diet (which was actually developed to fight TB, and only later applied to cancer) tend to look less than perfectly perventive. The remainder of the present Max Gerson Misplaced Pages article also caontains material which is sourced, but the source has no source (though it sounds official), so that leads to a blind end.

Andrew Lancaster, your questions are interesting, but where is the place to discuss them? If I complain about epistemology on the TALK page of an article, I get sent to RS/N (as happened here). If the problem is removed, we still end up with policy issues, which perhaps should be discussed at TALK page for WP:IRS. Which I can do, although those people get tired of arguing policy without specific examples in front of them. .

The short answer to your question is that things are all mucked up, on WP:IRS. They can't even decide if a newspaper report (front page NYT) ala Judith Miller's "reports" about Saddam Hussein's WMD's in 2002, are primary or secondary sources. One problem is that people like Miller don't give their OWN sources (in this case, it was an unreliable one), so why should be trust them? It's not as though Miller is likely to have checked out her sources with other journalists, let alone other newspapers-- that's not the way that world works. In science, however, it actually DOES work that way.

We can also see on WP:IRS that WP has no understanding of your average primary science experimental paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal, for it labels such things "primary sources." Anyone who actually has written one of these things knows that it contains many levels of information, starting with a "why we did this" section, continuing with two sections that on WP would be labeled WP:OR, and then WP:SYNTH part where the authors interpret their findings, do a mini-review of the literature (ordinarily a secondary-source activity) and attempt to put their findings into perspective by contasting them with others, and often ending with a paragraph or who of what in journlism would be called "Op-Ed". However, all this is seen by multiple other (anonymous) reviewers before it gets to print, and the primary authors have a chance to correct it, also. It is nothing like a published diary (a classic primary historical source). There is no way to compare with anything a newspaper does. Do you see my problem? WP:RSMED (which again I didn't write, but like) does an admirable job of starting to get the epistemology of reading a scientific paper down to some kind of algorithm (it still takes quite a lot of sophisitication). However, nothing is available on WP for other fields, and certainly nothing that attempts to compare reliability in one field with another, something that happens ALL THE TIME in writing encyclopedia articles.

The answer to what to do about this for me as an editor, has been (in the past) to use my own judgement. What else can one do? However, there's no good way to settle arguments. I don't really think the problem has a good answer. But it would be good if we got the difficulties out into the open, and ADMITTED that it doesn't have a good answer. And that right now, all such problems are being handled by violating WP:SYNTH, and by argumentum ad baculum at the point of administrative-block tools, again without admitting this. There's a reason why the first steps of Alcoholics Anonymous involve admiting you have a problem, and you can't fix it. WP hasn't even gotten to Step 1 of the 12 Steps, after working a decade on it. The reason being that WP departed from the expert-review vision it initially started with when it was invented by Sanger, and then attempted to bureaucratize the dysfunctional result after that, in order to try to make the reliability problems disappear under a load of increasingly difficult to understand and jargonish policy guidelines. See my comments on the TALK page of WP:V. And of course, dissenters are suppressed or (eventually) leave, or are banned. I'm just waiting my own turn, though I've edited here since late 2005.SBHarris 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ctva.biz

Is http://ctva.biz/ a reliable source? I couldn't determine how many people the site has to check the facts or scrutinize the writing. Its email address is hotmail.co.uk, so it probably is based in the UK. The main guestbook doesn't seem to have any responses from those running the site. http://ctva.biz/_CTVA_Guestbook.htm I'm looking for a definitive answer on whether http://ctva.biz/ a reliable source. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it redirects to http://hub.webring.org/hub/vintagetv which is a webring, in other words an linked collection of web sites. As such it would have no editorial control and hence cannot of itself be a reliable source. It would depend on the particular site in the ring. Could you give the details of the citation and the assertion it is being used to support?

Many of the subsections identify the contributors and the sources. Generally they cite the U.S. Library of Congress and iMDB. iMDB has frequently been discussed here, and there is no consensus that it's a reliable source because it's user-generated. The Classic TV Archive seems to fall in the same category as iMDB. See WP:RS/IMDB. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the pages I'm looking at is http://ctva.biz/US/Drama/EastsideWestside.htm . There doesn't seem to be any indication as to who wrote the page or where it came from. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the names of the authors at the top, and they list iMDB as one of their sources. It's too bad they use that, because their other sources appear to be solid. TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't believed I missed that information. I just glossed over it, assuming that it was part of the East Side / West Side write up. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You guys are doing a valuble job

For me, reliable sources are important in deciding what gets into or is excluded from a Misplaced Pages article. When a newspaper or book excludes information from its writing, it does so based on decisions that take into account things like the lower importance of the excluded information relative to that which is being published and the lower interest the reader will have in the excluded information relative to what is being published. Misplaced Pages's reliance on that third party decision making is one things that distinguished Misplaced Pages from the rest of the internet. When it comes to websites such as IMDb, there is little control over what individuals post. The information might be correct, but then Misplaced Pages isn't able to capitalize on any editorial exclusion decisions made by the publication at least not to the degree that a newspaper or book publisher. It also is just as probable that the information is not correct. You guys are doing a great job in holding the line. Without sources being excluded, Misplaced Pages will become just another website on the Internet - a conveyor of information - correct or incorrect - without concern to whether it is posting verifiable prose that stands a reasonable chance of being interesting to readers. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

China: The Roots of Madness

China: The Roots of Madness is a film produced by National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency(unverifiable) in 1967. Can it be used as a source on Chinese history related articles? Arilang 07:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No. TFD (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say it depends. I mean, is the NSC and the CIA unreliable? What kind of content are you trying to use it for? Silverseren 09:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like more recent scholarship from a more scholarly venue would be preferred. TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look: User:Arilang1234/Draft/China: The Roots of Madness (1967) Documentary Film#Episode one synopsis. The CIA connection cannot be verified, according to :here, so it is just a rumor. Moreover, CIA source should be reliable majority of the time, if CIA is not reliable, there just wouldn't be CIA anymore. The Pearl Buck interview is very informative, I would like to use it on Boxer Rebellion, if possible.

Though the film's POV is blatantly cold war style anti-communist, nowaday, anti-communism is still mainstream, isn't it so? Arilang 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There must be a whole library of scholarly sources on the Boxer Rebellion. It's hard to imagine a context in which this documentary would be useful, unless perhaps it's to give an account of how this event was viewed in the context of the cold war mindset by the National Security Council. TimidGuy (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Beside Boxer Rebellion, this 90 minutes film discuss many other topics such as Sino-Japanese war, the Chinese civil war, Manchuguo, US military actions in China, Pearl Harbor, Japanese bombing of Chungking, Chinese warlords, Mao Zedong in Yan'an, power struggle between Kuomintang and Chinese communist. It is written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Theodore H. White, though it's use of Cold War style rhetoric is extensive, in my opinion, the film can be a valuable RS to many China related articles. Arilang 00:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fashion Bangalore (website)

[Fashion Bangalore is used as a reference for several statements in Govind Kumar Singh. Is it reliable? I ask because on the About page for that website it says that it is an aggregator - who knows where the content has come from, and whether it is reliable or not? There appear to be no by-lines and the thing is being operated using blog software (WordPress). The operating company is zero484, who have a mere 2,100 Google hits themselves.

I do realise that the statements it supports might be regarded as trivial but the article does rely heavily on it and I'm considering requesting better sources. The article has been subject to some possible COI editing/promotion by a newbie, as has a related article, Let's Dance (both may still be, although I have edited them heavily). Both were CSD'd at one point but I do not have access to the logs to see if they were subsequently recreated or what. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It does all seem a bit inbred, and that there are notability issues. I agree that it would be a good idea to request better sources. The two sources being used seem weak. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The contributing editor didn't get back to me in any meaningful way & has now been blocked for a week. I guess this puts the onus on me. I've re-raised it on the article talk page & will give it until the end of this weekend. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Book review

A book makes an allegation against a living person of something that that person has denied and which a judicial inquiry has found he did not do. A book review of the book, from a reviewer who has made it clear he despises the subject of the allegation, apparently remarks that the book has definitely established that the allegation is proved. Can an article therefore report that the allegation has been proved, and cite the book review as a source? Or is the book review clearly a tertiary source which should not be used when the book itself is available?

Confused? You won't be, when these and other questions are answered in this week's episode of Talk:Death of David Kelly#Geoffrey Wheatcroft. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This one is also posted on the Biography of living persons noticeboard. Love the Soap reference, by the way. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When asking a question about the reliability of sources its usually good to 1) Supply the sources and 2) supply the claim they are being used to source. Can you please do both of these things here? On the face of it I don't see an RS issue, but please supply the relevant material so we can look at it. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is a review by Geoffrey Wheatcroft which was printed in the New York Review of Books. There were several books under review but the relevant one is "The End of the Party" by Andrew Rawnsley. For a succinct summary of where Wheatcroft is coming from about Tony Blair (for the living person is he), have a look at some of his reviews. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sam, since you repeat insistently that an 'allegation' is being made can you show me where the two pieces of information I supplied from Wheatcroft's review allege anything? Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The review is still hidden behind a paywall. The first allegation is that, at the meetings on 8 July 2003, "it was decided that Kelly's identity must be revealed". That allegation is flatly contradicted by the evidence and conclusion at the Hutton Inquiry which said that the meeting decided to confirm that someone had come forward but not to identify Dr Kelly. Your edit does not merely state the allegation but also states that it has been proved. The second allegation is that Tony Blair stated "No one was authorised to name David Kelly" (note the conjunction with the first allegation). This is quoted out of context: the question Blair was asked was "Why did you authorise the leaking of Dr Kelly's name?" (emphasis mine). Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not an RS issue. The New York Review of Books is clearly a reliable source. That said, what is stated in a book review should always be attributed to the author of the review, but that has been done in the entry. There may be a BLP or NPOV issue here, but I do not see a reliability issue. For instance, given the nature of the claim made in the book review, and the known POV of the reviewer about Blair, it is imperative to be more sensitive about how to present the claim, if at all, but that again is not a matter of source reliability.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the article shouldn't say that the allegation has been proved. And that the book rather than the review should be the source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Is this a reliable source and if so, would it stand up to an FAC? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussions here have noted it is not reliable - I'll dig up the link for you. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you go --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall, no. Most of Ancestry.com is user generated content with no editorial oversight. These are not considered reliable sources. Ancestry.com does carry proprietary content from a reputable source, the Dictionary of American Family Names by Oxford University Press. These can probably be considered reliable. There are some articles which are written by the Ancestry Magazine staff writers, such as Irish Immigrants to New York which might be reliable - this issue hasn't really been discussed in much depth at RSN. For past discussions, see Question about Ancestry.com (Archive 61) and Ancestry.com (Archive 58). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I was going to be using (sourcing) was a scanned copy of a 1910 Census Record, which are also at the National Archives and Records Administration in DC. Would that still fail RS or would that be different? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to provide the microfilm and page number at NARA for the record?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me see. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Neutralhomer, these commercial genealogical sites are not to be generalized about too easily in my opinion. It is not only one publication which ancestry.com has scanned and indexed, but a whole mini "google books". Concerning censuses and other government and church records, yes they generally have scans of original documents with full references. But remember censuses are primary documents, so the reason for using them should be obvious and not requiring too much interpretation. There are lots of entries for John Smith for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, census records would be considered primary sources. Primary sources can be used in certain, limited situations but there are three things to watch out for. First, you cannot analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source. This is considered original research and is against policy. You can only make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person (but without specialist knowledge) would be able to verify by looking at the same source. See WP:PRIMARY for more information. Second, if the information is truly worth including in a Misplaced Pages article, odds are that a secondary, reliable source would have published it. See WP:WEIGHT. Third, if this is material about a living person, I don't think you can use it at all. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. If you can tell us which article you are talking about and how you want to use the source, we can give you a more definitive answer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Couldn't find anything from NARA. :(

@A Quest For Knowledge: I would just use the Census Records from the Ancesty.com source to show who his (Frank Buckles) parents and siblings were. At present, we are having trouble finding that information from other sources like CNN, The New York Times, etc. From that information, I could do a more specific Google Search to find further information on them. But the Census records would be my main source. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might be OK. Are any of his siblings still alive? Can you give us the link to Ancestry.com article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. A Washington Post article said he had a brother, Ashman, who passed away at 4 from Scarlet Fever. The link I have is this one, but that is just to the search. I was going to do the 14 day free trial and get the actual links if it was a reliable source. Since it is, I will do that now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, won't let me do the free trial. Great, all for naught. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It let me do the 14 day trial. What do you need? Can you refine your search terms? I get 539 hits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, then my bank card hates me. :) Anywho, I am looking for anything on siblings (names, birth/death years, birth/death places), parents (names, birth/death years, birth/death places), etc. Search for "Wood Buckles" as well, that is his birth name, but took "Frank Woodruff Buckles" at 16 when he enlisted in the Army. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I know his brother's name was "Ashman Buckles", but he passed away at age 4. If you can find a record on him, that would be great. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the 1910 US Census, J C Buckles is listed as head of household, aged 53, born in Illinois and a farmer. Tressa Buckles is listed as wife, age 51, born in Illinois and has no occupation. Wood is listed as son, aged 9, born in Missiouri, no occupation. No other person is listed in that household. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the 1920 US Census, it's still just the three of them. His father's first name is James. His mother's middle initial is J. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, then we will have to source the brother to the Washington Post article and the parents to the Census. Thanks for your help! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec w/ Neutralhomer). @Neutralhomer, I saw this section and I'm more than happy to help. I did the Census matches a few weeks ago myself, and while this is WP:OR, I'm pasting the link to "The 110 Club forum" where I posted my search results. Copy & paste this link (old spam filter still in place): http://z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=1765&view=findpost&p=2785030. You'll be happy to see the 1900 Census as it does have his older siblings on it. Let me know if I can help you further. Cheers, CalvinTy 20:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• On where the son, Wood (later Frank) was born, does it say Bethany, MO or Salem, MO? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have an answer for that. This LA Times article was the one that explicitly stated, "He was born Feb. 1, 1901, on a farm near Bethany, Mo.,...". Cheers, CalvinTy 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither census lists the city of birth, only the state. But it looks like Calvin has the answer. BTW, I'm a bit sceptical as to how we can use these sources. There is no fact-checking here. It's simply what the person who filled out the form claimed. While there's probably no reason to believe the information inaccurate, I would think you would need in-text attribution, "According to 1910 census, ...." But maybe I'm being anal? Second BTW, if you're looking for sources, this might help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge is correct. We can only use the Census information either to:

• a.) state where the person was at the time, and only at that time (i.e. he was indeed living in Dewey County, Oklahoma, in January 1920, although I did see a reference back then saying that he had returned back from WWI to the States in "January 1920" as well), or
• b.) use the information to provide reference that the person's parents were indeed "Mr. James Clark Buckles and Mrs. Theresa Jane (Keown) Buckles", for example. However, another reliable source would be preferred to be used to state that type of information about his parents -- because we shouldn't be interpreting their names based on a Census record. After all, how do we know that his father's name was indeed James Clark Buckles since the Census record(s) didn't say it? Cheers, CalvinTy 21:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See, this is where I am running into a problem. On this site, it says he was born in "Salem, Daviess, Missouri". I can't find a town of Salem in Daviess County, Missouri, but there is one in Dent County, Missouri.

As for the sourcing, we could put the "According to the 1910 Census" in front of the sentences and go from there. I see no problem in that. I could do something like "According to the 1900 Census, Buckles had two sisters, Grace and Gladys and one brother, Ashman." Then source it with the Ancestry.com 1900 Census image. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This was a hundred years ago. This is purely speculation on my part, but perhaps county borders have changed since then? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer, the link you provided only points to the 1910 Census record itself. At that time, that was where the family lived, not where Wood was born, though. I also see that it is actually Salem Township, MO (Google maps). About the sourcing, I like your line of thought. By the way, of most interest that I hadn't made the connection before, but I just looked at the 1910 census image itself (must have Ancestry.com membership), the mother reported that she "had 5 children, 4 living". We know in hindsight that Ashman died of scarlet fever in 1903. The 1900 Census had "Grace" at 15, and "Gladys" at 13, but I do wonder if they had an older sibling than Grace that had already left home before June 1900 (which would explain why the mother looked like she first gave birth at age 25 -- which was quite late in that era -- based on her age of 40 & Grace at 15 in the 1900 Census). But, sorry to hijack this as this could be discussed anywhere else, not here, LOL. Cheers, CalvinTy 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Having used Ancestry.co.uk quite a bit to research my family, I can confirm that census returns have a few problems. UK censuses record a person's age, not their date of birth, and people seem to get amazingly younger as they get older, if you see what I mean. People forget where they came from. The census enumerator spells their names at random (up to the 1911 census, we only have the enumerator's return, not the householder) Massive boundary changes mean you have to look every address up on a map. Also, there is the issue that while one census return or birth certificate is primary evidence, stringing a number of them together to say get all the family (eldest having left home by the time youngest is born), is original research.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@CalvinTy: The sourcing to the 1910 Census was just to show directly the names of the parents. I could source the record you have on that board link (you linked above). Either works. As for the "older sibling", check the 1890 Census, and look for "Roy", per this.

Elen of the Roads: I tried looking at the enumerator on the National Archives (here in the US), but came up empty. Couldn't even find anyone named "Buckles". - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with Neutralhomer) To illustrate Elen of the Roads's point, "stringing a number of them to say get all the family", this is precisely what may have happened with Frank Buckles. Just a few minutes ago, I made an interpretation of the census records above that perhaps Frank had an elder sibling that had left home, which would be original research, even after I now find out to be a possible and even likely case as posted by at least one other Ancestry.com family tree (still original research anyway as well as the link Neutralhomer just mentioned, too): Roy Forrest Buckles appeared to be the eldest child, born 1882, died 1975. Unfortunately, we cannot cite this information unless there is a reliable source out there having that bit of information. Added after edit conflict: 1890_United_States_Census was uhh about 99.99% destroyed by a fire in 1921, FYI (from memory; correction, I now have a "source" here). I see that Wiki article needs some more citations. Regards, CalvinTy 22:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Like Elen of the Roads I have experience in this area as a genealogist. One of the classic problems that genealogists have with censuses and other primary documents is that you need to make assumptions, often non obvious ones, in order to be sure that the records you are looking at which mention people with the same name, are all the same person, and not cousins, uncles etc. Perhaps for someone with an unusual name a reasoned consensus might allow some space on this, but then even then caution is required, and perhaps attribution is a good idea also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Elen and Andrew are both correct about the problem inherent with using an old census; the census itself is very often inaccurate regarding basic facts such as age and even name, and (even if the spelling matches), one is never sure whether it is referring to the person in question, someone else with the same name. Jayjg 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

http://napoleon.org.pl

http://napoleon.org.pl - I think it does not meet RS criteria, since it seems to be self-published by non-experts . But I may be wrong? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose this website is to promote a stack of books in Polish on Napoleonic military topics, IMO it is definitely not a source for Misplaced Pages. Editors should consult the books on the website to verify their possible use as a source--Woogie10w (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The World Reporter

Haemetite (talk · contribs) has been inserting pages from www.theworldreporter.com/ as references in various current event articles. All the articles on the main page of the site are written by a Sanskar Shrivastava, and apparently they take submissions. WP:SPS applies here, but I'd like to gain a rough consensus before mass-removing the links. Goodvac (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would suggest that it's more than a personal website. It does seem like SPS applies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be the work of two individuals. It's basically a slick-looking blog. Jayjg 00:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Britain Express website

I cannot find any reference to this website on a search of the archives. Its reliability has been questioned at FLC here. On its home page the website describes itself as a travel guide relating to British Heritage. It is the work of one person (and his family) and makes no claim as to its accuracy. The editor is a trained historian. He does not give any references but I must have looked at around 300 pages in the process of writing lists and articles relating to churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust and I have not found any errors when the information contained in this website appears elsewhere in acknowledged reliable sources. The information contained that I have not found elsewhere has the ring of authenticity (whatever that means — ie not "tabloid" or sensational). It's no big deal if this information cannot be used, but it does in some cases give added interest and colour to an article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As the work of one person, without references, seems pretty clearly to fall under WP:SPS. In terms of accuracy and reliability, I would think we'd need a third party assessment rather than an editor's. I think you need to find some evidence for an exception to WP:SPS such as the author being acknowledged as an expert in the field, by sources that meet WP:RS; articles by the author in the same field in publications that meet WP:RS or citations of the website in sources that meet WP:RS. Maccy69 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, it seems obvious that the only source you'd need for a list of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust is the trust's website - it then comes down to content about what counts as the East of England without getting into original research. I haven't read the article or the discussion in detail but given that you want this to be a featured list, I'm not sure that any information that doesn't come directly from the Trust is that relevant to a list, which is unlikely to need additional "colour". I think WP:RS could well be moot if the information you're seeking to add is not appropriate for a list - but I'm also inclined to say that this self-published source is not reliable, regardless. Maccy69 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you do remove information from that site, you may consider keeping a link to it, WP:ELMAYBE says you can consider linking to, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Maccy69 (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of local and ethnic (ex-pat UK) press.

There's currently an AFD debate in progress regarding a musical theatre production that took place a couple of years ago in Lagoa, a village/small town in the Algarve region of Portugal.

What sets this apart from most amateur drama society productions is that it appears to have had a comparitively large amount of money thrown at it. The production raised a certain amount of publicity, and I'd like some consensus on whether they are considered reliable sources.

• Review in The Portugal News

The Portugal News is a weekly English-language newspaper catering mainly for British ex-pats in Portugal, with a circulation of around 20,000 and also appears to be based in Lagoa.

• Review in The Algarve Resident

A much smaller local publication, again English language, covering only the Algarve region.

Press clippings quoted on the show's website seem to be limited to these publications, and I have been unable to find reviews elsewhere.

A mention of KISS FM having interviewed those involved in the production was made in the AFD debate... this appears to be a local English language station, Kiss FM Algarve, rather than the large UK-based independent radio station.

Are any of these sources considered reliable in determining notability? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with what appear to be press clippings hosted on the subject's own website, is that in this era of Photoshop, etc., such "clippings" may be fake, or worse yet edited by somebody with an agenda. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources themselves are at the low end of reliability for newspapers, but still acceptable. The fact that clippings are found only on the show's website is an issue. In theory they could be used for non-contentious claims. That said, they're not strong indicators of notability. Jayjg 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers published by political parties

Are newspapers published by political parties reliable source? Can I use Workers World published by the Workers World Party as a RS (for a fact about a demonstration, not opinion)? --Reference Desker (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think about them, they may lack the requisite neutral point of view on the activities of themselve, their allies, their foes, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the fact, it's probably safe to use it. Something like "so and so gave a speech on this date" or "a protest was organized here" are usually fine, but something that, say, attacks an opponent or gives an opinion on a law or issue should probably have a less biased source.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Usable in any case for opinions properly ascribed. Not for "facts" where almost any other source would be preferable (other than facts about the newspaper itself such as circulation etc.) F'rinstance - estimates of attendance might be slanted in such a source. Collect (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can this article be used with attribution? "According to Betsey Piette of the Workers World, protests were held at XYZ cites ..."?? --Reference Desker (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as you wikilinked to the paper or its parent organization, yeah; but I'd probably attribute the report as "According to a report in Workers World, newspaper of the Workers World Party" and leave Piette's name off, since the article says: "Contributing writers: John Catalinotto, Judy Greenspan, Dianne Mathiowetz, John Parker, Bryan G. Pfeifer, Scott Scheffer and Scott Williams". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Reference Desker (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, the news stories published in party organs can be a reliable source, but I cannot find adequate information about the Workers World newspaper. TFD (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Lyndon LaRouche contain a paragraph about Jeremiah Duggan?

Is a cite reliable if it is 3rd hand?I'

I'm struggling to find something in policy, I'm sure I've seen it. My question is does policy forbid second hand cites. For example if a book makes a claim citing another source, it is not appropriate to lift that cite and claim it as your own, or to take a cite provided by another editor and claim that as your own. I'm sure I've seen that but can't remember where. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "claim it as your own"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT MBelgrano (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats the one, I've been through that policy and couldn't find it. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT#Say where you read it is the answer you want, isn't it? You don't cite a source you haven't seen yourself. Andrew Dalby 08:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Planet Ill

Can someone help me out with this website. Are the articles written by the staff or by random contributers, and if the former, than why is this website on the spamlist? Is it an RS, and I just have to ask for a Spam-whitelist for the particular article? Thanks, Passionless -Talk 06:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we know who the contributors are? The contact page would suggest that the editor in chief and several of the editors/writers are anonymous. If so, that doesn't inspire confidence in this source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to check the contact page...I only checked the about page. Anyways they have an editor-in-chief and several writers so they look like an RS to me, besides what I wanted to source wasn't earth shattering anyhow, just hard to find elsewhere. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 16:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Author of the their front page story "Trailer Treat – Captain America: The First Avenger" uses a pseudonym "odeisel" in my experience Authors in RS always use some sort of actual name and not just a screen name. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"in my experience Authors in RS always use some sort of actual name and not just a screen name" -- In my experience, all German printed newspapers have such a code for each writing staff member, usually the abbreviated name (in this case: "Oliver Deisel"?), which are used for signing articles. But that's for saving space, so these abbreviations are not normally used online.

No comment on the reliability or otherwise of the site. Hans Adler 06:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why love Misplaced Pages Always so much to learn thanks for the info Hans. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 23:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran

There are three very questionable sources here that are being used to blame the attack upon Palestinians. Each of these three books, Encyclopedia of terrorismChronologies of modern terrorism and Aliya, all claim that Palestinians committed the crime, while in real life no one has been charged with the crime, and no one has taken responsibility for the crime. For this, I believe these books are spouting lies and cannot be used as sources for facts. For more information please see the talk page. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

the first book was published by an academic publishing house (Sage) and written by a subject matter expert _ a professor of criminal justice at a well known research university. It moreover won several awards as "best reference book". If you think such a source is not reliable for facts, you need to spend more time reading relevant policies, and less time perpetuating an apparent feud you have with the article's creator. Rym torch (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This book also makes claims which seem to go against the real world with no source to back up their claims. And again, I ask you Rym to stop hounding me. Passionless -Talk 01:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dilemmas of weak states seems to clearly fit our definition of Reliable Source, as well. If there are other Reliable Sources contradicting these books I think a better venue to sort it all out would be the Neutral point of view Noticeboard. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

These sources all appear to meet the basic requirements of WP:RS; they're published by reputable publishing houses, and the authors are generally academics or journalists. One book in particular, as pointed out, won awards. Also, it's perfectly fine to argue that a source is inaccurate, but to claim a book is "spouting lies" is a WP:BLP violation directed at the book's author(s). Please don't do it again. Jayjg 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a single unreferenced sentence about the killings in the 2002 book Encyclopedia of terrorism that attributes it to both Islamic Jihad and a different group, described as a Palestinian splinter group of Hezbollah. A 2004 book, Dilemmas Of Weak States includes two unreferenced sentences about the killings, the first of which incorrectly identifies one of the boys' place of residence. The second sentence says that both Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah-Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack but, again, no reference is provided for the statement. Another unreferenced single-sentence mention in the 2007 book Chronologies of modern terrorism blames Islamic Jihad. A short passage in a third book, Aliya, also published in 2007, attributes the murders to "Palestinian cattle rustlers" that the boys came upon by chance, and the author describes this imagined encounter from the perspective of an omniscient observer, as if it were fact. ( Around 100 goats were stolen the same night the boys were murdered. ) That's a high-quality source if ever there was one.

It's my opinion that these single-sentence assertions in compilations of Israeli victims, with no indication given as to what the assertions might be based on cannot be taken as proof of anything. Perhaps they were based on the only news report I'm aware of that says any group claimed responsibility, a single Jerusalem Post article that appears to be contradicted by a subsequent one. The JP said that other news agencies had received calls from a single anonymous person claiming responsibility for his group? ( But I've been able to find no other report of that, and no agency that actually claimed to have received such a call. If, as that one JP article reported, other news agencies received such calls, they would certainly have reported them if they'd found them credible. ) If these books were based on that, they should have said so. And if they had any other evidence, besides that JP article, or beyond preceding books that might also have been based on it, then they should have presented that. Some of these books may be reliable for other things, not for this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Broken Rites

Hi! I'm wondering where we sit in regard to Broken Rites Australia . It is commonly used as a source for allegations of sexual abuse by priests, as the group was formed to provide support to alleged victims and collect information about sexually abusive members of the Roman Catholic church. My concern is that the organisation has a very clear bias, although I assume that they are thorough in their investigations. So I have two general questions that could do with clarification - can they be used as a source for information about priests accused as sexual abuse, and should the site be used as the only source for such allegations? Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:RS are covered by two different policies. As you already suggest, groups with a strong POV can often have a reputation for fact checking, at least on some points. (One point they are normally going to be OK for is their own opinion for example, if they are notable organizations.) Whether such an organization is notable, or has a reputation for fact checking is something editors working on this will have to try to agree on. An important question will be how to balance our reporting.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution