Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:10, 21 January 2013

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

MMA reliability

Hi. i was wondering if mmajunkie is legit for using as a source. I see it has usatoday at the top. I was wondering about sn nation webdsites such as bloodyelbow? I have also had questions about the validity of bleachereport. Any merit to these questions? And I mean as it relates to enough of these type of articles justifying a fighter/events general notability. Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

mmajunkie

• Assume to be reliable According to the About page, MMAjunkie.com is owned by USA Today and appears to have editorial oversight. Unless someone has some contradicting evidence, I would assume that this site meets WP:RS, generally speaking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Assume not to be reliable and view on a case by case basis, a website that caries a "Rumors" (sp) section can't be assumed to have a blanket reliable status; then there is the reliance on "sources close" to things such as this or the 1000+ pages a search turns up for that well known journalistic trick to add an air of respectability to a guess. I also know that the OP agrees with me on this as he clearly viewed the website as "garbage" five weeks ago. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reliability should always be judged on a case by case basis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Assume to be generally reliable It is owned by USA Today and has an established editorial board. While specific articles may have errors, as with any news publication, the site as a whole appears to be reliable. Silverseren 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Assume not to be reliable - It is at best a fan-press site, and is tightly linked with the covered subject (ie, not an independent source). Ownership by USA Today is irrelevant. News of the World was owned by News Corporation, that didn't add to its reliability either. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• How is it a fan-press site when it has official columnists and an editorial review board? They have a specified staff, it's not a user-written site. It has nothing to do with "fans" at all. Silverseren 08:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As with the example of News of the World, the existence of a staff does not indicate an independent reliable source. In this case, USA Today has a sports department and they sometimes use material from MMAJunkie. However, when USA Today publishes such a story they do it under their own masthead, and with additional editorial review. Compare the MMAJunkie headline from today here, which paraphrases the USA Today article here. The USA Today article is in a reliable source, while the MMAJunkie article is based on that article. Yes, the same author is listed. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

USA Today being involved in really only tangential and just serves as an example of an organization that considers it a reliable source of MMA news. But MMAjunkie would be reliable regardless even if separate from USA Today, because it has an in place editorial board to review articles and has a set of specific writers for its articles. Silverseren 17:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

bloodyelbow

• Comment I'm unsure of this site. It's owned by SB Nation, a company I've never heard of. There's a fan section which is obviously not reliable. There are news articles, by named authors, but I get the feeling that this is a glorified group/fan blog. I would lean towarns unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable No evidence of editorial oversight, the SB Nation/about page refers to "involvement of SB Nation bloggers" and "network of fan-centric online sports communities." click on the "by line" of a news article and it takes you to a users section of the site. Again I also know that the OP agrees with me on this as he clearly viewed the website as "garbage" five weeks ago. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been wrong before. Yes, I do not try to use websites like mmamania and bloodyelbow, unless it is a direct interview with a fighter. Otherwise, the opinions of that site is garbage. With that said, one man's trash is another man's treasure PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable - Fansite generated by bloggers. Even the partent site refers to BloodyElbow as a user generated blog. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

bleachereport

• Comment This looks like another group blog. They claim to have a rigorous review process to accept writers but I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable for Bleacher Report as well for its "largely unpaid contributor base publishes", there is an application to become a contributor, but no evidence of editorial oversight. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment While hitting the Sports link on CNN.com today a notice popped up that in February, the sports news on CNN will be provided by BleacherReport and no long from SI. Interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This is good. I see more mma coverage in the future. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable - blog and feed aggregator. When the front page of a site is tweets and responses, that's probably not a great sign. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Conference presentation as source in article on Ayurveda

A recent edit in the article on Ayurveda has dated the Rig Veda to 10,000 years ago and has used as a source a 2011 conference presentation. As you may know, the Rig Veda was originally an oral tradition, and there is some question regarding its date of origin. Is this conference presentation considered a reliable source? Here's the ref that the editor uses:

"A report on the National Seminar, held by 'Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas' Delhi Chapter, (ISERVE-Delhi) on "Scientific Dating of Ancient Events Before 2000 B.C." held on 30th and 31st July, 2011, in which the first concensus was that "The astronomical dates of planetary references in ancient books calculated by the eminent astronomers by making use of planetarium software, indicate the development of an indigenous civilization in India even prior to 6000 BC. Astronomical references in Rigveda represent the sky view of dates belonging to the period from 8000 BC to 4000 BC and those mentioned in Ramayana refer to sky views seen sequentially on dates around 5000 BC."

The editor also sourced the information to the I-SERVE website. Thanks much for your feedback. It's been a matter of ongoing discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the publications by I–SERVE appear to be peer reviewed. Most members of the institute are not qualified in the relevant academic fields (lot of them are former bureaucrats). The chairman Prof. K. V. Krishnamurthy is, at best, a post graduate in Mathematics. All publications of the institute are self–published. The source appears to be unreliable, more so as a reference for extraordinary dates of the Rig Veda. Correct Knowledge 14:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG which is policy: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.". I've reverted this. The sources certainly are not high-quality and I believe any mention at all is probably WP:UNDUE. Note also that this was stated to be a "scientific fact". Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. TimidGuy (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not mentioned a 'Coference Presentation' as the source, rather, a 'REPORT' or the 'OUTCOME' of the seminar on topic "Scientific Dating of Ancient Events from Rigveda to Aryabhatiam" in which 10 seminar sessions were held with the objectives of 1) To ascertain astronomical datings of planetary references in ancient Sanskrit manuscriipts by making use of planetarium software, and 2) To corelate such astronomical dates with corroborating archaeological, geological, anthropological, paleobotanical, oceanographic, ecological and remote sensing evidences. Apart from Astronomical finding which I mentioned above earlier, other related findings are (a) Paleobotanical research reports have revealed that certain cultivated varieties of plants, trees and herbs, which are mentioned in Vedas and Epics, have existed in India continuously for more than 8000-10,000 years. Remains of cultivated rice, wheat and barley have been found belonging to 7000 BC; melon seeds, lemon leaf, pomegranate, coconut and date palm etc relating to 4000 BC; lentils, millets and peas etc. from 3000BC. These plants remained in use continuously indicating that there was not any abrupt end of ancient Indian civilisation. (b) The latest archaeological excavations have revealed large volume of new data which has proved the indigenous origin and development of civilisation in the Indian Subcontinent since 7000 BC. Some examples are: Lahuradeva, Jhusi, Tokwa and Hetapatti in Ganga Valley in the east, Mehrgarh, Kot Diji, and Nausharo in Indus Valley in the northwest; Lothal and Dholavira in the west. The material testimonies of these excavations have shown gradual cultural developments from the 7th-6th millennium BC in the entire region of Indus-Saraswati-Ganga system for a period of almost 8000 years Thus archaeology is also supporting the astronomical, ecological and anthropological conclusions that Aryans were originals of India, they have been creating and nurturing a continuously developing civilisation for the last 10,000 years. (c) The anthropological research reports have established that DNA dating for paleolithic continuity starts from 60,000 BC. The Genome studies during the Holocene have revealed that the genetic profile of humans settled in north, south, east and west of india is same and has remained the same for the last more than 11,000 years. (d) All these multidisciplinary scientific research reports, presented during the seminar, prima facie establish that indigenous civilization has been developing in India for last 10,000 years. This report is on the website of Institute. I think these facts would satisfy the editors on time period of Rigveda and Vedic Period.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Another finding on dating of Indian Civilization, "on the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-harappan horizon go back to 7390 BC to 6201 BC". This finding is reported in "International Conference on Harappan Archaeology" organised recently, in November 2012, by 'Archaeological Survey of India' (ASI) in Chandigarh by B.R.Mani, (Jt. Director ASI) and K.N.Dixit, former Jt. Director ASI in a presentation. It was concluded in the seminar that "The preliminary results of the data from the early sites of the Indo-Pak subcontinent suggests that the Indian Civilization emerged in the 8th millenium BC in the Ghaggar-Hakra and Baluchistan area".Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than the HT article I can't find any details of this conference. The ASI website does not speak of this conference. Can you give us a link to the conference and to the report? Correct Knowledge 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You can find the report at www.serveveda.org/documents/ScientificDatingAncientEventsBefore2000BCE.pdfSudhirkbhargava (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This link isn't working. If this document is same as the report presented in I-SERVE seminar above then we have already discussed this. Otherwise, please give a link to the report that works. Correct Knowledge 20:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Link works now. Instead of BCE, it is BC which I corrected. The report gives the names of 10 specialists, who made the presentations, and their subjects. There was a peer review by a panel of 4 eminent scholars and discussions and question-answer sessions took place after each presentation. I had attended the seminar and participated in questions-answer sessions. You'll find from the list that most of the presenters in the seminar were Ph.Ds. You'll find from the report that former President of India, Mr. Abdul Kalam, a known Vedic scholar himself, Mr. Sircar, then Secretary (Culture), GOI and Mr. Pawan Bansal, Cabinet Minister, GOI, also participated in the seminar. It was a multi-disciplinery approach and well corroborated scientific datings of happenings which took place more than 4000 years ago. Mention of Vedic events in Sanskrit books and there scientific datings fulfill the conditions for putting them on Wiki pages.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The report contains a summary of presentations at the I-SERVE seminar. Since I-SERVE does not appear to be a peer–reviewed fact checking source, this report cannot itself be considered reliable for an extraordinary claim. However, it could be worth your while to see if some of these authors have published similar research in peer reviewed publications. I checked Kulbhushan Mishra, he has published Dancing Elements of Indian Rock Painting with Special Reference to Chhattisgarh in Journal of the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology, Government of Chhattisgarh. The paper irrelevant to us but reliable. Likewise, J. R. Sharma, as I have pointed out elsewhere, has published a paper in GSI regarding geological dates of Saraswati. If your search leads us to something relevant, it can be given due weight in the appropriate article. Regards. Correct Knowledge 17:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The report is concensus after peer-review only, as I explained above. Each participant is highly acclaimed in his field. You said Kulbhushan Mishra's paper is irrelevent to you. It is amusing to me. Mr. Misra is an eminent archaeologist and wrote this artical on paintings which are more than 10,000 years old.The analysis of paintings tell us many things about the jewellery, wearings, styles etc. of that period. It is relevent to us, the researchers. His work was published in a reputed journal as you mentioned above. Bhimbetka, a World Heritage Site, also has similar paintings. Some other sites about 10,000 years old as mentioned earlier are Bhirrana, Mehrgarh, Jhusi. You mentioned JRSharma's one paper, I know about many which are published in Journals. Each presenter in the seminar is highly respected and report is scientific. I have a plethora of papers from various seminars in India and US, but I do not think that there is any use of putting them here. I wonder no other editor is commenting on the subject which is relevent for many pagesSudhirkbhargava (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's describe it the as the proceedings of an academic conference. Not reliable for historical claims that overturn an existing mainstream view. Journal articles by the same authors may be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not mind giving reference of I-SERVE conference and giving link to the report. The presenters in the conference have articles published in Journals as well on similar lines. Those references can also be given.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A number of problems here, but the main issue is still WP:REDFLAG. I'm not sure if we should be discussing this here, but civilization requires cities, not just signs, for instance, of agriculture. I can understand people wanting to define it otherwise, but for archaeological and historical purposes there are some criteria that have to be met - public buildings, a class structure, etc. Note that huge as it was, even Çatalhöyük is described as a settlement (or sometimes village), not a city. There are cave painting much older than 10,000 years old. Then there is of course the religious issue - we don't know what religion the people of the Indus Valley Civilization practiced. We are not going to suddenly try to turn over the mainstream view in our articles because of this. I'll also note that archaeology and Indian politics as a combination have produced some highly disputed results before. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and we do not have those. Wait for that to change - before we even mention it we might want some outside reliable sources commenting on it. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well ! I may submit here that claims are indeed 'extraordinary', but the new sources, based on archaeological, palaeobotanical, astronomical dates corroboration with Planetarium software, geological, anthropoligical, remote sensing evidences, and various dating techniques are equally extraordinary to bring about changes in old descriptions of dating of Vedas and Vedic Period. However, we can wait for more time and let others also give their sources of dating Vedic Period as 1500BCE-500BCE.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We used to have an article on this. See User:Dbachmann/Wikipedia and nationalism/Hindutva and pseudoscience. It may be time to revive the topic. See also Scientific foreknowledge in the Vedas, Historiography and nationalism. This is the topic you are looking at here. One thing this has certainly nothing to do with whatsoever is an actual scholarly evaluation of the date of the Rigveda. You are free to believe the Rigveda was composed by ancient aliens, but please do not waste Misplaced Pages's time with your views. The Rigveda depicts a society of the late Bronze Age. They have wheeled chariots and metal swords. I.e. the oldest hymns remember the earliest arrival of the Indo-Aryans, as reflected by the Gandhara culture. You might as well claim that the Iliad dates to 8000 BC, but you should not expect that anyone will think you worth listening to. See also WP:RANDY. --dab (𒁳) 09:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to be quite open minded while making discussions on dating of Rigveda and Vedic Period. A prize winning historian, Upinder Singh in book 'A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India:From the Stone Age to the 12th Century', on page 116,published in 2008, talks of finding of Copper manufacturing units of various small items like arrowheads, fishhooks in Ganeshwar-Jodhpura in Sikar district of Rajasthan belonging to three stages 3800BCE, 2800 BCE, 2600 BCE. In fact 80 Copper sites have been located in the area, and it is assumed Harrapa habitations have been importing their Copper items from this area. This was pre-bronze period. Though, the writer did not link it with Vedic period, but other sources do. Palaeobotanical findings on the Saraswati river route confirm habitations during 7000 BCE. Flood period seers and their contribution remains the base of new researches. Much more is in pipe line to convince those who are interested in Indian ancient history. I do feel that Misplaced Pages editors should mention the new researches on respective pages.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

None of this of course suggests a 10000 year old civilization. Habitation does not mean city, it means a family or small number of families will have lived there. you would expect small settlements all over a flood plain going a very long way back. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. The other issue, just as important in its way, is the linguistic origins of the people who composed the Vedas (at whatever exact date they were composed). It's an extreme fringe view that those people were in India, or anywhere near it, 10000 years ago (see Indigenous Aryans); a more generally accepted view is that they were approaching India from the northwest, roughly 3500 years ago (see Indo-Aryan migration). For that reason, to call an Indian culture of 10000 years ago "Vedic" is pushing the fringe view. Andrew Dalby 09:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

After the great floods period, 10,000 years ago Manusmriti was composed, consisting of about 2685 shaloks (verses). Manu, and his adopted son Bhrigu had guided the congregation on an organised way of living in the Vedic state of Brahmavarta on the banks of river Saraswati. The book was considered a 'Law Book' for Hindus by the British rulers, especially by Sir William Jones the indologist and the language expert from Britain who came to India to translate the book and to frame rules for governing Hindu Indians in 1770s. Book shows that it was not a stone age culture, people were civilised and sages and seers who attended the conference were advised on organising the society for better administration, by dividing the community in four vernas (groups) as per their knowledge. Different sections were allotted jobs and responsibility as per their knowledge of Vedas. This four Verna division was seen during Ramayana period in 5114-5180BCE. and 3100 BCE during Mahabharata period as well. Similarly, the Vedic spiritual Gods, Shiva (Rudra in Rigved) with three different identities, his Parvati or Rudrani with nine different identities and son Ganesha were devised by the flood time seers which are worshiped even at present times by all shades of Hindus throughout the country in one form or the other. These spiritual Gods and Godesses are a good example of the fact that Vedic Seers had good knowledge of Cosmic energies, and their effect on human brain and how peace and tranquility can be achieved through Yog and meditation. The flood area was located in Rajasthan-Haryana border, from where flood time Saraswati river had flown, and not in Sindhu river area as it is made out to be. There are several copper articals, archaeological and palaeobotanical findings in this area to confirm above facts. These facts earlier were written by me on talk pages of Vedic Period and Ayurved also. I wonder when these facts will find place on different pages.Sudhirkbhargava (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

Are the sources used here reliable for the proposed content? An editor has objected to the first line so I provided these further sources, Forcible Displacement Throughout the Ages: Towards an International Convention for the Preventation and Punishment of the Crime of Forcible Displacement Martinus Nijhoff p37. Bonded Labor: Tackling the System of Slavery in South Asia Columbia University Press p130. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts Wiley p98. Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review Transaction p128. South Asian Partition Fiction in English: From Khushwant Singh to Amitav Ghosh Amsterdam University Press p101. Extremely Violent Societies: Mass Violence in the Twentieth-Century World Cambridge University Press p368. as well as links to online books. "what is widely regarded as genocide against the people of what is now Bangladesh" The Changing Character of War p159 "genocide had occurred – a claim that scholars today back up" Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia The editor has also objected to the estimates for women and children raped, however those estimates are backed by excellent sources, but I provided more sources for estimated rape victims He then begin to demand sources for the number of children raped at which point I lost my temper with him as I found such a question distasteful, nobody knows how many were raped and the question struck me as a deliberate attempt to goad. I believe the sources are RS for the content but require community input to resolve the talk page issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is the proposed text which I want to replace a duplicate named section in the article with as a background on the trial.

The events of the nine-month conflict are widely viewed as genocide. and during the conflict it is estimated that between two hundred thousand and four hundred thousand. women and children were raped and between one million and 3 million people killed and an estimated 10 million refuges entering India with a further 30 million being displaced. Susan Brownmiller, in her report on the atrocities, said that girls from the age of eight to grandmothers of seventy-five suffered attacks.

In 2009 it was announced by Shafique Ahmed that the trials would be held under the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973. This act only allows those within Bangladesh to be prosecuted and did not allow for those who were not a part of the armed forces to be tried. The act was amended in 2009 and the International Crimes Tribunal Rules of Procedure and Evidence were put in place by 2010. Two clauses and an amendment were also made to the 1973 act. Critics maintain that further amendments are needed to bring the act up to the standards of international law.

1. The Hindustan Times, Delhi, dated Nov. the 4th, 2012
2. Simms, Brendan (2011). Brendan Simms, D. J. B. Trim (ed.). Humanitarian Intervention: A History. Cambridge University Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-521-19027-5.
3. Saikia, Yasmin (2011). Elizabeth D. Heineman (ed.). Sexual Violence in Conflict Zones: From the Ancient World to the Era of Human Rights. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-8122-4318-5.
4. Riedel, Bruce O. (2011). Deadly embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global jihad. Brookings Institution. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8157-0557-4.
5. Ghadbian, Najib (2002). Kent Worcester, Sally A. Bermanzohn, Mark Ungar (ed.). Violence and politics: globalization's paradox. Routledge. p. 111. ISBN 978-0415931113.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
6. DeGroot, Gerard (2011). The Seventies Unplugged: A Kaleidoscopic Look at a Violent Decade. Pan Macmillan. p. 64. ISBN 978-0330455787.
7. Totten, Samuel. Dictionary of Genocide: A-L. Volume 1: Greenwood. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-313-32967-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
8. Debnath, Angela (2009). Samuel Totten (ed.). Plight and fate of women during and following genocide (7th ed.). Transaction. p. 49. ISBN 978-1412808279.
9. Alffram, Henrik (2009). Ignoring Executions and Torture: Impunity for Bangladesh's Security Forces. Human Rights Watch. p. 12. ISBN 1-56432-483-4.
10. Karim, Bianca (29). Dinah Shelton (ed.). International Law and Domestic Legal Systems: Incorporation, Transformation, and Persuasion. Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0199694907. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

What makes a Brookings Institution paper on US-Pakistan relations a good source for this (especially given that there appear to be lots of specialist works on the topic), and why is a separate reference being given for "women and children" and the high and low estimates of the number of rapes? Also, why is Susan Brownmiller's report being highlighted in this way? (does it reflect the consensus of the other experts views, or is this statement an outlier?). Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Brownmiller is an expert on this conflict, her work is cited by just about every source which discusses it so yes her views would reflect the majority position on the issues. A separate ref was given for women and children as YRC seemed to think it needed one, he is the editor who wanted references for how many children were attacked. There are not as many people working on this as you may think, it is unfortunately a forgotten genocide. The Brooking's source is useful as America backed Pakistan during the conflict. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Brooking's source is useful as America backed Pakistan during the conflict" - that makes no sense in relation to the question you were asking here, which is whether this is a suitable source to use: IMO, it isn't as it has no focus on this controversial subject. If Brownmiller's report represents the majority view, find a source which states this rather than attributing it just to her. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it not reliable for the estimate of 400000 raped? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it's focused on an entirely different topic. Find a source with a focus on the topic which provides that figure. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As for Brownmiller her book seems to be cited a great deal. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing demand concerning geographical term in a human genetics related article

Relevant Misplaced Pages article: Talk:Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)

Edit proposal under dispute: Note that the following is from a lead paragraph, which is summarizing (as usual) something basic about the subject which is discussed in detail within the article body. There is no dispute about the details in the body, only how to summarize them.

Summary of reasoning for the two proposals, and the need for community comment:

• 138.88.60.165 wants all references to "Horn of Africa" should be changed to "East Africa" because this is the exact term used in a series of related genetics articles made by one team of Italian geneticists, to describe a part of the world where E-M215 is common, and where it has several variants that have never been seen elsewhere. (They are referring to data which is almost entirely from Ethiopia.) 138.88.60.165's is reverting edits with edit comments that claim that 138.88.60.165 is waiting for answers to sourcing demands concerning this matter.
• Andrew Lancaster (posting here) believes that although those Italian papers are indeed important sources for the body of our article (but not the only sources), they are not reliable sources for novel English geographical terminology to be used when summarizing their work in a Misplaced Pages lead. In particular, it is proposed that both the sources named below, and the body of our article makes it clear, in a well-sourced and un-disputed way, that E-M215 is not very frequent south of the Horn of Africa at all, and the "several variants of E-M215 are only found in East Africa" were in fact only ever seen in Ethiopia. So this is a question of picking good wording, and the proposed wording change simply gives the wrong message, which can surely not be the right thing to do. In summary I think the sourcing challenge being made by 138.88.60.165 seems to be an incorrect way to interpret WP sourcing requirements - by extending it to a word choice issue, and even using it in order to push for less accurate wording.

Sources which 138.88.60.165 is claiming as being the relevant reliable sources for the geographical terminology:

These are all by the same team, and use the same core data pool of genetic samples.

• Cruciani, Fulvio; Santolamazza, Piero; Shen, Peidong; MacAulay, Vincent; Moral, Pedro; Olckers, Antonel; Modiano, David; Holmes, Susan (2002), "A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes" (PDF), American Journal of Human Genetics, 70 (5): 1197–1214, doi:10.1086/340257, PMC 447595, PMID 11910562
• Cruciani; La Fratta; Santolamazza; Sellitto (2004), "Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa" (PDF), American Journal of Human Genetics, 74 (5): 1014–1022, doi:10.1086/386294, PMC 1181964, PMID 15042509 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Cruciani; La Fratta; Torroni; Underhill; Scozzari (2006), "Molecular Dissection of the Y Chromosome Haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a): A Posteriori Evaluation of a Microsatellite-Network-Based Approach Through Six New Biallelic Markers" (PDF), Human Mutation, 27 (8): 831, doi:10.1002/humu.9445, PMID 16835895
• Cruciani, F.; La Fratta, R.; Trombetta, B.; Santolamazza, P.; Sellitto, D.; Colomb, E. B.; Dugoujon, J.-M.; Crivellaro, F.; Benincasa, T. (2007), "Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12", Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24 (6): 1300–1311, doi:10.1093/molbev/msm049, PMID 17351267 Also see Supplementary Data.
• Trombetta, Beniamino; Cruciani, Fulvio; Sellitto, Daniele; Scozzari, Rosaria (2011), MacAulay, Vincent (ed.), "A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms", PLoS ONE, 6 (1): e16073, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016073, PMC 3017091, PMID 21253605{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Comnparing the maps respectively of East Africa and Horn of Africa one can see at a glance that the former extends south as far as Burundi and Madagascar, where E-M215 is infrequent, and several varieties restricted in fact to that part of the Horn of Africa which is Ethiopia. Though the Horn of Africa is a subset of East Africa, what should be decisive here on the English wikipedia is how English usage determines the denotation, and in English East Africa connotes in particular the area covered by Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, which is outside the range where E-M215 is concentrated. The distinction is clearly lost on the Italian authors, and the proper thing is to correct it, as Andrew suggests.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If I've understood this correctly, it is a little tweak to make the geographic reference more precise. If it's clear from the literature that the Horn of Africa is meant, then I don't see any problem going with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That is my contention, ie that Horn of Africa is just a wording that is more accurate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit of extra information. The main article about E-M215 in East Africa, apart from the Horn of Africa is actually not one of the ones above but this one (as Nishidani probably realizes, and also as our article already explains in its body) so readers should not assume that the Cruciani/Trombetta team is the only source for this subject, whose findings should be considered in writing the lead:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Henn; Gignoux; Lin, Alice A; Oefner, Peter J. (2008), "Y-chromosomal evidence of a pastoralist migration through Tanzania to southern Africa", PNAS, 105 (31), doi:10.1073/pnas.0801184105, PMC 2504844, PMID 18678889. See comment on Dienekes blog, comment on the Spitoon blog and public release.

To be more precise, I am asking for sources to figure out the most commonly used name for the region that E-M215 is spread in, I am not asking for opinions and beliefs. I have provided (see E-M215 Talk page) not only the authoritative sources that Andrew Lancaster has shown above, but also names for the region used by the main commercial private DNA testing companies, and in all cases what is used is East Africa and I can not even find ONE case where the Horn of Africa terminology is being used for the region in this context. In addition, I am also asking for some consistency in the Article, it shows the E-M215 lineage as originating in East Africa for instance, why are different terminologies being used across the article when it is the same dataset that was used to arrive at both the conclusions of origin and spread ? 138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are arguing that the term Horn of Africa is a geographical term which is only used outside of human genetics studies? Please clarify. Also perhaps consider Semino et al and Luis et al and so on and so on, who do use the terms in exactly such contexts. In fact all your sources stem from this one Italian data set name only, and I think the author team in Rome would find it odd to see you trying to use their dataset name as a source for a unique way of using the English term East Africa! Especially when the net effect is that anyone reading their article (which shows how their data sets are defined) will get a different story than anyone reading what you want to put in Misplaced Pages. We need community feedback please. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If this boils down to East Africa vs Horn of Africa, it doesn't so much matter to my mind that authors whose native language is not English say East Africa, To my mind Horn of Africa is more specific and more accurate and therefore would be better to use. Does Italian even have an equivalent term to Horn of Africa? If we are especially talking about Ethiopia and surrounding regions I think Horn of Africa is clearer, more specific, and better. Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Italian does in fact have an equivalent term it:Corno d'Africa but the only sources cited on that Italian wiki page are English. It's worth remembering that while English speakers, saying "East Africa", would think first of Kenya and neighbours (colonial memories: also known once upon a time as "British East Africa"), Italian speakers would think first of Somalia and Ethiopia (colonial memories: also known once upon a time as "Italian East Africa"). To be clear and exact in English, it is better to say "the Horn of Africa". Andrew Dalby 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with British or Italian, it is an issue of geography primarily and not necessarily geopolitics. For instance I have provided 3 commercial American sources that provide private DNA testing also using the East Africa terminology for the region where this lineage is spread in. I have also cited another Author, Scheinfeldt (2010), again a non-Italian that uses the Eastern Africa terminology for the origin of the lineage. The last source shown by Andrew Lancaster above, Henn (2008), Which is a paper on a specific variant of E-M35 that is more concentrated in the parts of East Africa that is South of Ethiopia, does not even mention the Horn of Africa as a terminology even once, but rather uses specific country names (Ethiopia and Somalia), hence Why I did not object when Andrew Lancaster added the specification of Ethiopian in the lead.

So the reasons why no sources are being provided for the use of this terminoloyg, Horn of Africa, in this context is simple, BECAUSE SUCH SOURCES DO NOT EXIST, I think it is just easier to admit this.

The other issue that I mentioned that needs to be addressed is that of uniformity or consistency in the terminology used throughout the entire article.138.88.60.165 (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit silly and has all been discussed (and not answered) on the article talk page. For example the commercial companies are paraphrasing the Italian papers, and Scheinfeld does not discuss this subject except for a passing reference to Henn (mentioned above) and the variant of E-M215 found in the southern part of Africa. And yes, Henn et al does not mention the Horn but it is important for being a source of information about the rest of East Africa (the southern part ). That particular article makes it absolutely clear that we should not be implying that East Africa is the same in all parts. It is only one part, the northern part including Somalia and Ethiopia, which has an extremely high level of E-M215, as discussed in many more articles as well, some of which such as Semino et al do mention the Horn by name.

All this is beside the point in my opinion. I have proposed, and everyone seems to agree, that we do not need to follow one article concerning a clear English word which would include the region of Ethiopia and Somalia, but exclude places like Tanzania and Mozambique. We just need to look in any basic reference work. We do not normally even need to give a source for normal English terms. We also do not need to be "consistent" in the sense of the demand above (using the same term to refer to a region where E-M215 is common, and where it is thought to have originated; these are two different subjects). Is there anyone who thinks I am wrong on this? (Reverts by 138.88.60.165 are continuing, and this appears to be the main mission of this IP editor.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, let us all try to get our facts correct before we speak or try to make our case, Scheinfeldt (2010) is certainly not referring to Henn(2008) but to Semino (2004), which, surprise surprise, does not mention even ONCE the terminology Horn of Africa in their paper, "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area" , Instead what do they refer to the East African region where E-M35 and its variants are frequently spread, well see for yourself:

"E-M78 (fig. 1E) is present in Europe, the Middle East, and North and East Africa."

"Both phylogeography and microsatellite variance suggest that E-P2 and its derivative, E-M35, probably originated in eastern Africa."etc....

Source after source it is the same story that I see, never a use of the Horn of Africa terminology and an exclusive use of the East African terminology, so again please back up your argument with sources so that we can make some progress on this issue.138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this, for example the irrelevant cherry picking ("is present in" and "originated in" are NOT what we are writing about in the paragraph you keep changing), but it would be a waste of time to go any further about all the genetics articles, because the relevance of the genetics articles to this word choice is still the open question: Why does a Misplaced Pages editor need to look at a genetics article to describe the region which includes Ethiopia and Somalia, but not any of the parts of East Africa to the south? Until now you have not been able to stick to this question at any time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverts continuing, but no more responses on talk pages. Currently there are only 3 editors active in a cycle of reverts on this article (me and another who want Horn of Africa, plus the IP). This is just a simple summary paragraph in the lead, trying to say roughly where E-M215 is common, but leads are important. It has become harder to see where it is most common since this article had two "daughters". I have tried several round of wording tweaks also in order to try to get out of this, but we seem to be stuck with a dead horse flogging situation. (For example, the alternative idea to name the exact large ethnic groups known to have highest frequencies, for example >50%, such as Somalians and Berbers, is called "cherry picking". The IP wants "East Africa" apparently because, if you see above, said IP believes the place where E-M215 is common must be where it originated millenia ago?) So if anyone has time to come and have a look it would be good. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the area of origin for E-M215/M35 is different from the area that we are arguing about in this context? i.e., the East African area where E-M215 is more frequently spread in.138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Recall that the original text you accused of ethnic cherry-picking did not use the term Horn of Africa. It distinguished several large ethno-linguistic groups. Somali people have an extremely high frequency, but unlike Ethiopia the east of the Horn is a place with very little signs of being the place of origin of E-M215. Place of origin and place with highest frequency are two completely different concepts, and estimated using different information. They are only rarely near each other, and generally that is a coincidence (in this case apparently caused by a more recent Cushitic migration "back" from the direction of Egypt, according to the published authors). Determining place of origin is highly speculative and often controversial, and therefore something Misplaced Pages editors must be cautious about. So for origins we quote authors carefully, and have a special section in the body. But place of highest modern frequency is something you can read from a data table, and is just a straightforward fact we can report. To repeat: leads have very basic aims. When someone comes to article they will want to know what sort of thing the subject is, and where you find it. Discussion of the possible origin point is much more complex and needs to be handled in the body, as it currently is. Summary: There is absolutely no reason that we should be forcing our description of where E-M215 is most common to be "consistent" with the place where some authors have suggested that it might have originated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I STRONGLY disagree, the authors arrived at a possible area of origin for E-M215/M35 using reason and a specific dataset, it was not magic, here are the reasons they thought why this lineage originated where it did:

"Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3)the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup."

All the 3 reasons point to the same area of East Africa that we are arguing about, which you insist on calling the Horn of Africa when it is about frequency but want to call it East Africa when it is about origin, I on the other hand insist on leaving it as just East Africa CONSISTENTLY. The same reasoning used by the authors to identify the East African homeland of E-M215 is the same reason the Misplaced Pages article is showing East Africa as a 'possible place of origin' for E-M215. I am not sure how much clearer it can get than this really. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsensical. The authors you quote are discussed in exactly this way in the origins section of the body of our article. They are reliable sources for this origins proposal, clearly, and this is a complicated subject which it would probably be WP:OR for us to "reverse engineer" too much. However, even allowing this line of attack, not one of the 3 reasons you cite concerning their origins proposal is the same as "region of highest frequency", i.e. region where you are most likely to come across someone who is positive for E-M215. You keep saying this is a sourcing issue, but not once have you cited any author who says anything which conflicts with saying that E-M215 is most common in "North Africa and the Horn of Africa". This is just a basic summary of what the data in the article says. And in fact you clearly know that Henn et al and other surveys show that the rest of East Africa is not such a place. Your wording demands would force us to say that E-M215 is at its most common in places like Tanzania in modern populations, when you know very well that this is not true, and has nothing to do with speculations about ancient populations! Can anyone else help me with this discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to once again revisit where we are at this juncture in order to refocus-

So, currently the difference is that your proposal demands that “parts of the Horn of Africa” be used, while mine demands “parts of East Africa” be used. (a)Which 'parts of the Horn of Africa' are you exactly referring to? (b)What is your exact definition of 'most frequently'?(c)what data-set are you utilizing?(d)WHY are you insisting on using Horn of Africa when all the literature, regardless of national origin of the authors or other parties involved, uses East Africa for the region where this lineage is frequently spread in?(e)WHY is there a different terminology criteria for the area where the lineage is more frequent and the presumed area of Origin, when both of these utilize the same dataset and describe the SAME area?138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that Andrew Lancaster completely changed the lead after I made this post above, hard to follow when everything is changing, reverted back to old state but with incorporation of specifics on M293 and M78 in south Africa and outside Africa.138.88.60.165 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My latest edit, which shortened the paragraph, removed some repetition, and attempted to make it more clear about exactly what it means (see your questions) happened before your post above. You have reverted it quickly, arguing that it "changed the sentence". Great reason. Please note, keeping it simple, that you are the one claiming this is a sourcing question but you have never given any source which disagrees with a statement such as "the highest frequencies of E-M35 are found in parts of the Horn of Africa, and North Africa". In fact your comments show you know it is correct. I'd like to point to your words above: "All the 3 reasons point to the same area of East Africa that we are arguing about, which you insist on calling the Horn of Africa" . So your argument is still coming down to arguing that for a genetics article we must use special genetics words for African regions. But geneticists are not reliable sources for new names for geographical regions. All opinions have been unanimous about the invalidity of your position, both on the article and here. Are there any conditions where will you stop reverting consensus edits on this matter?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so here is your newer proposal, which I admit I made a mistake earlier and said you changed the lead after my last post, when in-fact you did make the change 16 minutes before, in any event, it is hard to settle an argument when the platform of contention keeps changing willy-nilly-

As you can see, my proposal stays pretty much the same, except for the addition of specifics on E-M293 and E-M78, which I hesitantly accepted, because it is not just E-M78 that is present in the Middle East, but also E-M123, in any case ,is this your final proposal or are you going to change it again? P.S. I am still offcourse also open to my original proposal as well, my above proposal came out of a series of compromises, my original proposal with a slight tweak was as follows-

• E-M215 has two basal branches: E-M35.1 and E-M281, in turn, E-M35.1 has four branches: E-V68, E-Z827, E-V6 and E-V92, of which the first two, E-V68 and E-Z827, contain the vast majority of E-M215 bearers, of whom most are frequently observed in the East, South and North of Africa and to a lesser extent in the Near East and Europe, while the last two branches, E-V6 and E-V92 are to be primarily observed in the Ethiopian region only138.88.60.165 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard if for discussion of sourcing questions, and your sourcing claim is that we must call the region of Ethiopia and Somalia "East Africa" because of a sourcing issue. In your own posts above you have made it clear that you know that the area where E-M215 is most common in East Africa is a "part" of East Africa, which is also called the Horn of Africa. This sourcing claim of yours is present in all versions you have tried to impose and in your latest draft you are even going further and trying to include the "South of Africa" amongst the places where E-M215 is more common than in Europe and the Middle East. That is just wrong. So please make the case for your "sourcing concern" here and we can discuss other issues on the article talk pages. Why must we say that Southern Africa has some of the highest occurrences of E-M215 when you know this is not true? As far as I can see there is unanimity on this noticeboard that there is no policy reason to use a genetics article for a common geographical term, and yet you keep edit warring against the consensus of all other editors on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

138.88.60.165 is using all this space to get visibility for some political discomfort, tirelessly but thus far unsuccessfully: we still don't know what's causing the discomfort. The page has to get beyond this disruption, by blocking if necessary. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with 'political discomfort' but rather keeping inline with what is the commonly used terminology both by the public and by the scientific authorities as I have shown countless times above and in the talk page of E-M215, and what those who disagree have brought forth a grand total of zero sources to back their argument, but rather, as you have shown above, plenty of irrelevant personal attacks. The issue of consistency with the remainder of the article has also not been adequately addressed. I have put in my own modified version of the lead in the Article, we can go from there.138.88.60.165 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You have in fact only given sources concerning what is proposed to be the ancient place of origin of E-M215, never concerning the subject of the paragraph which requires a geographical name for the part of Eastern Africa where it is most common today (that includes Somalia and Ethiopia, but not countries to the south). But you have yourself made it clear that other people call it the Horn of Africa. So your claim that this is about sourcing policy is very confusing to say the least! Anyway, at what point will you stop edit warring against the consensus on this noticeboard and amongst article editors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to restate this - I think you are getting little comment because of the very technical topic but, if I am reading this correctly, the genetics are irrelevant and the whole dispute centers around what to call a region of Africa. Is that right? A couple of questions:

• Is there any dispute at all that we are talking about Ethiopia and some of the immediately adjacent regions?
• These scholarly sources appear highly reliable on questions of genetics -- I'm assuming this is genetics? -- but why would they be authorities on geographical nomenclature?
• Would it solve anything if, when we talk about EM-215's distribution, we quoted one of these studies as saying "E-M35 is found in East Africa and North Africa" (or whatever a satisfactory quote is that contains "East Africa", then say a little later something like "ouside of the Horn of Africa where it most frequently occurs, particular variant have been found as far south as bla bla"?

I have to say, to me, East Africa is the entire right-hand side of the continent. But if you want to use a geographical designation which, to me, is somewhat wrong, you could put it in a quote -- since the reason for using it is that the authors use it -- then clarify the facts in the voice of Misplaced Pages.

If that doesn't help because the dispute is now about something else then please restate the issue. Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby. I agree in any case, and to me it seems all people have posted here think in the same direction. The most recent edits seem to confirm that this IP editor is mostly concerned with avoiding the term "Horn of Africa" even while knowing quite well that it is a standard term, because he/she has proposed on the article talkpage that they can accept a compromise of "the northern part of East Africa". So it never seems to have been a real sourcing problem. Concerning your advice, I think it is good, but this field has a shortage of true secondary sources (the academic articles all do a bit of primary raw data and secondary review work when they appear, because the field is fast moving). So we have no handy source which summarizes as we would wish. Nevertheless the areas with highest frequencies are clear in the literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. If that's acceptable to you, um, ok :) I have had some editing processes like this too, so.... I guess it's your call. I for one certainly don't have strong feelings about the matter. I am almost afraid to point out that the wikilink on "East Africa" leads to an article illustrated by a map that indicates that the term refers to the entire right-hand coast of the continent. Perhaps you could leave the wording as is but remove the somewhat misleading link? Or if that seems likely to cause more argument, I think anybody who is interested in this topic will probably not get stuck on not knowing where Ethiopia is, no? Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A significant point (it seems to me) is our duty to paraphrase the sources, not to copy them word-for-word. If the source says, in summary mode, "East Africa", but clearly identifies, in full-data mode, a smaller region that is properly and exactly called the Horn of Africa, it's our duty as encyclopedists to summarise that information concisely and usefully and the way to do it is to say "the Horn of Africa". Andrew Dalby 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I agree this is an issue. The level of literalness of citation being demanded here, if applied in a logically consistent way, would force us to constantly commit copyright violations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking in any case the WP:RSN aspect of this discussion can be closed given that the editor involved has said that they would accept "the northern part of East Africa" for the "part of East Africa" which, they admit, other people call the "Horn of Africa". An un-involved editor can decide whether to close more formally. To me it seems like there was a clear unanimity on the original question.

But I'd like to take this opportunity to call for more un-involved experienced editors to look at this editor and this edit.

I suggest as follows: if just one experienced and non-involved editor will look at the case and the way this IP editor is working, and declare it a good solution, then let's change "the Horn of Africa" into "the northern part of East Africa" which is the "compromise" this IP editor demands of the WP community. If that happens, then I promise I will not be the next person to change that wording. But if all experienced non involved editors think the proposal is ridiculous (which is, I think, the case) then how do we make sure the consensus opinion is respected? (As I say, this is an appeal for practical help, not really a sourcing question anymore.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

well, as I noted above, I have had an editing process like this. There are noticeboards for users. I did not find them particularly helpful when I was having such problems. However, this was either before or just right after they started Dispute Resolution, which apparently is more informal and less time-consuming. For the record, I don't really understand what the IP is stuck on, and consider that substituting "the north part of East Africa" is only a good solution if you can live with it. I'm not a stakeholder here but if there's a reason to do that beyond the fact that sources use "East Africa" this has not been made clear to me. Does Horn of Africa translate as something offensive in their language or something? Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com again

An editor has called into question the wether a snopes.com reference is verifiable as it is used on the The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) article. In essence, the question is its reliability. See Talk:The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)#Snopes. Is it reliable or not? The archives seem to suggest a slight split in opinion on the site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com is not a reliable source. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.162.163 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; they are among the most reliable sources on the Web for the things they cover. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears (at a first glance) to be one of those sites whose authors don't easily qualify for WP:RS credentials because of the way they work. They prefer to self-publish on the Web and don't actively seek peer review from academics. If our guidelines on identifying RS were different, they probably would be RS; if our guidelines on citations were different, we would cite them in footnotes anyway, because they publish valuable material and discuss it wisely. I don't see it as likely that our guidelines will change. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does anyone seriously dispute that snopes.com doesn't have such a reputation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It fails RS because it is self-published and does not have a formal editorial policy. This is one of the cases where Misplaced Pages's definition of "reliable source" does not match everyone else's. For what it is worth, their fact-checking is widely accepted as definitive. But if they have an internal fact-checking process for *their* facts it is not immediately apparent. I have complained elsewhere about some of the perverse results of the policy. However, until somebody can formulate a way to differentiate snopes.com from joeblow.com, the policy is the policy and the purpose of this board is to try to apply the policy. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to tell us the text it is supposed to support. TFD (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

They largely do a decent job, probably better than many of the newspapers that do qualify, but we are in danger of slippery slope if we allow personal impressions to determine what qualifies. They are self-published, with no formal training in journalism, as far as I know, and no formal editorial process other than self-editing. We accept newspaper and books by experts, not because they are more accurate, they often aren't, but because they have a formal editorial process for fact-checking. (Although, as an aside, many people are under the misguided impression that science books are peer-reviewed. They typically are not.) I think there are a number of blogs with a better track record for accuracy than Snopes, and both are better than the NYT, but I don't think we would start accepting blogs as reliable sources simply because some editor has followed one closely and thinks it has a good track record for accuracy. (I know there are exceptions for blogs written by individuals who have been reporters at RS's, but that's different). Frankly, I would love it if we could find a way to allow Snopes as an RS, as well as some of the more careful blogs, but I don't see an easy, objective way to identify those which qualify and those which do not.

I tend to use Snopes the same way I use Misplaced Pages - I accept that they are largely correct, have a bit of a political bias, so certain subjects are more questionable than others, and when in doubt, go tot he sources provided. Snopes is doing a much better job over time of including their refs, which tend to be reliable. This also provides an option for someone wishing to cite Snopes—go to the reference they provide, and cite that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• At the bottom of the Snopes articles it list its references. Are these references considered reliable sources? It list "The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes" and other things for references for Twelve Days of Christmas one. I say its a reliable source. Dream Focus 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally wrong argument above about books being fact-checked. They simply aren't. Publishers publish; they don't fact-check. Take it from me, a published author, or take it from a variety of other published authors whom you may know. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My wording was inelegant, but I was making the same point you were. Many people understand that scientists who publish in journals have those articles peer-reviewed, and mistakenly assume that if the scientist writes a book, it is even more subject to scrutiny. That is not the case. Publishers do have fact-checking processes, which is why books are accepted, but some are better than others, and in general, they do not do peer-review. Some don't bother with fact checking. I have worked with authors of statistical texts whose work was rigorously checked. I've also worked as a fact checker of a book, again statistical related. It is totally wrong to simply declare "They simply aren't", some are better than others, and you may have worked with one that didn't bother, but some do. However, that is fact-checking, not the same as peer review.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oxford University is in fact known for its detail to fact checking. Misplaced Pages articles for nursery rhymes already use this book as a reliable source. Dream Focus 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Because of their prominence and reputation, I'd be inclined to accept Snopes.com as a reference for this. That's not to say it's the best possible reference, or that it can't be overused. Tom Harrison 20:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If the snopes articles are listing references, we should be using those references (Assuming they are reliable themselves) , instead of trying to justify scopes as secondary or tertiary. In other words, its fine in researching an article, but not as a source within in. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? Sounds like you are just making up a rule instead of following what the policy actually says. DreamGuy (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Commonly, I've come to sources I know are reliable but they provide references for the claims they make from more reliable sources, so it makes perfect sense to use those. Unless, of course, we're specifically talking about a claim that snopes.com makes about the information, in which case we have to consider if snopes.com has sufficient editorial control that we can consider these claims as reliable. My taken on snopes.com is while they trend towards reliable, it is not that great of one and if the claim is controversial, it is far from reliable for that. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Snopes.com is undeniably a reliable source. It has a tremendous reputation for fact-checking and is well accepted by countless other reliable sources throughout the world. Saying that you should use the sources listed on its page instead of snopes.com itself misses the point, in that those original sources may be where certain facts or claims came from, but the article on snopes.com itself sometimes comes to its own conclusions or introduces its own research. Those articles always have been allowed here as reliable sources, and demanding we use other sources they cite instead can force situations where that other source doesn't back up the part needing a reference here. It's also pretty much the same as demanding that whenever we cite any book that is reliable that also has footnotes or end notes in it to only ever use the sources listed in those footnotes or endnotes instead of the reliable source. It's ridiculous. Now, certainly there are going to be cases where some other source is more appropriate (instead of more reliable) than snopes.com, but trying to claim it's not reliable or only reliable for other sources is simply untrue. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with DreamGuy here. Snopes is widely accepted as accurate and reliable, and those are the criteria which matter. That they are an exception to the usual publishing methodology I accept as noted, and find it ironic that as we on Misplaced Pages are also an exception to the usual publishing methodology, we are all the more terrified of accepting anyone else who isn't dead-tree and peer-reviewed. Obviously we must not accept poor sourcing, which almost all such sites are, but blindly following the letter of policy and not being able to see exceptions is wankery. Remember that in all we do, we should be seeking to improve the encyclopedia - not try to ensure we become so rules-bound we forget why we're here. If there are better sources, sure, use them - but eliminating Snopes due to a mindless adherence to rules which are in place to help us identify reliable sources, not in place to help us rule out reliable sources, makes no sense. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 15:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Orlando Bosch

• Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=61LnD_oDKxw&feature=endscreen - claimed to be "fair use"
• Article: Orlando Bosch
• Content: In an interview for the 2006 Documentary 638 Ways to Kill Castro, when asked if he was responsible for the Cubana Flight 455 bombing, Bosch responded after a pause "I'm supposed to say no", and then described the justification for such attacks as being because there existed a state of war between Castro and his opponents.

The YouTube source is from a documentary which claims to be posted under "fair use", however, I'm skeptical that it can be used as such in Misplaced Pages. Alternatively, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/sukhdevsandhu/9132917/Che_Part_Two_and_638_Ways_to_Kill_Castro_killing_Fidel_Castro/ appears to be an acceptable blog source that could be used instead. Requesting feedback on the YouTube source and the blog source. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the YouTube, beyond saying that I think you are probably right. The blog is part of the Daily Telegraph website, a reliable (and strongly Conservative) newspaper. I'd go for it. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I made the change. (diff). Location (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for alternative theories on the natural-born-citizen clause?

A discussion has arisen at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (see here) regarding whether WorldNetDaily (WND) is or is not a reliable source for what are generally held to be fringe theories regarding the true meaning of the US Constitution's requirements for the office of President. The person advocating the use of material from WND is also arguing that the alternative theories in question are in fact legitimate viewpoints from "scholarly legal people or groups", which need to be acknowledged in the article in order to preserve NPOV and "illustrate the existence and extent of the controversy" — and that labelling these theories as fringe, and the sources backing them (most of which appear to me to be blogs) as unreliable, is indicative of an attempt "to try to pick a side and suppress the other side".

I challenged the editor in question to take the issue here, but he appeared reluctant to do so (opining instead that "making an 'effort to open up a wider discussion on one of the above noticeboards' is what administrators are for, we're just editors"). I don't agree with this view, but in an effort to move the discussion along and not allow it to simply stagnate, I'm bringing it here. Hopefully I've characterized the other editor's arguments correctly here; if not, I trust he'll correct me.

Comments welcome — here, and/or at Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a theory is fringe is an issue for Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. There is no prohibition against discussing alternative theories as long as it is not given undue weight relevant to its prominence. Questions regarding whether or not specific sources for those theories can be used is an issue for this noticeboard. Hard to say until we know what they are.

On that point, WorldNetDaily might be a reliable source for a statement about itself or a statement of opinion with attribution, but it is unlikely to be regarded as a reliable source for a statement of fact due to the widely-held perception (true or not) that it publishes from a biased political perspective. As always, context matters. Location (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Three groupings of sources illustrate the problems for this article:

1. Quotes representing “Birther scholars" Being blogs, these are not acceptable sources for showing what is or is not fact; yet, they accurately show why these people believe as they do, what they have said, and what their side of the dispute is. The sources are long legal-thought websites with point after point trying to prove what they have specifically taken to court. They accurately reflect their bias.

2. CRS quotes used in the article itself:“Birther scholar,” Attorney Leo Donofrio, essentially (putting it politely) asks this question of the CRS memo author, Attorney Jack Maskell: Why did he reconstruct a key Supreme Court quotewhen he knew the original did not say what the reconstruction said? And, critical to his thrust, “Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.” Depending on interpretation, the change affects the credibility of the CRS memo upon which some of the article is obviously patterned (starting with the first quote and stating the view that the Natural-Born-Clause article reflects).

3. WND (which I think is “over-the-top” frequently). Yet, what source hasn’t taken sides (their bias) on the Birther subject? If you believe Israel’s “Birther” and main-science web portal, then The New York Timesand CNBC among many in the national media) launched pure "Alinskys" against Birthers either maliciously or without doing their homework. And if countries are watching the issue, as WND says they are, then WND has an argument much bigger than “Fringe.” That shouldn’t be too hard to verify on the Internet. Yes, context matters immensely, yet dispute, not Birther fact or fiction, should be the context of the article. See “Fringe or Significant Dispute” on WP:FTN. mintbark 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WND is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. That's been rather clearly hashed out many times before. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can a new religious group be a reliable source for its own trial?

On Talk:Jung Myung Seok an argument is being made that the websites providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com are RS for the trial of the group's founder for rape and sexual abuse. Example: Please advise. Shii (tock) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

These fail BLP policy. Use the mainstream press or leave the information out if it is not relevant or if you have no good sources at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. You need impeccable sources for such claims. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Jung Myung Seok's 9-year fugitive status and conviction are attested by the national police of 5 nations, a dozen Korean newspapers, all major Japanese newspapers, the Associated Press, and Reuters (see my revision of the article). However this is being reverted to a version of the article sourced mainly to providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com which claims that the entire story is in doubt. I will attempt to maintain the article with the sources I have named. Shii (tock) 15:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The version of the article which uses only providencetrial.com and gospelofprovidence.com as sources is hopelessly unacceptable per WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:NPOV. The Providence sources may possibly (per WP:SELFPUB) be usable on a very limited basis as sources of information about Jung's movement, but absolutely not as reliable sources for factual claims about Jung himself or his legal difficulties. Material from well-established news sources may (and almost certainly should) be included, but I would be careful with any conclusory statements supported by police sources, since these sources will probably start from a presumption of guilt and could easily be biased. Regarding the description of Jung's teachings, I would advise avoiding either "pro" or "anti" extreme positions and sticking to dispassionate statements backed by reliable sources. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a similar problem going on at Providence (religious movement). MrTownCar insisted that the sources offered by others could not be verified (a legitimate objection if true) — but I was able to find most of the English-language sources in dispute. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the sourcing in the version perferred by MrTownCar is just terrible. Some education in what "independent" means with regards to sources is greatly needed. I did laugh that a section about bias was being sourced to providencetrial.com. Ahh, the irony. Delicious. Ravensfire (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Could these sources be of any uses at all? They could be used to source their own opinions. But I don't see a section of their site that's a simple clear-cut "here's what we believe" section. There's sermons, but the problem with citing those is that it may take some interpretations, and that's getting into WP:OR. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The article being cited for the problems with Jung's trial is absolutely a reliable third party news magazine called, "Civil Government" published in Korea. It just happens to also have some translated quotations on ProvidenceTrial.com. Therefore the article passes WP:RS.

The religious movement has a magazine titled, "Joensori" that it publishes that could be used to verify several biographical details about Jung Myung Seok, like his service in Vietnam. Would these be safe to cite for biographical details or teachings? They also include publications of his sermons in both English, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese. Macauthor (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Too many questions about the "Civil Government" magazine. Questionable source until that is resolved. "Joensori" is also not an independent source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a Flounder

The Character from Disney's The Little Mermaid is not a flounder nor a guppy, the character's a yellow and blue colored tropical fish. I looked up other websites for other atlantic tropical fish I couldn't find an actual species for the character (none of the other atlantic fish has the same colors and/or patterns as him. Some of the other fish species (those that has the same colors and/or patterns as the character) only lives in the Indian and Pacific Oceans). That's why I inserted him as a juvenile atlantic blue tang. Although, the Character and the real life juvenile blue tang's fin shapes and body shapes are not similar, but his body shape and fin shapes are more like an Indo-Pacific regal blue tang.

Atlantic blue tang juvenile

Real life juvenile atlantic blue tangs are bright yellow with golden blue rings around their eyes and the edges of their dorsal and anal fins. Their coloration from yellow juvenile, to yellow-tailed blue subadult, and to blue adult is not a size dependent so they could be larger then the blue adults.

Fascinating, but uh...could we get some context here? TheBlueCanoe 05:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the context is this edit and similar ones in that article's history. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the only source that matters here is someone from Disney saying what sort of fish they modelled the character on. Mangoe (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NONENG vs. WP:USERG

Lately I've noticed a recurring trend in articles relating to Japanese topics. If I try to add something that I read in a Japanese book, journal or the like, sometimes I will be asked to give an English source. I can find English sources that say the same thing as the scholarly/reputably Japanese sources, but most of them are some guy's personal website. I don't think anyone would honestly claim that a piece of information that is backed up by both reliable foreign sources and non-reliable English sources should be deleted, but I was wondering which is better?

I ask this now, because on a move request for the page Rashōmon someone brought up the third source it cites, which is the personal website of some guy who doesn't look Japanese but goes by the name Shōriya Aragōrō. He doesn't look like he is a recognized expert in kabuki theatre, much less in the field in question in the article. The question is whether it would be a good idea to go out and locate a Japanese source to replace this one? It's theoretically possible that a reliable source in English says the same thing, but if so it would be very hard to locate; a Japanese source could likely be located with a simple Google search. If self-published English source says the same thing as a reliable foreign source, would it be better to give both for WP:V's sake, or delete the English one as per WP:RS?

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't require you to give an unreliable source in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NONENG only says that equivalent English sources are preferable if they exist. If no equivalent English sources exist, WP:NONENG can't be used to disqualify Japanese-language sources. People's private blogs are generally not reliable, so using reliable Japanese sources would be the preferred option. And even if equivalent English sources do exist, WP:NONENG doesn't say that you can never use a Japanese one, it only says English ones are preferred. Having said that, I'd be hesitant to compose entire articles based exclusively on non-English sources. A topic with no reliable English coverage might be seen as failing the notability test as far as English wikipedia is concerned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is nothing in WP:Notability that requires any English sources - in fact it explicitly denies the notion, so the lack of them is not a "threat" to article notability. Roger (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

yep. there is no requirement that the source be *easily* verifiable, only that it *is* verifiable, either by asking for help from a Japanese speaker, or ordering the book, or whatever. Elinruby (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Actually, most notable topics in Japanese literature have been discussed extensively in Japanese sources (and possibly Korean, Chinese...), but if they have been covered in English it is only on a couple of pages of Donald Keene's 4,000-page history of Japanese literature or some such text. Although apparently one similar book by Konishi Jin'ichi was translated into English, which raises the question of whether a translation is more reliable than the original, when if one only cites the translation then the choice of particular terminology might be that of the translator rather than the original author. But I'm rambling now... elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The policy on non-English sources is pretty clear. As long as an English source of equal validity is not available, the non-English source is acceptable under the same policies and guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I sometimes am involved with bringing in material in from from the French Misplaced Pages and asked a number of questions about this at one point. The rationale I was told was that if someone is interested in obscure points of French history and culture, something like the various factions of the French Revolution (for example) they may well be doing graduate work and actually read the language; and in any event a reliable French-language source is vastly better than nothing or than the the more superficial treatment that might be available in English. The sources should however meet the other criteria of RS, of course. Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions about sources at Libertarian Republican

This is in part a BLP issue but I thought I'd bring it here first. I've got doubts about quite a few sources here. Eg:

http://freemontana.com/102_Reasons.pdf for Jerry O'Neil (politician) whose article doesn't say he's libertarian.

Reason.com in general, especially when the article is titled "Libertarian(ish) Candidates" (and again, the subject's article doesn't mention this, see Mia Love.

Ontheissues.org and is ] which says libertarian sufficient to call him libertarian?

GovTrack - maybe, but calls him a centrist, so how can we use it as a source to call him Libertarian? I'm removing the unsourced entries as BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The source could be used in an attributed manner stating X says Y about Z, but as these are BLPs, I would ask for multiple reliable sources be given to verify whether X is Y.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mecha and Anime Headquarters source reliable?

Im seeing this link --> being used as a source for Gundam articles so my question is, is it a reliable source? I have been trying to clean up the Gundam articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Haven't checked the article, but it appears to be the Mecha and Anime Headquarters, so that at least needs to be fixed. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay and I fixed the heading here as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The part im intrested in is this: it lists the Gundam series and clicking through it (Such as Gundam ZZ --> ) shows detailed information on the show. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Website appears to fall under WP:SPS. I do not see any sub-page on the site, that states who is publishing the content and what (if any) editorial supervision occurs on the website content. Has the source been shown to be a notable expert in the field it is publishing in? If it has not, I do not see this website as a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

IM not sure on this but thanks for the feedback the source did seem unreliable to me based on what I saw as well, just wanted a 2nd opinion before doiung anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

rock on the net

A user is repeatedly attempting to use http://www.rockonthenet.com/ as a source for a past Grammy nominee. Specifically, the user is attempting to use as a source for Lita Ford's alleged Grammy nominations from the 1980s and 90s. I'm not familiar at all with this website but it's reliability seems questionable. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKong (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 January 2013‎

If Lisa Ford had Grammy noms, there are surely far better sources than that. Not RS. KillerChihuahua 21:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

agreed. These nominations and awards are widely reported in the mainstream press. Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Erowid a reliable source about drugs or not?

Cantaloupe2 has removed references to Erowid from the page List of misconceptions about illegal drugs, with the edit summary:

Erowid is a collection of anecdotal evidence and it is not a reliable source and does not belong here, period.

diff.

I'm not sure if this is true. None of the links go to user experiences, but to various articles and FAQs. Links to other sites, such as acsa2000.net, canorml.org and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov were also removed. I'm confused. Is Erowid an RS in this context, and what about the other sites removed? --Auric talk 11:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking this as an example, it's not clear who are the authors, what their sources are, and what editorial oversight there is, if there is any. This looks like self-published material. I would not use this as a source for "drugs described as LSD in the 1970s occasionally actually contained PCP, amphetamine..." Tom Harrison 15:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the other links?--Auric talk 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove some credible references to, because, the prose that went with the references did not summarize what they said. This is the part I removed, in addition to all Erowid references:

"A cannabis equivalent of a hangover may occur the morning after taking high doses, but even that ends much sooner than the legend suggests. While someone who smokes cannabis on Friday night would most likely come out positive in a urine test on Monday morning, he would no longer actually be impaired by that point." Cannabis Effects by Erowid NIH.GOV

NIH hosted journal does not advance the position that this is in any way similar to hang over or if if this is in fact a well established legend. Erowid is bunk when it comes to 99.999% of anything. I explained why I removed Erowid and cited the prior discussion in talk page. When Erowid does not attribute, its difficult to validate what they're saying. If they're republishing reliable sources in verbatim in a significant amount, we can't permit that either, because that's copyright violation. These same concerns were addressed in prior discussion in December. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Misplaced Pages entry of Erowid gives many reasons why it is a WP:RS. As the entry says, Erowid provides much accurate information, and they are frequently cited in WP:RSs. Furthermore, they've published articles in peer-reviwed medical journals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=erowid
As for the WP:COPYVIO, how do you know that it's copyright violation and not fair use? That's a decision for a lawyer to make. Are you a lawyer? --Nbauman (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Erowid can simply be considered a non reliable sources. Some pages don't have sources, some a few, and others have many. For example this about cannabis has cited sources. Erowid has also been cited many times by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, for example see this. Erowid Center has also a project named ecstasydata.org, which tests street-ecstasy tablets to know its content.

Regarding WP:COPYVIO, that is about including copyright violation content in the Misplaced Pages article, not about the references. Many times, references include the URL to PDF archives which are hosted in third party sites, evading the pay-wall of many journals, is that fair use? As Nbauman said, that is a decision for a lawyer to make, any way, that is not WP:COPYVIO, bacause it is not content in a WP article, it is a reference. --KDesk (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Distributing copyrighted work to circumvent payment is the very essence of copyright infringement. Did you read the prior RSN discussion on Erowid which I linked earlier? See WP:ELNEVER. Per policy, URLs to pirated contents are prohibited. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?

Hello! I am looking for input on whether this author is a reliable source. Please comment on the discussion at Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Thanks. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Movie Database??

The article Ugetsu currently cites this website for the release date of the film. Since this factoid is easily verifiable in published books by specialists, and is widely written about in English. I've already located another source which is both (apparently) reliable and fits with WP:NONENG.

However, the Japanese Movie Database is an interesting question. It seems to be less "user-generated" than IMDb, but I would be interested in knowing whether it is a no-no to cite it on English Misplaced Pages?

elvenscout742 (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.archivoelectoral.org/

Has been added to a large number of BLPs (over 60) as an external link. The site appears to be run by two individuals, Juan Víctor Izquierdo and Francesca Parodi, and is not controlled or operated by any actual RS source. In addition, it appears that the EL may be in violation of copyright law on its face. For each person, large numbers of campaign ads, videos etc. are included - many of which are obviously copyright. Collect (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look to meet the standards for reliable sources, and links to copyright violations are an absolute no go even if the site were found to be reliable. DreamGuy (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Source only mention the subject article in passing.

This source mention the topic of the article The Invention of the Jewish People only to represent Sand and to hear his opinion but the book itself is not discussed does its justifiable to use the source for such edits in my opinion is WP:COATRACK.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

An interview in Ha'aretz with an author is reliable for what that author says about his book, even if there is only a short report of that interview embedded in an interview with another author on a similar topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

But he didn't said anything about the book really.So I wonder what could be included in the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's reliable for his views on the questions he discussed in his book. There's no sourcing problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I am in agreement with Itsmejudith but it can be noted that this noticeboard is for source reliability questions. You can also consider WP:NOTE and WP:DUE, which seem closer to what you might be worried about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's what I meant, thanks for expressing it better than I did. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Cat article, is this proof enough of claim

1. Source Ultima 5 and Ultima 6 computer games, and a fan wiki which has a screenshot from the game as evidence as well, plus has taken the dialog from the games and put it on their wiki for anyone to see.

2. Article is Dr. Cat

3. Content

A Dr. Cat character exists as a bartender in Ultima V and Ultima VI.

Wouldn't this screenshot count as proof? No reason to doubt this evidence is there? The guy worked on these games, and included himself in them. Dream Focus 21:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-published material like this wiki is generally not a reliable source, and there doesn't seem to be a basis for making an exception in this case. Tom Harrison 13:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How about just using the games themselves as a source for the information? Dream Focus 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Johann Hari

The Post-American World contained these two sentences: In a review published in The Progressive, Johann Hari took exception to Zakaria's Thatcherist assertions that there is no alternative to increasingly globalized, free market capitalism. Hari pointed to examples where what Zakaria advocated led to disasters, such as free market policies leading to the collapse of Argentinian economy, and financial deregulation resulting in the financial crisis of 2007–2010, which had begun just after the book was published. →referenced to "Hari, Johann (November 2008). "Zakaria's Bad Timing". The Progressive 72 (11): 42–44." (offline but I can email a copy to anybody).

First Chris Chittleborough (talk · contribs) removed this here with the edit summary "Discredited writer Johann Hari is not acceptable as a source here".

Second: I reverted.

Third: He reverted.

Fourth: I reverted.

Fifth: We laid out our positions at User talk:Chris Chittleborough#Johann Hari. His position is that the above violates WP:RS because Hari was later found to be violating some journalistic ethics code (plagiarism, from what I've been told). My position is that this specific review is still good - no one, as far as I'm aware, has contested the validity of the review (per WP:NPOV we do not say whether the review was 'good' or 'bad', only that it was published) and The Progressive has not retracted the article/review.

Also, Chris Chittleborough is saying the above quote violates WP:BLP, but I don't follow that argument so I won't try to interpret it here.

I request a 3rd opinion on whether this reference can still be used and, if possible, what an acceptable way of wording would be (if the above is found to be unacceptable). Thanks. maclean (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In the context of a book review I think Hari's disgrace would only affect its use if it emerged that he did not write the points cited, and there is nothing to suggest this. In my view as long as Hari's name is wikified so that the reader can easily follow to learn about how reliable his review might be, it can be used.Martinlc (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

www.slowtwitch.com/ and Technical Editor Greg Kopecky

• Source: www.slowtwitch.com, specically Technical Editor Greg Kopecky
• Article: Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)
• Content: "chain cleaning, lubrication and wear, a source of controversy in the field of bicycle maintenance."

The point, that chain maintenance is controversial, is already confirmed by Brown, who has previously been confirmed to be a reliable source, so it seems that www.slowtwitch.com should be fine for independent confirmation. There is a claim that www.slowtwitch.com is self-published, and so inherently unreliable, but I can find no indication of that. It was founded in 1999 by Dan Empfield and provides bios of its contributors, including Technical Editor Greg Kopecky. It has a global Alexa Traffic Rank of 35,263 compared to 11,633 for BikeRadar.com, 19,330 for Bicycling.com, 179,646 for BikeMag.com, and 1,151,976 for VeloNews.com. Here is an article in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News about slowtwitch hiring a senior editor. What say ye? -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The disagreement is specifically over this article. "why is there so much controversy?" is a hook, and the explanation offered is not journalism, but his personal opinion as evidenced by copious use of first person pronouns in the article. So, to evaluate if the statement that there is indeed controversy in the industry, I evaluated if he's an establish author. He received a press coverage for somewhat controversial incident in what appears to be him initiating a frivolous legal claim against a city here which is a challenge to accuracy of his claim. There is no established publications by him which swears him in as expert, so his OPINION should not be used as a support another's opinion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I can find no mention of writing style in the reliable source guidelines, nor any mention of how unrelated events in an author's personal life bear upon their reliability in their field of expertise. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The writing describes "I/we" experiences and his evaluation of controversial is derived from his opinion. Before an opinion piece on some website can be considered "an expert opinion" so that its beyond "some people say..." territory. The point of disagreement is that someone only known for suing the city for running his bike into the back of a parked truck does not meet the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Since its an opinion piece, like responses to letter to the editor, I consider this an opinion piece and Kopecky does not appear to meet the standard of established expert. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication, however, that the articles by slowtwitch staff are self-published any more than the articles by the staff of any other news outlet, so the WP:NEWSORG guidelines should apply, not the self-publish guidelines. Also, the article in question, although written in a conversational style, is about chain maintenance and not an "opinion piece". For similar examples of news stories in more-traditional publications that describe something as controversial, consider the story on page 18 of today's NY Times on uranium mining in Virginia, which states "A fight over whether to drill ... has divided the region", or the story on page 6 in the same paper about discontent in China, which states "A widening discontent was evident this month". Would either of those articles be considered opinion pieces, or would they be considered reliable sources to reference claims of controversy? Could Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States#Virginia state that uranium mining in Virginia is controversial with that article as a source, or would it have to say that Trip Gabriel of the New York Times claims that it is controversial? I do not mean to suggest that slowtwitch.com is equivalent to the NY Times, but merely to demonstrate that an article from a news source making the non-exceptional claim that something is controversial without citing a study published in a peer-reviewed journal as confirmation does not automatically make that article an opinion piece. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This has little to do with the reliability of Greg Kopecky and far more to do with the question of whether Cantaloupe2 has crossed the line from WP:TENDENTIOUS to outright WP:TROLL. Just look at the recent article history. Also what is this edit summary about? Is Cantaloupe's contention now (having been defeated on every other complaint) that someone who is awarded damages against a city / suffers a fractured skull / cycles negligently (I don't know which of these three he thinks disqualifies a source) is no longer an acceptable source? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis deaths?

Hi, I just created an RfC and was advised to enter it here. Does this study deserve mention in the "safety" section of Cannabis (drug), and what would be reasonable to say? It is being used to support an idea contrary to what good sources say, that there has never been a cannabis-induced human fatality. Thank you. petrarchan47tc 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When the prose makes medical claims, such as efficacy, safety, effects, etc, the general guideline is that we must use WP:MEDRS and cherry picked articles from mainstream media speaking flatteringly of marijuana safety is not appropriate. WP:RS is a different standard and would be acceptable if the claim is about cultural or legal matter, but not for health claims.

This is not the root of the issue however. Another editor disputed the bias in favor of marijuana use. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a serious problem at the Cannabis (drug) and related pages, as there are passionate editors who cannot accept the reports of cannabis' relative safety. When I first saw this page last in December 2012, there was no 'safety' section, but rather one line that said "It is rare, but people have died from cannabis" with 5 references that did NOT support the statement. The reference in question (subject of the RfC) is the one remaining reference from that grouping that is still being inserted into the article, most recently today by Cantelope2. All of the experts say no one has ever died from cannabis. The 'flattering prose' are the results of studies which find that cannabis is safer than aspirin. Just do a search to see that the idea anyone has died from cannabis is so fringe it doesn't even exist. petrarchan47tc 19:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS says: "All Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." The study, "Acute cardiovascular fatalities following cannabis use," is a primary source. Therefore, it can't be included in the article. Making a statement like, "people have died from cannabis" and giving primary sources to support it is original research which is forbidden under WP:NOR.
If these individual primary sources are accurate, somebody should have done an evidence-based review and published it. An evidence-based review is a reliable, published secondary source. If the editor can find a review article, that should go in. If the editor can't find a review article (a reliable secondary source), he can't include the claim that people have died from cannabis. --Nbauman (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

List of award nominations (Kapanlagi.com)

• Hi all, I recently expanded the article The Mirror Never Lies and found this source which includes all of its nominations at the Bandung Film Festival. KapanLagi.com is accepted as an RS on the Indonesian Misplaced Pages, but I'm not too sure if it would pass muster at FAC (and there are no supersources which reproduce this information). The website's been up since 2003 and they report readership of some 40 million per year.

Any thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to assess due to the language barrier. It seems to be a highly exposed website, but the real acid test is whether other reliable sources reference it: if Indonesian newspapers cite it for example, I would say it's reliable, if not it's hard to say. I mean, I doubt nominations are controversial and the site is unlikely to have made a mistake in this case, so personally I wouldn't challenge the source for this content, but in an FA review you may be asked to demonstrate that a source is reliable, and the easiest way to do that is to show that other reliable sources use the site for information. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• This looks like an obit translated from the site (no hyperlink though), and this and this and this quote interviews from the site. This puts it with Kompas' website and Detik.com (which really should have an article) as pages which have Chrome extensions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If The Jakarta Post sources news content from it then that's a compelling argument that it's a reliable source, after all, we would accept The Jakarta Post and its content as reliable. Unless someone comes up with a specific reason why it is not reliable, then I would say it's ok to use. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cineuropa

Is this a reliable source for the statements

In 2004, Joakim Langer researched Pettersson's family history in Papua New Guinea and wrote two books entitled In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King, which influenced the screenplay for Efraim Longstocking and the Cannibal Princess.

and

He is regarded as the inspiration for Ephraim Longstocking, Pippi's father in Astrid Lindgren's children's series, Pippi Longstocking.

in the article Carl Emil Pettersson? Ryan Vesey 04:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is a referenced author to the page; the reliability seems fine to me. What is the context here? Is this information contested by another source? VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neotarf opposed it as unreliable. Their argument is here; although, it doesn't, in my opinion, come anywhere close to addressing why the source was supposedly unreliable. I decided to take the issue here because it seems clear that Neotarf and I wouldn't come to a consensus on this issue. Ryan Vesey 20:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This publication is not a RS, it is a publicity ezine for the movie industry and the author is not an authority on books, but appears regularly touting gossip for the film industry. The article in question does not say a screenplay has been written, it only says the rights have been purchased, which I find speculative and non-notable. This supposed book title appears no where else, the supposed book is not in Amazon or WorldCat; I suspect it is a badly garbled rendering of some other book. Misplaced Pages needs to be more attentive of its fact-checking and not simply repeat the industry publicity. —Neotarf (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Two books, read more carefully next time, here's one. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Topix

Is Topix (website) considered reliable? There is a poll on that website about how Armenians feel about Turks and I wanna include it in an article. Note that I will state the source and make it clear so that it wouldn't be taken as a sociological research. --Երևանցի 06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I very much doubt that Topix would be considered a reliable source for anything of significance - but you have failed to provide the information necessary to say for sure. We'd need to have the correct link to the source, the name of the Misplaced Pages article, and the statement which it was supposed to be sourcing, as it says at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My bad. I missed that. The poll link is here. And the article is Greater Armenia (political concept), but I'm currently working on it on my user space User:Yerevanci/United Armenia. Please see Public opinion section for more. One of the answers of the poll is "I am an Armenian and my hate for Turks will end if... we get back West Armenia" and it got about 16% of the vote and I just wanted to include there to show the relative mood of Armenians concerning teritorial claims to Turkey. --Երևանցի 15:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind! I will just put that "No reliable sources exist..." and then clearly state that the Topix poll is just a internet poll, so the reader won't take it as a research. --Երևանցի 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No - we don't cite sources and then explain to readers that they aren't reliable. The poll is meaningless and cannot be used as a source for article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but not even a remotely reliable source - such user-generated forum polls indicate nothing of any significance whatsoever. The sample size is small and unrepresentitive, the questions are ridiculous (and offensive) and there is nothing to prevent non-Armenians voting. It cannot possibly be regarded as a reliable indicator of Armenian public opinion. Note also that if you find a poll from a more reliable source, you would have to state all the results, not just the ones that suited your objectives. Incidentally, looking at your draft article, I doubt very much that the Center for Armenian Remembrance could be cited as a reliable source regarding Armenian public opinion either, given its clear POV. Credible opinion polls are best conducted by uninvolved third parties. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I know they aren't anything close to being reliable. My goal isn't to present it as "a reliable indicator of Armenian public opinion", because it clearly isn't, but it at least shows something. "the questions are ridiculous (and offensive)" is kind of a subjective view, because remember that fanatics like Hitler were elected by the people shouting unheard slogans. I totally agree that non involved parties are the most reliable, but it's impossible to find even involved party opinion polls. Nothing on the internet can be considered reliable, but it shows something. At last both polls recorded 16% of those who have any kind of "territorial claims" to Turkey on internet from highly unreliable sources and unrepresentative demographics. --Երևանցի 19:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

budapest.sumgait.info

• Archive_131#sumgait.info
• Talk page.

--Esc2003 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Need assistance regarding Contemporary Christian Music article

See "Jon Gibson & others" on talk page. I feel I am being bullied by an editor who reverted good contributions that was being discussed until there was a concensus or improvements made. He got involved when an open discussion was going on about the edits I provided. This seems to happen a lot with this user: Walter Görlitz (talk). I would like someone else unrelated to him and myself to assist. I feel he is not working with me and should leave it until we resolve the matter. He has belittled me and put unnecessary messages on my talk page that were out-of-line when knows I'm not vandalizing. I'm only trying to expand the section and not be stressed by anyone who doesn't like the content even though it's legit. Thank you for your help! I will be going offline for now and reply later. Hopefully those assisting will have more patience than . 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian music and Talk:Contemporary Christian music#Jon Gibson and others

Anon posted 17 sources at Talk:Contemporary Christian music and I responded to each. If other editors want to respond there, it might be most appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

UH, those sources i listed were removed. Do you actually read what i typed? I said those were removed, i just listed them on the talk page. You are not really paying attention, just reverting and insist on getting your way. I am not visiting this page, or the talk page, or the discussion page you started about this anymore. I seriously won't return. When i see i have a message, it will be ignored. It just doesn't matter to me. I am removing myself from this minor detail in my life and consider myself the "winner". I really don't care anymore. The talk page will speak for itself and the edit history. Those who really care and see it will appreciate the info and know i'm right. I also produce many of the articles that Wiki uses, so it's not like i care about having "fame" with Wiki. I create real original articles, not "steal" them. I produce them. So this doesn't matter to me. I feel bad that you like starting trouble, no one else has done this. It's always you. I think it's a bit scary to be honest. I can always change my user id/name and avoid the pages you work on. You violate Wiki policy and for that you should be banned in my opinion. You have a history of being "revert happy". I will go on as a professional editor and decent human-being who doesn't hide behind being a "christian" yet doesn't bear the fruit. (Not saying you, just speaking generally in case you take that as a personal attack.) Frauds are always among us. Best of 'luck' in life! BYE P.S. You only mention the 17 sources i listed as if that is our "beef". WOW! So not worth it, this was a huge waste of my time. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yukio Mishima bibliography: Number of works

I'm asking for someone who brought this up in the IRC help channel. At the article, there seems to be a dispute on the number of works Mishima has created, attributed to different sources. This diff shows the discrepancies. I don't have access to any of the sources and I'm unsure how to proceed, so I'd appreciate it if the folks here could help. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf education: two sources

• Article: Waldorf education

• Source 1: Carlo Willmann, Waldorfpädogogik, Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte, v. 27. Böhlau Verlag, ISBN 3-412-16700-2. See "Ganzheitliche Erziehung", 2.3.3"
• Content: According to professor Carlo Willmann – a member of the Waldorf education unit at Danube University Krems – elementary schools center around a multi-disciplinary arts-based curriculum that includes visual arts, drama, artistic movement (eurythmy), vocal and instrumental music, and crafts.

More generally, all RSs that have any connection to Waldorf education are being contested as sources for this article, even if their work appears in peer-reviewed journals or presses. For example,

• Source 2: Robert McDermott, The Essential Steiner, Harper San Francisco 1984 ISBN 0-06-065345-0
• Content: Various statements about the curriculum and goals of Waldorf education

hgilbert (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither is a very strong source. The first is a 2001 thesis. The second is a book from a general, not academic publisher. They could potentially be used for straightforward description of the method. Use independent academic sources in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: The first is not the author's 1995 dissertation, but a later book based upon that work. Both are being used for "straightforward descriptions of the method," (see above) rather than evaluative conclusions. hgilbert (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Other sources

What about these, then, two of which are also not peer-reviewed journals:

• Content: "Waldorf education is controversial", or "Waldorf education has experienced controversy in English-speaking countries" (two proposed versions of text)
• Source 1: Melissa Benn, School Wars: The Battle for Britain's Education, Verso Books, isbn 978-1-84467-736-8
• Source 2: The Financial Times, David Turner, "Steiner school switches to city academy status", March 1, 2008
• Source 3: Heiner Ullrich,"Rudolf Steiner", Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education, Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, vol.XXIV, no. 3/4, 1994, p. 555-572.

hgilbert (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1. "Dr. Cat - The Codex of Ultima Wisdom, a wiki for Ultima and Ultima Online". Codex.ultimaaiera.com. Retrieved 2012-08-19. Screenshots and links to game dialog of character taken from the actual games, included on wiki
2. http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/studium/waldorfpaedagogik/11356/index.php

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution