Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enric Naval (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 22 March 2008 (→Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

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

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

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462, 463, 464, 465

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

MEMRI

Is MEMRI http://www.memri.org/ a reliable source. I think it is based on the content it has. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both.

That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for opinion and commentary, but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation. <eleland/talkedits> 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See here for a related discussion. Relata refero 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question which is a little trickier, and pertains to the use of sources like MEMRI and CAMERA for opinion purposes.

Basically, these organizations can be counted on, every time, 100%, to praise Israel and condemn perceived enemies of Israel. Pretty much anything that happens in and around Israel, they'll express an opinion on it, and it's always the same opinion. They are well-funded and active, but it's very difficult to know how significant their views actually are. Nonetheless, such groups tend to be used heavily in Middle East articles as sources of criticism and commentary.

Now, there are some occasions when these groups do get play in actual media outlets. There was a fraudulent Sabeel-bashing editorial in the Boston Globe recently by a CAMERA member, and MEMRI scored a media home run with their mis-translation of Tomorrow's Pioneers material. Obviously, those controversies deserve mention. But a lot of the supposed controversies MEMRI, CAMERA et al document don't seem to exist outside of a narrow partisan "echo chamber" environment. Pallywood is an excellent example - Israel wonks are obsessed with it, but the media don't take it seriously and probably haven't even heard of it.

"mis-translation" or not! The difference between the tomorrows pioneers translations are minute and well within slight veriation you get when you translate anything. Given this is all that can be said against an organisation that translates thousands of TV broadcasts as well as newspaper reports every year this is clearly a very accurate translating service (used by the BBC). MEMRI does not have a news agenda it just translates what is said in the arab media. 12:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the guideline for judging when an opinion is important enough to be mentioned? Personally, I would favor keeping to reliable factual sources and only using partisan sources when it's been established, factually, that a genuine controversy exists. Is that the usual practice? <eleland/talkedits> 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For evaluating whether or not they are echo chambers and to what degree they should be quoted outside their narrow concerns, I would suggest WP:FT/N. Relata refero 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I use the FTN often and greatly appreciate it, but I am leery of bringing such a fine, effective institution into the Israelistinian tarpit. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just thought that Moreschi and co. might be able to evaluate the notability of opinions quite dispassionately. Relata refero 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically the question (at least the question I have) is whether MEMRI is a reliable source on the Qur'an, its exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. If yes, what makes it a reliable source in any those fields? I think the best way to go about this is to look at each individual author, and evaluate him/her for his/her credentials.Bless sins (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is Is MEMRI a reliable source for views on the qur'an, exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. Any answer your second point. Either it is or it isn't. Yahel Guhan 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI seems to talk of Islam as if it is an expert. The question is, should we consider it as one? Also, "Either it is or it isn't" never works, since there are exceptions.Bless sins (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very, very easy to quote from someone else's scriptures in ways liable to incite hatred. So severe and obvious is this problem that, if MEMRI really claim to be a source on Islamic Scripture (do they?) that would be another reason never to use them.

There used to be a Israeli holocaust survivor, soldier and professor who insisted on exposing what appear to be serious extremism within Judaism. Our article on him doesn't discuss his apparently well-founded views on the religious exhortation to kill civilians. Instead of which, we re-publish the very most unpleasant things his opponents said about him ("diseased mind, Nazi views"). Why would we give a body like MEMRI, an attack-dog of well-funded anti-Muslim propaganda and extremism, better treatment than an individual who put his career and personal safety on the line to oppose extremism? PR 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is relevant. MEMRI is a serious organisation, that it can be argued that they have erred in translation on two occasions, just goes to show what a RS it is. Any major news source print daily corrections and apologies, so 2 mistakes should invalidate a source? Please! Lobojo (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - as Eleland points out above, MEMRI has just the opposite reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland hasn't "pointed out" any such thing, he's just given his opinion. Jayjg 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which appears generally supported by others. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By whom? I see a number of "others" stating the exact opposite. Jayjg 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did give my opinion, Jay, but most of my posting was devoted to relevant factual information about MEMRI from 3rd parties (I can give the exact citations if anything is in doubt.) I think it behooves you to address that, rather than resort to what is, frankly, an obnoxious filibustering tactic of the sort one would hear in an argument among schoolboys. "That's your opinion!" — well yes, everything I say, by definition, is my opinion. Also, I'm rubber and you're glue, etc. <eleland/talkedits> 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A columnist has claimed that MEMRI erred in two translations? Out of what, thousands that they've done? That's hardly proof they're not reliable. Nor is being "one-sided" in choosing sources the same as being "unreliable" in translation. And finally, regarding your claim that the founders were "former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both", well-poisoning is not an argument for unreliablity. Jayjg 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A columnist with a Master's in Arabic language has opined that MEMRI's errors are "difficult to attribute to incompetence or accidental lapses. there appears to be a political motive." He concludes that "Responsible news organisations can't rely on anything it says without going back and checking its translations against the original Arabic." This is something which we rarely get at Misplaced Pages; a specific, third-party assessment of a source's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In two other columns, he discussed his unease, as a journalist, with MEMRI's apparent secretiveness and selecitveness. He wrote that "The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.
Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.
Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian."

In the second column he quotes a former US ambassador in the Middle East saying, "This service does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. Its owners are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."

Again, it's not my personal assessment that MEMRI's links to Israeli spies and Likudniks is problematic; it's the assessment of Whitaker and the sources he quotes. And he gave far more than two examples of problems of translation, mis-attribution, or questionable interpretations.

Whitaker was not alone in his assessment; according to Glenn Beck of CNN, his network's "Arab desk" (I am assuming he meant "Arabic desk") ordered the MEMRI tape of Tomorrow's Pioneers pulled from all of the networks after they became aware of its "massive problems." They said that "several Arabic speakers" they consulted all agreed on the mistranslation. As'ad Abukhalil, who is a professor at UC Berkley and a native Arabic-speaker, provided a detailed line-for-line analysis which confirmed the findings.

The weight of sources here is pretty overwhelming. MEMRI is a shady, highly partisan group with a reputation for "sexing up" its translations, which are specifically selected to highlight the worst aspects of Arab media. <eleland/talkedits> 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, being selective in sources has little to do with "reliability". Whitaker's opinion piece is one source critical of MEMRI - one, and the CNN transcript you provide doesn't say anything about Glenn Beck "pulling" the tape, or "massive problems". The transcript states that CNN disagrees with the translation of one sentence; it also points out that Mustafa Barghouti said that the "very unfortunate video" in question had been pulled, indicating that MEMRI's concerns were well justified. And finally, blogs, even "angryarab.blogspot" aren't reliable sources. Far from the "weight of sources here" being "pretty overwhelming", they are, in fact, quite underwhelming. Jayjg 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, congratulations for noting that a CNN transcript which didn't mention Glenn Beck didn't say anything about him pulling the tape. Really now, could you, WP:AGF just a tiny bit? That wasn't what I was providing the transcript for. That information came from Glenn Beck's talk show; an online mirror exists here.

Whitaker has written three articles critical of MEMRI, not one, which I have already told you, and I believe I linked all three above. Here, I'll give the links again, since I know you're busy: Selective MEMRI Langauge Matters Arabic Under Fire Furthermore, Whitaker did not merely provide his own opinion, but also quoted from other sources who were critical of MEMRI, including Wm Rugh, former US ambassador to Yemen and the U.A.E.

Another MEMRI translation, of the 2004 bin Laden tape, has been widely discounted.

Blogs are, of course, self-published sources. However, we are not talking about a random blog, but the blog of a professor of Political Science whose expertise is in the Arab world, about which he's written three books. "Established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," anyone? I congratulate you on noticing the self-mocking "Angry Arab" title of the blog; perhaps you should dig a little deeper.

Finally, your dodge about Barghouti confirming the tape had been pulled was just a waste of time. Jay, everyone acknowledged the program was horrifying, even when you translate it accurately. The tape being pulled has absolutely no bearing on whether MEMRI's translation was correct. <eleland/talkedits> 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video - there appears to be a dispute about one sentence. MEMRI stands by its translation. Regarding Whitaker, again, he is one source critical of MEMRI. Unsurprisingly, Juan Cole has chimed in as well, but Juan Cole's claim that a word was taken out of context is not, actually, the same as being "wide discredited". All of this is mighty thin gruel for a broad claim that MEMRI is unreliable. Jayjg 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Knol as a RS?

Interestingly, the CSM reported today that Salon blogger Farhad Manjoo believes that the Google Knol project will serve as source material for Misplaced Pages. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we have Misplaced Pages:Verifiability so we don't need to rely on what bloggers say. Knol is no different from any other self-published blog, or website that lacks editorial oversight: it is not presumed to be a reliable source except for non-controversial information about the writer. - Jehochman 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably wrong, or at least on the wrong side of consensus. There's a discussion on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The mailing list is informative but does not govern policy. The mailing list includes malcontents, banned users and others whose opinion would not be persuasive on Misplaced Pages, and the sometimes toxic atmosphere there has led to very low participation. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, just because you don't participate doesn't mean its worthless, OK? A lot of major policy is still first heard there. In this case, I'm quoting the participants in a thread started by DGerard, and there wasn't a banned user in sight. If you don't pay attention half the time, don't blame the rest of us. Relata refero (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, the Mailing list gets to challenge WP:SPS without on-wiki discussion and consensus? And we listen to that challenge and not WP:SPS? --Thinboy00 @009, i.e. 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Knol probably will be a reliable source for Misplaced Pages, because it names its article's authors by real name and lists their credentials, plus their sources, both primary and secondary. It doesn't get much better than that. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How would that be any different from our posting our names here? We share our sources too. It's editorial oversight and peer-review that makes the difference. --Adoniscik (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna say that Knol will probably be a good source for sources. Users can go there, find cites, get the material from the cited source, and add it to our content. But as far as sourcing to Knol itself, I'd say that a dangerous stance, cause then NNDB, which touts itself as being reliable I believe would also be a source. MBisanz 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mbisanz. Secondly, check out this example. It has been written by the Director of Insomnia and Sleep Medicine at the Stanford University School of Medicine. To me that is a very reliable source. Again it would depend on the author.Bless sins (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates

I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of Chip Berlet, the main attraction at Political Research Associates, which is abundantly cited as a source all over Misplaced Pages. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Misplaced Pages editors have net group biases. But Chip Berlet has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. Andyvphil (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its clique). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claque does work in this context. --Niels Gade (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. Relata refero (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. PRA is overused as a source, and often in ways which violate WP:BLP. There are two persons who are professional anti-LaRouche activists, Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who both have websites with arguably slanderous attacks on LaRouche. PRA is Berlet's website, and King's website has been discussed before on this page (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.) (PRA, for example, features defamatory leaflets with instructions to print them out and distribute them at LaRouche events, not the sort of thing you would expect from a scholarly source.) These attacks do not appear in the conventional press, so these two persons have opened Misplaced Pages accounts (User:Dking and User:Cberlet) to use Misplaced Pages to get greater exposure for their views. They are joined in this effort by User:Will Beback and User:Hardindr. The idea appears to be to use Misplaced Pages to "expose" LaRouche, since the conventional media are not doing this to their satisfaction. Material from the the websites in question is spammed into all LaRouche-related articles in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. I think that use of PRA should be scaled way back to a level that corresponds to its notability, and never for material that conflicts with BLP -- I do not believe that PRA meets the standards required by WP:BLP. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?

2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.

3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst." This is why PRA should be used sparingly and with particular caution in BLP articles. Will Beback is completely mistaken to say that "Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.

Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as the experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --Niels Gade (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.

3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that accusation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source. King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, if they are using them in articles outside of the "LaRouche-related" articles. King's book is a reliable source on King's views, and would certainly be acceptable in the article on Dennis King. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using a reliable source isn't promoting it. The job of Misplaced Pages editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Dennis King and Chip Berlet's books and articles are reliable sources written by acknowledged experts on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Using their work is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article. Though, of course, I know you regard those as unreliable too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. May I ask how you happened to arrive at this conclusion about me? --Marvin Diode (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Do you consider such mainstream media as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, or NBC to be reliable sources on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both questions, and I have said so explicitly. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Break

<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:

• Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon.

It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant just what I said. We have to use major publications as a source, unless there are peer-reviewed journals or some other, stronger source available. As you may recall, in my request for arbitration I proposed that "when views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of WP:REDFLAG.)" I emphatically disagree with your statement that using the websites of King or Berlet "is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article." This doesn't mean, of course, that I consider the NY Times, Washington Post or Wall Street journal to be infallible. Mature editorial judgment should be excercised with any source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say that I have "confirmed facts" from King's book, as if that makes it a reliable source. The book may correctly say that February is the second month of the calendar year; that doesn't in any way excuse the fact that it is full of outrageous, propagandistic speculation and innuendo. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have confirmed facts from the book. You have not offered any evidence that there are factual errors in it. The book meets WP's standards for a reliable source. However that book isn't the topic of this thread. It has already been discussed before and there's no need to keep bringing it up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective, has anyone offered any evidence that there are factual errors in the LaRouche publications? I don't believe that this is the sole criterion for use of a source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clippings of factual errors promoted by LaRouche.

• On the talk show, LaRouche blamed the Soviet Union for engineering what he termed the the AIDS "conspiracy." "There is no question that it can be transmitted by mosquitoes," LaRouche said, citing as supporting evidence the high incidence of the disease in Africa, the Caribbean and southern Florida.
• On the KGO talk show, LaRouche pointed to the "insect-bite belt," which he said includes Florida and the Caribbean. "In the insect-bite belt, we have a very large transmission of AIDS among poor people," he said. "The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has been suppressing this evidence."
• Indeed, Secretary of State March Fong Eu said last week she would challenge in court "blatantly false" sections of the ballot argument for Proposition 64 submitted by LaRouche backers, including claims that "AIDS is not hard to get," and that potential insect and respiratory transmission of the disease and transmission by casual contact are "well established."

Do you want to argue that he was correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't addressing Marvin's question. The issue is not LaRouche's personal opinions. The question is about fact-checking at Executive Intelligence Review or other LaRouche publications. Do you have evidence of factual errors in those publications? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We can spend more time investigating the LaRouche movement's claims about diseases if we ever seek to use the EIR as a reliable source. Of course, if you have any citations from EIR disputing LaRouche's incorrect statements then that might help their reputation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If EIR is accurately reporting an opinion by LaRouche, that does not discredit EIR as a source, regardless of whether LaRouche's opinion is credible or not. I asked you for examples of cases where EIR reported something as fact which turned out to be incorrect. You are applying a completely different set of standards to LaRouche publications than you do to the self-citing by King and Berlet. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to an archive of back issues of EIR or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using EIR as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would propose using EIR as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating EIR as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of EIR as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Misplaced Pages applies policy consistently. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.

2. I see a consensus.

3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Misplaced Pages. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. As far as Raimondo is concerned, would you say that he is less objective than Berlet? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?

3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of Frontpagemag.com says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority." His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by Stephen Schwartz. Do you think he's a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're now quoting FPM, unquestionably a fringe, unreliable source, to point out that another source is too fringe to talk about a third fringe source notable only for studying a fourth fringe source. Listen to me very carefully: theyre all unreliable. Will, there's nobody else opposing that statement. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FPM is about as "fringe, unreliable" as CounterPunch. Perhaps you'd like to remove the hundreds of citations we have for CounterPunch at the same time you take on FPM? Jayjg 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? I'm talking about the problem's with Will's argument. I'm not using Twinkle to suppress links to FPM. Relata refero (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the problems with your argument. FPM is no more "fringe, unreliable" than CounterPunch, and Misplaced Pages seems to have decided that CounterPunch is neither "fringe" nor "unreliable". Jayjg 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? When was this? rudra (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kronberg interview

The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as this interview is not considered the absolute truth as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Misplaced Pages article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--MariusM (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context." If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Origins Awards

Can anyone comment on the Origins Awards? Are they are a "reliable source" to demonstrate notability? Winning such an award is verifiable in a number of ways. A quick search of Google News on "Origins Award" and on "Academy of Adventure Gaming" (they are awarded by the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design) reveals some hits so it's at least moderately newsworthy. One newspaper apprarently says it's "the gaming equivalent of an Oscar" and so forth. A quick search on Google Scholar for "Origins Award" reveals a few hits (which I haven't really investigated them, was more curious to see what sort of results might be there). Basically I've had this same conversation several times now and would like independent input so that I can avoid having it again in the future. There seems to be some disagreement as to whether winning this award is a true indicator of notability or is it simply a "trade award". (Of course, one could argue that the Oscars are simply a "trade award", given by people in the movie industry to others in the same industry). Cheers --Craw-daddy | T | 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, just remember what the notability subguidelines exist for. We say that winning an oscar makes an actor notable, but that's not because oscars are just superduper notability enchanted awards. We say that because whenever someone wins an oscar, they're sure to have multiple, reliable, independent sources on themselves (many in regards to what they did to win that oscar). So then to argue that winning an origins award makes an entity notable is to show that winning such an award guarantees the existence of reliable sources to such an extent that we'll keep that article at an AFD even if no sources are provided other than proof the award was won. And just checking google again, "academy awards" gives 15000 times as many news hits as "origins award," so I'd say it's certainly not as safe a bet. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why does WP:BK, for example, say that a book is generally notable if it has won a major literary award? It doesn't say, "Has won a major literary award *and* has been been the subject of multiple, reliable, independent sources". Yes, I'll agree that winning such a literary award generally means that there's been lots of reliable sources published about it (independent of the award), but note that they are listed as separate criteria. As I have reminded others (and, unhelpfully been reminded of earlier today) WP:GHITS isn't a reliable indicator of notability. The Oscars are definitely more popular and/or well-known, but as we all know popularity ≠ notability. I certainly don't know many (well, almost none) of the awards in Category:Literary awards except for a few of the obvious ones, and perhaps a few less obvious ones regarding horror and/or science fiction, but I don't allow the fact that I don't know a literary prize to automatically dismiss the recipient out of hand as being non-notable. I would *do* argue that winning an Origins Award does basically guarantee that there will be reliable sources for the subject. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you run through the other sub-guidelines, you'll notice a common theme in most is the syphoning off of the primary criterion as seperate from the others. You'll also notice choice phrases like "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with attribution in reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" from WP:NF. In this sense, notability is really just a test for verifiability, which is the actual threshold (and a very inflexible one) for inclusion. I skimmed some random articles from the lists of winners, and I didn't actually see any reliable soures in them. But then, plenty of articles aren't sourced, so that might not mean anything. Anyway, if your last argument is correct, then yes, winning the award grants notability. I just haven't seen any convincing proof. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did the same for the literary awards. It seems a fair few of the main articles on the awards themselves are pretty poor references (if at all). (And, yes, the one on the Origins Awards itself could use some work.) --Craw-daddy | T | 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• On its own, a trade association award such as the Origins Awards is not by itself a badge of notability. In my view there are three reasons why an award like this cannont be used as evidence of notability: (a) The award is made and recived by the same group of game publishers & promoters; (b) notability cannot be inhertited from the award; (c) the "jury" who make the awards do not publish the reasons for their decision - we don't know whether the award is made on the basis of mertit, sales, nepotism, random chance or worst of all on the basis of POV. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And as stated above, an Oscar does not by itself confer any sort of notability. After all, that's just a trade award too. All of the press generated by them is just effectively copying a press release, and the rest is covering who was wearing what sort of dress on the red carpet, and who's dating which model. As also stated, the prize suggests that whoever wins it will have reliable independent sources about them, as I believe I have been effectively demonstrating with the references that I have been adding to many articles for those games/publications that win Origins Awards. When has the Academy ever published the reasons why they give an Oscar to someone. Heck, they don't even want to publish who are the members of the Academy!  :) So it's a secretive trade membership that gives out awards to its own members, and has been effectively hoodwinking the public for more than seventy-five years. The process for the Origins Awards has varied over the years, and has been the subject of many discussions in various forums and some other columns. Currently the nominations are made by the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design, and the final votes are performed by the public. Hence, I don't think the "jury" of the public would state the reason for their decision. Nor, do I recall, hearing the reasons for the particular films being nominated for some category of Oscar award. In any event, I'm still waiting for compelling evidence (not POV) for the Origins awards not being indicators of notability, in the same sense that Oscars are. I'm not claiming that the winners "inherit" any sort of notability, neither do Oscar winners for that matter, but namely they both indicate that the recipients will be the subject of multiple independent sources. (It is funny, however, that phrases such as "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" appear in WP:Notability (people) and "The book has won a major literary award." appear in WP:Notability (books) and so forth. A similar phrase appears in the proposed guidelines at WP:RPG/N.) If you look closely, you'll actually see that most awards are effectively "trade awards". From the Pulitzer website, you find that "In early March, 77 editors, publishers, writers, and educators gather in the School of Journalism to judge the entries in the 14 journalism categories." So, again, it's a trade award... yet it's a major literary prize too. So what's the difference? I hope that I can stop having this same argument at some point in the future... And I would welcome further comment from someone other than myself and Gavin.collins as we have been making the same statements to each other for sometime now. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Trade association awards are used as evidence of notability all the time. The Oscars are awarded by the Academy, which is comprised of people in the movie trade. This does not make an Oscar an unreliable indicator of notability. No one thinks that notability is "inherited" from the award. Awards are evidence of notability. No guideline says that awards organizations need to have a "jury" which publicizes the reasons for their decisions. I've never seen the Academy Awards publicize their reasons for decisions either.

Any argument that says Origins awards aren't a valid indicator of notability are just silly. This conversation shouldn't even be necessary. Rray (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Origins Awards are to RPGs as the Oscars are to movies, as the Grammies are to music, what the Emmies are to television, what the Pulitzer is to journalism, and what the Nobel Prize is to its various fields. They get less coverage because RPGs themselves get less coverage; they are just as important within the field as any other award is to its respective field. Now so far, everyone who's spoken on this issue has a bias (with the possible exception of User:Someguy1221; I don't know his feelings) either wanting the Origins Awards to be capable of conferring notability, or wanting them not to. As Craw-Daddy says, what we need to see is someone who has no bias, no stake in the argument, to take an objective look at the circumstances and tell us what they think on this issue. BOZ (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the closing admin on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination). To quote: "..proponents of article are strongly encouraged to locate and cite reliable secondary sources; press releases from award-givers are less than ideal". I think those comments set an important precedent. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AFDs are not meant to be precedent setting, they deal with one issue independent of others. Besides, that AFD was returned as keep, which you choose not to quote. Web Warlock (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't run based on precedent anyway. And policies aren't determined by closing admin's statements in AFD's. Rray (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Gavin's three arguments presented above, I'd say that the first and the last points are irrelevant; as currently stated, I don't see a basis in actual Misplaced Pages policy. To my mind, what's important is the middle point - winning an award is not the same as notability. An article on an RPG (or an aspect thereof) shouldn't get a "free pass" just because it won an award. That said, the Origin Awards can and should be used as evidence to help establish notability. It just shouldn't be the only evidence. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• To answer the original question, they are clearly a strong indicator of notability. I think BOZ sums it up well. Hobit (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Parodies

Are parody news sources, like The Onion, SNL News, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report considered reliable sources for criticism of people or organizations? They cannot be easily rebutted because of their satirical nature. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They are sources only about themselves. If they are a canonical example of a notable or widespread form of satire regarding the subject, then they could perhaps be cited as an example thereof, but ideally only if there is an independent source identifying it as such. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a third party using then as a source for criticism. For example. B criticizes A regarding some scenario, A responds to B about that scenario. C (The parody source) lampoons the scenario which makes A look stupid or relfects badly against A and subsequently makes B look good. B then uses C as evidence against in its criticism against A. Can the Paradoy source C be used as a reliable source for B to reflect the POV of B against A? Arzel (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Having drawn a small flowchart on a table napkin, I am ready to answer you now: No, not unless D, a reliable secondary source, tells us that C is a notable expression of the reaction to A and B's conflict. Could we look at the specific example to see if I got that right? Relata refero (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you wouldn't happen to be talking about this topic would you? (link) R. Baley (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the example. B is Media Matters criticizing A Limbaugh (who, don't get me wrong, I think is an arrogant jerk). A responds, claiming his word were taken out of context. C parodies the situation, which B uses to criticize A from a type of strawman point of view. My main problem with this use of a parody in this sense is that those that do parodies could be used as a reliable source in many situations to denagrate one side or the other. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that that would be an appropriate source for a genuine report on the disagreement between A and B. (Though I am sympathetic to the view that C's opinion of the disagreement might in itself be notable.) Relata refero (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• My view is that Parodies are works of fiction, and cannot be treated as evidence of real-world evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

David Shulman

David Shulman is one of the world's leading authorities on Dravidian linguistics. He has a professional interest in Islam among the Tamils. An Israeli-American, he is also a peace activist, who spent 4 years studying conflict between Palestinians and Israeli settlers on the West Bank. He is fluent in Hebrew and Arabic, was assisted by a yeshiva-trained settler's son with intimate knowledge of the area. He has written a book, Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine, on his experiences, peer-reviewed, vetted and published by the University of Chicago Press. The book was reviewed by an Israeli academic authority, Avishai Margalit, in the New York Review of Books, who commended it as 'important and memorable'. It was nominated by a senior editor on Slate (magazine)as one of the most important books of 2007. It is finally, strenuously objected to as a Reliable Source on the Wiki page Israeli Settlement at mainly by User:Jayjg. If this is not a reliable source, what is? Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You've entirely misrepresented me; I have no issue with Shulman being a reliable source regarding Dravidian linguistics or Tamil studies. Feel free to use him in the Dravidian languages article. Jayjg 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if its published by the University of Chicago press, it seems reliable enough. I will say nothing about whether it violates WP:UNDUE.

Note also that while his research interests are listed as Dravidian studies, he is a University Professor at the HU, and is entitled to teach in any department. Relata refero (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, nonsense. He's not going to be dragged in to teach a course in Chinese, or particle physics. Jayjg 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

He's reliable on some topics, and not on others. Where he (or anyone else) is expressing a political opinion, especially employing polemics, it would be unfair to employ that quote as a source for a scientific finding, when he doesn't claim that it is. Academics write with the implicit assumption that their readers can distinguish between what is their opinion (which they're entitled to) and scientific finding (which is subject to scrutiny). In this particular case, Shulman does nothing to substantiate his view except to express it. So what we're left with is that a notable person had a strong opinion about something. --Leifern (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leifern. I also don't quite understand the function of this noticeboard, which I had never seen until a few days ago. Starting a new discussion here basically "forks" a discussion that is already taking place on the article talk page. That seems confusing and inefficient. Shouldn't this "notice"board just contain notices that there is a particular dispute being discussed, and a link to the discussion? 6SJ7 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be an abuse of the concept of a "reliable source" going on here. A person might be a reliable source in one area, but not in others - in general, people are reliable in their areas of expertise. A mathematician is not a reliable source for a medical claim, a historian is not a reliable source for a claim about astrophysics, and an expert in Dravidian linguistics is not a reliable source for claims about the psychological makeup of Israeli settlers. Jayjg 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're employing two strawman arguments in a double-dodge. Everyone understands that someone might be an RS in one area and not another, so that's strawman #1. But what you're claiming is that a book put out by a prestigious peer-review academic press is non-reliable because the author doesn't have the right degree. Nishidani (and I, and others) are saying that proper Wiki-vetting of reliable sources does not entail scrutinizing resumés in order to second-guess academic peer review. If an author's chops are good enough for a prestigious academic imprint and a glowing review in the New York Review of Books, then they're good enough for Misplaced Pages. Period. Now the question of whether a particular passage is well-selected, appropriate, etc., is a separate question but WP:RS has absolutely nothing to do with it. Steve and I do not think this passage is well-chosen. But you are on your own in poring disapprovingly over a resumé accepted by the University of Chicago press.

Strawman #2 is that the passage in question is a claim "about the psychological makeup of Israeli settlers." No it isn't. It's a claim about cultural, political, and institutional tolerance of lawlessness in Israeli settlements in recent years. It reads:

Israel, like any other society, has violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades in Israel is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise. Here, in places like Chavat Maon, Itamar, Tapuach, and Hebron, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Jews' exclusive right to it.

The word "sociopathic" here is obviously being used in its lay sense, and no literate person will understand it as a specialist's psychological diagnosis. That's just a total red herring. What can be said about this passage, and has been said by me and others, is that its ratio of rhetoric to information make it a less-than-ideal extract from an acceptable source.--G-Dett (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You yourself are employing two strawman arguments. Strawman #1 is that I'm claiming that a "book put out by a prestigious peer-review academic press is a non-RS because the author doesn't have the right degree". Were the statements made by Shulman regarding the psychology of settlers peer-reviewed by experts in settler psychology then? Of course not. Can you name the "peer-review" process that took place regarding Shulman's statements? I don't think so.

Strawman #2 is that Shulman is using the term "sociopathic" in a rhetorical sense, that he didn't really mean it literally. But if it's just emotive rhetoric, then what's all the noise about him being an "expert", and this being "peer-reviewed"? Moreover, why would we want to include this kind of emotive rhetoric in an article? What's more, we know that the rhetoric is false, the Israeli settlers don't really have "unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill". So, even more empty rhetoric. It's a useless quote for any number of reasons, and it's astonishing that people would seriously try to include it in any article, much less using the laughably weak pretexts advanced for its inclusion. Jayjg 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, are you able to communicate in anything other than strawman arguments and false allegations of strawman arguments? You've substituted "rhetorical" vs. "literal" for my terms, which were "lay" vs. "specialist." These are very different words; look them up. You don't need to be a psychologist to talk about "violent, sociopathic" elements in society; stop with that nonsense. Shulman's book is a reliable source, period. We know this because it was vetted and published by a prestigious peer-review academic imprint, and warmly received by one of the most eminent review journals in the world, and praised as one of the best books of the year by Slate. Any WP:RS objection is null and void on its face. If you're concerned about declining standards in academic publishing, Misplaced Pages is not the venue to address this. If you're concerned that this extract is not the best choice of material from this reliable source, then good, we're agreed. Join me on the talk page instead of dodging me there; we'll work it out.--G-Dett (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, are you able to communicate in anything other than strawman arguments, false allegations of strawman arguments, and violations of WP:CIVIL? You're correct, you "don't need to be a psychologist to talk about "violent, sociopathic" elements in society", but you do need to be a psychologist if you want to be quoted on the subject in an encyclopedia, per WP:V; stop with that nonsense. We know nothing about how Shulman's book was "vetted", and this professor of Dravidian languages is not a reliable source on the psychology of Israeli settlers, period; any WP:RS claim to the contrary is null and void on its face. If you're interested in promoting ever-more strawman arguments, such as my being "concerned about declining standards in academic publishing", Misplaced Pages is not the venue to do so. And if you're concerned about people "dodging" discussion on the relevant Talk: page, then bring it up with the person who brought this whole dodge to this board in the first place. Jayjg 04:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, your post above is plagiarism, a recurring problem with your edits. Stop it. And stop trying to appoint yourself an independent academic peer review judge. You're a Wikipedian, not a reliable source. When the Chicago University Press publishes something, it's a reliable source, by definition; your input and opinions on this fact are by definition worthless. Nothing personal there; it's just that you're a Wikipedian, not a professor or university press editor. Where your role comes into play is in decisions about what material from reliable sources such as Shulman would best improve the article, per WP:NPOV and other policies. Try to perform that role with a modicum of intelligence and modesty.--G-Dett (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, your post above (and indeed many of your posts) are violations of WP:CIVIL, a recurring problem with your posts. Stop it. Discuss edits, not editors. When an expert in Dravidian languages opines on the psychology of Israeli settlers, he's not a reliable source, by definition; all else is meaningless. WP:V does not say that every word published in every book published by any University press is, by definition, reliable. The University of Chicago Press publishes all sorts of things, including Norman Maclean's novella A River Runs Through It, and The Phantom of the Temple: A Judge Dee Mystery, a detective novel, and Tricks of the Light, a book of poetry. Oh, and Discuss edits, not editors. And finally, Discuss edits, not editors. Jayjg 05:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the source about psychology, at least not to a minimally literate eye. The book is reliable on the settlements, period. What to use from it is an excellent question; when you have a better understanding of core policies you'll realize this is not an WP:RS question. Stop telling me about the author's expertise in Dravidian languages, a subject you don't understand and I haven't raised (i.e., another strawman). If you're concerned about the decline in standards in academic publishing, fine, but stop talking about it here; your opinions on that subject are, again, by definition, worthless.--G-Dett (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

at least not to a minimally literate eye = violation of WP:CIVIL. Stop. when you have a better understanding of core policies you'll realize this is not an WP:RS question = violation of WP:CIVIL. Stop. your opinions on that subject are, again, by definition, worthless = violation of WP:CIVIL. Stop. Discuss edits, not editors Furthermore, your continued assertions that Shulman, an expert on Dravidian languages, is a reliable source for assertions about the psychology of settlers is just that, an assertion with no basis in policy. And, as has has been shown, publication by a university press doesn't instantly turn material into an unimpeachably reliable source; it's just one indicator of potential reliability, and not necessarily the most important one. If you're interested in promoting ever-more strawman arguments, such as my being "concerned about declining standards in academic publishing", Misplaced Pages is not the venue to do so. Oh, and Discuss edits, not editors. And finally, Discuss edits, not editors. Jayjg 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your deliberate and calculated misrepresentations of content disputes, your ongoing abuse of core policies, and your incessant trolling of good-faith editors are a continual affront to the project. I don't expect you to stop, but I wish you would.--G-Dett (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, sources, and article content, not other editors, and please review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop playing WP:GAMEs, abusing core policy, and trolling noticeboards and talk pages. Your deliberate and ongoing disruption of Misplaced Pages is an "editor" as well as "content" issue.--G-Dett (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, this is the Reliable sources noticeboard, not the "Rant about those you dislike noticeboard". Please focus on edits, sources, and article content, not other editors, and please review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of inquiries here are about whether such-and-such or so-and-so is a "reliable source" (and just that), usually because someone else has contested it. Now, it's all very well to show credentials, but what often gets lost is exactly what for which the source is a WP:RS. That is, this board can be abused for deceptive arguments of the form "But X is a WP:RS! (unstated but claimed: on subject Y)" when the discussion on this board had actually established WP:RS for subject Z. rudra (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is all about context: In which context is this source used, and to support what text in the article. These questions are better discussed in article's talk and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several aspects to how reliable a source can be. Is the author a tenured or tenure-track academic? Is his speciality in a related field? Is the particular work published by an academic imprint or a peer-reviewed journal? Does the publisher have a reputation for accuracy and editorial control? And so on.

By the way, any attempt to demonstrate that because the U of Chicago press published poetry, it has ceased to have a review process on its academic work is a little pathetic. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point about his specialty is rather critical. And, as has been rather conclusively shown, University presses do not "peer-review" everything they publish. And this particular work is, in fact, described several times as a "diary" in the New York Review of Books articles. It's his personal feelings and impressions, not a peer-reviewed study of Israeli settlers. Jayjg 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well my apologies if, as some maintain, this is not an appropriate page in which to ask experienced editors and administrators for advice on what constitutes WP:RS. I thought, reading the words 'Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer,' that this was the function. I posted my query because in the nook where this issue was raised I found User:Jayjg's judgement (and he has made tens of thousands, and is therefore experienced) incomprehensible. On the few occasions where he had edited where I edit, he has invariably taken strong exception to my use of academic materials by experts in their fields, one one occasion reverting them out because he said the world authority had got his facts wrong (without telling anyone why). As someone who has been vetted by peer-review, and published by a quality publisher,I find User:Jayjg's idisyncratic objections here more reflective of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Joseph Needham was qualified as a biochemist, and only studied sinology privately. He coauthored perhaps the best work on the history of Chinese science. That Shulman's primary field is Dravidian linguistics is by no means a disqualifier. It seemed sensible to cast a broader net to get a larger catch of informed judgements. Surely to experienced hands, the issue is straight-forward?Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My goodness, what a strange situation must be going on over at the relevant talk page. I'm too squeamish to look, I admit.

A book published by a scholar in a major university press, and positively reviewed by notable sources, is not only a reliable source, it's in the top tier of reliable sources. Logical contortionism, and drawing one's adversaries into sidelines about WP:CIVility, won't change that. <eleland/talkedits> 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

University presses are generally good sources, but everything has a context. As has been conclusively shown, despite the claims University presses do not "peer-review" everything they publish, and I can bring hundreds of other books as obvious evidence of that. Also, this particular work is, in fact, described several times as a "diary" in the New York Review of Books articles. It's his personal feelings and impressions, not a peer-reviewed study of Israeli settlers - he is writing as an activist, not as a scholar. And, again, he may be a scholar, but his expertise is in an unrelated field. Scholars of Dravidian languages are not experts in the psychology of Israeli settlers. Jayjg 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Without necessarily agreeing with Eleland here, I personally think that a comparison between this section and that on Paul Bogdanor above is instructive. Relata refero (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Marquis' "Who's Who" as RS?

I have the following questions about the use of Marquis "Who's Who", and in particular, "Who's Who in America" (in case there is reason to distinguish between the different Who's Who publications):

• Is it a reliable source?
• Can it be used to establish notability? In general or under special circumstances?
• Is there a way to verify whether a particular entry about a person is authentic or self-promoted?

These questions arised due to a discussion on a user's Talk page. While the noble goal of this publication is to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry, this article here claims the contrary. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I can get into the Marquis "Who's Who" it's likely not a reliable source.  :) But in all seriousness, I don't know. I recall getting a form to verify certain information about myself (like where I'm working, is my name spelled correctly and so forth). I don't recall anything in particular that I would characterize as "self-promoting" but then again I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention to the whole thing. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, it’s a good, thought-provoking question. As someone who has consulted the Who’s Who in Economics, Who’s Who in Political Science, and Who’s Who in Asian Studies in the past, I would have thought those three sources would have been reliable for any claims made about the subject for the subject's own article (as they need to be confirmed by the subject before publication). In addition, if the editors made the independent decision (and that’s unclear) that these individuals merited recognition in their respective fields by listing their peer-reviewed publications, credentials, and personal details in the entries, then I would have thought that's a good step towards confirming notability (but you'd still need other independent sources).

However, your question is a little more problematic because it’s linked to notability of a subject in a more general compendium, isn’t it? In this instance, I would ask, “notable for what”? Does a general Who’s Who in America compendium determine the notability of the subject? If so, how? What are the criteria for inclusion in that particular Who’s Who? The linked article highlights some of the absurdities involved. Without any transparency behind that selection process, it’s difficult to determine if it is also a good source to meet the notability guidelines. J Readings (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's Who in America is clearly a reliable source by our rules (it is independantly published, it has editorial oversight, etc.) So the question is really whether being listed establishes notability. I have to wonder... can any one single source establish notability? I would say no. To my mind you need more than one. So, while a Who's Who entry could be one of several sources used to establish notability, it would not establish notability on its own. Besides, if someone is prominent enough to be listed in Who's Who, there should be other sources out there that can be used to establish the person's notibility in conjunction with the Who's Who entry. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It apparently has a very low bar to entry, so is not suitable to establish notability. Generally entrants submit their own biogs, so it should essentially be used much like a self-published source, i.e. it's OK for non-contentious basic facts about the subject. Tyrenius (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I do not think any Who's Who should be a valid way to help establish notability. However, despite all of this and other evidence to the contrary (or rather, lack of evidence in support of his position) presented in the latest AfD and the DRV, FeelFreeToBe continues to argue his point on my talk page. ···日本穣 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Which evidence? I see mainly opinions. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My own thinking about the matter was this: A single negative article (which is not even a piece of reliable information itself) about Who's Who cannot prove that Who's Who failed its stated mission to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry. It would be like claiming that the 9/11 Commission report failed its mission to provide the results of a straight investigation, based on a single debunking article. If the number of those articles increases, the situation somehow changes, but I think WP editors shouldn't have the authority to decide which side is right, since they have to maintain the neutral point of view. I found Who's Who volumes up to the present in a university library, which indicates to me that Who's Who is still a respected source of good reputation despite the debunking article. However, if there is serious concern, that readers might be misguided by the reference, it might be worth to cite the negative article about Who's Who as well, so that readers can make up their own mind without being too much impressed by the Who's Who citation. It all boils down to the fact that EVERY source can be discredited somehow. Corruption and/or false accusations can be found everywhere. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Now what about notability? I know it's difficult, but just imagine a case, in which there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that you're unable to find a significant amount of other(reliable) sources. Maybe this is not a well-chosen example now, but let's imagine that you find a historic Who's Who entry from 1930 about a Jewish political activist, but all the books and newspapers citing him have been burned by the Nazis (except Who's Who of course). The only other information you find about him are his own books, preserved by his family and friends. Would this man be notable enough to get a (short) WP article? I would say yes, but where do you draw the line? Once again, I would say, it's not up to WP editors to decide. If there is some kind of reasonable explanation, why somebody has not been mentioned frequently by easily accessible sources despite his/her notability, lack of notability would be a weak argument, i.e. for deleting an article. Does my logic make any sense? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Free", I don't think you can justify a Who's Who entry as indicating anything more than:

1. They the the person is notable.
2. The person in question wants the information published (as the subject has editing approval.) "Editorial oversight" may exist in theory, but do we have any evidence it's practiced?

Accuracy is not established. My entry in Who's Who (which I mentioned in the deletion discussion about my article) is there, and happens to contain exactly what I sent them (edited for form). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. About your second: According to the WP article Marquis Who's Who you also get an entry as a notable person if you decline to submit any information. How can you use your own case to prove lack of accuracy? Is the information in your entry accurate or not? Is there a significant amount of cases in which existing individuals purposely submitted wrong information? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, you ask if we have any evidence that editorial oversight is actually practiced... the same question can be asked of any publisher. As long as editorial oversight exists "in theory"... I think we have to accept the source as reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should differentiate between the current and historical editions of Who's Who. I'm fairly certain the editions relating to the periods before Marquis was established are reliable. Regarding the "current" editions, I would have to assume that anyone who gets included gets included on the basis of some establishment of notability elsewhere, so I'm inclined to think that it is sufficient to establish notability. It's probably also, generally, reliable. However, if there is a clear difference between it and other independent sources, I'd probably weigh in on the side of the independent sources. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion between notability issues and reliability. Judging by the evidence, the Who's Who is probably worth very little in trying to establish notability, as several editors have pointed out. However, it is reliable source for information for article about an individual judged notable, in part because the subject is asked to correct/update the bio. In this way it is very similar to a bio published by an individual on his own website: useable in a article about him/herself, but for nothing else.

Reply to John Carter. There are different kinds of Who's Who published by different publishers. I think you may be thinking of the UK based versions which are a very different kettle of fish that the Marquis one. --Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. The volumes in question are entitled "Who Was Who", not "Who's Who". John Carter (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times as reference for Prem Rawat

An editor deleted material from Prem Rawat referenced from the Los Angeles Times saying it was "extremely poorly sourced". The Times article in question is a report on an announcement by the subject's organization, and apparently just quotes their information. Are mainstream, award-winning newspapers like the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times reliable source for the purposes of a biography of a living person? I asked user:Jossi, but he hasn't been able to give an answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, that is not cool. I have answered your question quite explicitly. I am saying that an LA Times article can be a reliable source. It is not an absolute, as there is no such a thing. This is consistent with advice I have given in this very pages to other editors. Maybe is about time you refresh your understanding of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and WP:V: (my highlight)

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

Context is important, as well as editorial judgment for the suitability of the material: the fact that something was published in the LA Times, does not mean that we have to use it. It means that we look at the material and decide if it is usable, how to use it, how to summarize such article, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The LAT is a mainstream newspaper that has received the 2nd highest number of Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper (after the NYT). Specifically, under what circumstances would the LAT or NYT be unacceptable sources for the Prem Rawat article? Let's pin this down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, many circumstances. Is the material encyclopedic? Does the material adds value to the article? Does the way the source is used complies with WP:NPOV#Undue; is the material corroborated in other sources or it contradicts other sources? Again: there is no such a thing as an absolute as it pertains to the reliability of a source regardless if it is the New York Times, a local San Diego newspaper, or schloarly book , when we have to take into account the context in which the source is used, how it is intended to be used, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether the material is encyclopedic is totally unrelated to whether the source is unreliable. I've address that issue below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From the top of WP:RSN: Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. -- Hopefully we will get some feedback here from neutral, uninvolved editors, other than the editor that posed the initial question, and the editor mentioned by Will Beback (talk · contribs) in that initial comment. Feedback from some neutral third parties in this matter would be greatly appreciated, so if anyone is knowledgeable about WP:RS/WP:V, and the reputability of the Los Angeles Times, your input here would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times and the New York Times are reliable sources, as the policy says of mainstream news organizations. There might be circumstances in a BLP where, for legal reasons, we would have to remove certain sources, but it would be a rare event for high-quality news sources to be removed, and would only happen if there had been a complaint and OFFICE involvement. There might also be circumstances in which a newspaper article was incomplete compared to a specialist source, in which case editors might agree that they prefer the specialist source. But the news source would still be considered reliable if someone wanted to use it. SlimVirgin 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several circumstances under which that isn't true. If its an opinion piece, if its a single piece unconfirmed by or possibly acting in contradiction to scholarly sources.... SV, I've told you this before, over-reliance on papers when academics are working in a sector is not encyclopaedic and doesn't have support in policy as written. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), for providing your input. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, why do yo think we have a statement in WP:V that says: The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context? If we take the discussion to mere absolutes, yes, the NYT is a RS. But we still need to apply editorial judgment about suitability, don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up two issues, Jossi. One is whether or not specific sources are considered reliable and material sourced from there to be verifiable. The other is whether that material is appropriate to include in a BLP, and if so how it should be written. We need to pin down the first issue before we can go to the second. I can certainly imagine circumstances where material pronted in the L.A. Times would not be appropriate- for example if it were printed in gossip column and labelled a rumor, or if it were an issue where the paper's integrity had been called into question by other significant sources. However without some specific reason to discount their reliability I think our presumption should be that they are suitable sources for biographies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do always need to judge appropriateness, but for the most part, high-quality mainstream newspapers will be appropriate. One example of inappropriateness might be where a newspaper seeks to explain a complex historical situation, and we have a specialist source who explains it better. If there's consensus on that point, we might want to choose the specialist source. But that's really the only circumstance in which a good newspaper might be left out, and then it's not so much being excluded as superseded. SlimVirgin 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's functionally irrelevant, as jossi only has to stop using the word "reliable" to kill this thread (and I suppose one other editor can stop claiming BLP violations), but the dispute would still be mostly the same. That is, is the information relevant and/or significant to Prem Rawat. You've done away with the BLP issue, but as jossi says (and what retains in this the status of a content dispute), "that something was published in the LA Times, does not mean that we have to use it." Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The question goes beyond the content of any one edit. The LAT has published dozens of articles on the subject or his activities, as has the NYT. Rather than fighting over them every time we want to use them as a source, which is what some editors seem to prefer, I'd rather see if we can establish under what circumstances they are reliable. I think the answer should be: "under all circumstance except ..." with a list of exceptions. The reliability of a source is not directly related to whether or not material sourced to it should be included in an article. It's appropriate to debate that on a case by case basis. But the verifiability/reliability of the LAT and NYT should be assumed in almost all cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Will and SlimVirgin, NYTimes and LATimes are, by default, reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer should be: "under all circumstance except ..." with a list of exceptions. Except (as the arbitration committee ruled) : Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. Medicine, for example, "is an applied science, and clearly medical articles should rely on sources appropriate for a scientific article". Even the NYT or the LAT quite often get it wrong when it comes to medicine, or at least, fail to get it completely right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are good points. However since this is a biography which doesn't concern either medicine or science I don't think that those exceptions will come up. As SlimVirgin suggests, where better sources (such as scholarly sources on scholarly topics) are available they may supercede newspapers. I can see that being the case in theological issues, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers are prone to error and POV, as are all sources, but also represent a significant view which should be included. In my opinion it's a good source. Anynobody 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times and The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (Dr. J. Gordon Melton editor) are in conflict. The LA Times says Rawat purchased it, Dr. Melton says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". So who do you believe? WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" and that is why the LA Times article is, in this case, the less reliable source. If this material is important enough to go in the article, and I don't believe it is, it should be right, BLP Policy is clear - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. The Los Angles Times is in no uncertain terms a reliable source. Brimba (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But when the LA Times is contradicted by an Encyclopedia edited by a renowned religious scholar, what do you choose.? As WP:VER "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" .Momento (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not report both? "The Los Angeles Times writes that abc, although according to the Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults, xyz." SlimVirgin 06:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at another section on this page, but ended up putting in my 2 cents here. Having said that I fail to see the relevance of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". How that would apply to this subject matter? The question is strait forward; is the Los Angles Times, per policy, a reliable source? The answer is extremely clear, and that answer is Yes.

Beyond that I happen to notice that you are stating that there is a contradiction, “Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". Who are Premies? Who organized that purchase, who decided that particular house, who handled the transaction, so forth and so on? You may have nothing more than two views of that same event descried in slightly different terms. I do not know enough about the subject to say. What I can tell you is that the LA Times is a reliable source. Other issues are to be sorted out somewhere else, not here. Brimba (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What brought me to this page was in essence this question here: Having said that I fail to see the relevance of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources". How that would apply to this subject matter? Insisting upon academic sources for non-academic subjects. That a particular academic source touches upon the subject, does not invalidate the greater body of non-academic sources that cover the same subject. Brimba (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious scholars, such as Melton are not specialized in property transfers but in describing beliefs and practices of a religious group, so in this case I think the Los Angeles Times is more reliable. Andries (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Both sources are without fail reliable sources, the cult book as well as the LA Times. List that one says this, one says that, to indicate the disconnect, and readers can click on the links in the refs to make their own decision unless further sourcing comes up. As said above, the LA Times is functionally going to be almost always a reliable source, and pinning it on context isn't valid, nor to question if the content is encyclopediac. It's about Rawat, it's in a de facto reliable source, and the information is not something which would or could be considered as contentious under any established neutral consensus here. I'd go so far as to say anyone challenging a fine source like the LA or NY Times should at all times have the burden on them to demonstrate why it should not be used, and to gain acceptance for that view. Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that that was precisely what Jossi was doing here, though, trying to demonstrate why it should not be used. In any case, I think that statement's far too strong. Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not try to demonstrate that it should not be used, Relata. All I said is that there is no absolute when assessing the reliability of a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, though all I wished to do was point out that even if you did, you had gone about it in the way that Lawrence recommends. Relata refero (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For a different take on this, German Misplaced Pages (see http://de.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Q) has for some time now explicitly favoured academic sources over journalistic sources; the use of the latter is, according to current policy, only permissible where no scholarly sources are available. In addition, the journalistic source in question must be held to have been solidly researched. The idea has merit, since an encyclopedia should be compiled according to scientific criteria. We are not trying to produce a press review. In the field of New Religious Movements especially, a number of academics have seen it necessary to point out that many newspaper accounts, even those in quality newspapers, have been factually incorrect, polemical, or biased. Jayen466 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the German Misplaced Pages's approach, for this reason -- academia and journalism are completely different fields, doing different things with different methods. Newspapers and magazines focus on reporting of facts and first-person accounts, as well as real-time analysis (ie what's going on right now.) Scholars focus on historical overview, complicated cause and effect relationships, deeper connections and themes between events and people, and the particular intellectual tools of their field (psychology, economics, etc.) It's a false dichotomy to say we must choose between them, or that one is superior. Scholarly articles often cite journalistic sources for most of the basic facts they build on. Msalt (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The focus of academic and journalistic works is indeed different. However, where scholarly reports and newspaper accounts contradict each other, I believe it is good practice to give precedence to the scholarly account. Where scholars quote press sources, these can of course be quoted as well. For topics not (yet) covered by scholars (popular music etc. being a prime example), journalistic accounts tend to be the only ones available. There is a natural time delay in the publication of academic treatments. They take longer to research than a newspaper article. But once they are available, they bring the benefit of this greater research effort and become preferred sources. A scholar's evaluation of journalistic sources is of greater value than a Wikipedian's interpretation of the same sources; it's just another aspect of the WP:OR principle. Jayen466 12:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As jossi has noted, this depends on context. Scholarly articles often make statements that are not the focus of the study, and in the Prem Rawat article, these are often used as "trump cards" inappropriately. In other words, say sociologist X writes an article testing the hypothesis that members of the radical left in the 1960s came from upper middle class backgrounds. In the introduction to the article, she may recite some facts about the demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Her findings about the class background of demonstrators would obviously be more reliable than a newspaper account the week of the convention. But the newspaper may well be a better source about the facts and eyewitness accounts of those demonstrations. Or perhaps she looks at different accounts and adds perspective. My point is, you can't assume her account is better than the newspaper's if there is a difference. You would have to read both and make a judgment. If there is a dispute, Misplaced Pages should usually give both sides of it. Msalt (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the subject is neither science, nor medicine, nor history, WP:V makes clear not only that major national newspapers are reliable sources, but that that there is no policy basis for claiming that academic publications are any more reliable. This matter simply doesn't involve a scientific theory and Arbcom rulings about sources for scientific theories have no relevance. The community explicitly rejected a proposed WP:SPOV guideline which would have preferred scientific points of view over others, WP:NPOV has been interpreted to prohibit such a prefetence. An editor is not entitled to remove content which is reliably sourced per policy based on an editor's own personal opinion - there has to be a policy basis. Also, suggest going to WP:PUMP to float a proposal if one wishes to revise WP:V and WP:RS to make them more like the German Misplaced Pages if this is desired (and good luck getting it accepted!). We have to deal with policy as it is here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"...there is no policy basis for claiming that academic publications are any more reliable." WP:V specifically says "in areas where they are available..". By definition, when we have a choice to make, that is an area where they are available. Hence your claim fails. Relata refero (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct. When WP:V says "areas", it means academic fields, areas of expertise. Academic sources can disagree with reliable journalism on many points outside of their fields, and where the academics makes statements that are not the product of their discipline, they are not in their "areas". For example, in the example at hand, the dispute is over a real estate transaction. The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America has no expertise in real estate. Furthermore, it is not really an academic source in the sense discussed here -- it is a tertiary source summarizing lots of sources quickly, and hence does not have the direct authority that a secondary study of the subject would. Ironically, it's a bit more like journalism that way. Msalt (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that a contradiction to what I've said? Relata refero (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You said "By definition, when we have a choice to make, that is an area where they are available." In other words, you seem to be saying that any time a scholarly source and a journalistic source address the same point, the former "wins." I'm saying that scholarly articles often make points not "in their areas" of expertise, such as mentioning certain facts or disputes in passing, or in footnotes, or just ranging afield. Where they range beyond the author's special field of expertise, I'm saying that they are outside their area and have no special claim of being a superior source.

In the example at hand, we are discussing whether the Los Angeles Times' description of a public real estate transaction should be trumped by the description of that same transaction in a scholarly article (actually, an encyclopedia entry). But the real estate transaction has nothing to do with the journal's field of expertise, while the LA Times has a real estate section and dedicated real estate reporters, and is relying on the public record in its reporting. This is an excellent example of a case where a scholarly article and a newspaper article may disagree, and in my opinion the policy does NOT call for automatic deference to the scholarly article. As Jossi said, it depends on the context. Msalt (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Was the LA Times report written in its real estate section? If not, why would it be more reliable than an ecyclopaedia entry? You're setting up a false choice here. If an anthropologist happened to mention in a footnote some aspect of, say, stock market theory that was contradicted by the Wall Street Journal, nobody here would claim that the anthropologist was a reliable source, academic at all. But this situation is nowhere near that: when both sources are reliable, we have a choice, and policy indicates which way we should usually go. Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This situation is very like the one you describe, except that encyclopedias as tertiary sources have less favor in policy. To show the absurdity of this debate, the LA Times article is actually quoting Prem Rawat's own spokesman for most of its points! Yet 3 editors who happen to be current devotees of Prem Rawat are arguing that a two page LA Times article entirely on the subject of this purchase can't be used because a passing mention in an encyclopedia -- I'm not sure it's even a full sentence -- is phrased differently. Tens of thousands of words have been spilled, so I may be fuzzy here, but I believe that they will not even accept that the LA Times could be mentioned also as a conflicting view. Msalt (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC

I certainly think that in this case - and I frankly can't see why it should make a difference regardless of POV whether it was bought for him or by him - both sources should be used. That doesn't come from the fact that the LA Times necessarily should be quoted even when a (signed) encyclopaedia article contradicts it; but from the fact that if two reliable sources disagree, and there are only two accessible, we should err on the side of caution. But that's not about reliability per se, except that both sources meet the basic level. Relata refero (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, including the silliness of the underlying argument. I'm afraid there are lots of hyper-picky arguments on Prem Rawat Talk, which has the effect of driving off uninvolved editors (whether that is deliberate or not.)

I do think that, on a policy level which is interesting, that a good newspaper article -- especially one like this that is focused on the subject -- will in many cases have more detail and sometimes accuracy than a passing mention in an encyclopedia (especially), which necessarily has to drastically summarize. Again, context and the specifics are very important. I see some people (not you) trying to argue that a scholarly article or even an encyclopedia automatically trumps journalism, and that's the part I am uncomfortable with. Msalt (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata refero and Jayen. When there are peer reviewed scholarly sources they are preferable to newspapers as per WP:VER "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available", particularly in a BLP where high quality sources are necessary. Since there are many academic articles on Rawat, they should be our preferred sources. The fact that academic sources do not report on Rawat's real estate is not a lack of scholarship but rather an experienced understanding that "real estate" is irrelevant to his notability.Momento (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Peer-reviewed scholarly sources" are best for facts in their fields of expertise, and when we have more than one source for a fact we should use the best available. But the existence of that source doens't mean that other reliable sources cease to be usable for other facts. For example, if we had one scholarly artcle on the influence of Mick Jagger on American music, it wouldn't mean that all other lesser sources couldn't be used for other aspects of his life. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; that is, in fact, not too far removed from the above-cited principle that journalistic sources should only be used where no scholarly sources are available. Jayen466 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square Massacre

Further to List of massacres above, please advise on a reliable source for establishing that Tiananmen Square Massacre is an acceptable and well-used name for the regrettable deaths which took place there. My formal citations were Kelly Barth (2003). The Tiananmen Square Massacre. Greenhaven Press. ISBN 0737711760. and Chu-Yuan Cheng (1990). Behind the Tiananmen Massacre: Social, Political, and Economic Ferment in China. Westview Press. ISBN 0813310474.. There seem to be many more sources available at Google Scholar which include phrases like "An estimated 400-800 civilians were killed in what has come to be called the ‘Tiananmen Square Massacre’" (article). It seems to me that this is more than enough but this is disputed by reference to some "hidden text". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust this is not making a POINT. Those sources are fine, but the arrangement on the list article is to first establish the name of the event in the article on the event, before including it in the list. Alternative names can be put in bold at at the beginning of the lead section of the article on the event. This is what the commented out text says in the list article. Tyrenius (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence provided enough of a clue to find the "hidden text" which I had not prevously found, despite searching for it (I was looking behind the Hide links). It starts, "This article is a list of events which Misplaced Pages calls a massacre, either in the article title or in bold in the lead.". This seems too self-referential to me and is not consistent with the general method of a Wiki in which redlinks and similar imperfections are supposed to be tolerated. Our usual practise is that reliable sources are the touchstone for inclusion. Furthermore, this novel policy, if accepted, would encourage pointy editing - editing other articles purely in order to meet the formal requirements of the article that one wanted to edit. This would provoke edit wars across articles which does not seem desirable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Colonel Warden here... the article is called List of events named massacres not List of events named massacres in the lead of their Misplaced Pages article. If a reliable source establishes that an event is called a massacre, it should be included in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because while not discussing this particular addition that opens the door to minority terms being included. The whole point is that if a term is in widespread use, it should be in bold in the lead of the relevant article. Therefore it needs to be in that article first, as has been repeatedly explained, so this forum shopping is pointless. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an unacceptable limitation, and possibly a NPOV violation. While it is true that the article on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 does not use the word "massacre" in it's title or put the word in bold text in the lead... the article does use the term "Tiananmen Square Massacre" several times in the main text. Thus, both the article and numerous reliable sources establish that this term is used... the event is indeed "named massacre"... it should be on your list. I think this is consistent with the intent of the Admin who closed the recent AfD debate with the ruling that the article be renamed. However, to make sure, I have asked her to pop over to the article and clarify her intent. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you check the many, many previous version of the articles, and the talk page archives. We're not saying it can't go in the article, just it has to be in the other article first. So instead of forum shopping here, the next step would be to go to actual article and add it there. So why hasn't that been done? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been done... but given the history of that article, it will probably be undone. However, you neglect to address the issue that the term is used lower down in the article's text. Thus the article establishes that the term is used. It is backed by reliable sources. Thus it should be included in your list. You need to change your inclusion criteria so they are in line with policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in line with policy, try reading. If it's not a common enough term to go in the lead of the article about the event, it's undue weight including it in this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have a policy stating "Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source"? That would seem to make nonsense of the list's criteria for inclusion. It's bizarre situation when Misplaced Pages article titles and leads are deemed more reliable than published sources. --Folantin (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop knowingly posting untrue statements. The article talk page and AFD which you've posted to repeatedly make this quite clear, as you are more than aware. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't stop what I haven't started. Unless you've been living on Mars for the past 20 years, you should know perfectly well that the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" is commonly called the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" in English. The article talk page and the AfD are as clear as mud. --Folantin (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this has moved beyond the scope of this notice board (the sources that Colonel Warden askes about are clearly reliable), I think it best to move further discussion back to the list's talk page. I have formally proposed a change in the inclusion criteria which should address the concerns expressed here. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Especially since arguing whether the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" qualifies as a massacre or not is too ludicrous for words. --Folantin (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then let's not argue. The criterion at the list article was adopted to stop edit warring as editors fought to add their "favourite" atrocity to the list. So after Tiananmen, we would have somebody adding Fallujah. 9/11 anyone? As there is presently a consensus among the regular editors to continue with this criterion, if you are unhappy with this state of affairs I suggest you propose a workable alternative at Talk:List of events named massacres and attain consensus for it there. If you merely wish the Tiananmen event to be included, take your reliable sources to Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and get agreement there that it is a common alternative name for what happened. I am sorry a couple of people seem unhappy with how things are but having worked hard to foster the compromise to end the edit-warring, I am loath to see it return, just so somebody can have their favourite massacre included. --John (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And I see you've reverted its inclusion again. Unbelievable. Why on earth are you editing a "List of massacres" if you don't know about the "Tiananmen Square massacre"? Hint:" The Tiananmen Massacre may be the best-documented massacre in recent history" (Brenda K. Uekert Rivers of Blood: a Comparative Study of Government Massacres, Greenwood Press, 1995 p.31). --Folantin (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the inclusion against consensus for the second time. If several editors are reverting you, it can sometimes be a clue that you are editing against the consensus. Rather than edit war, at this stage it is better to discuss in talk, I find. --John (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Two editors (you and your associate One Night in Hackney) do not equal consensus and consensus most certainly does not trump Misplaced Pages policy. There are reliable sources for the inclusion of this item on the list (plus it's common knowledge). I am not relying on the whims of other editors who have taken it upon themselves to decide exactly when an article is "stable" before reliably sourced information can be added to an article. You seem to be in violation of WP:OWN. --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My "associate"? That sounds a bit weird. What do you mean by it? If something being "common knowledge" was enough to merit its inclusion here, the encyclopedia would look somewhat different. Instead we use reliable sources and consensus to decide. I urge you to join the discussion towards consensus instead of edit warring. I am sorry that my attempts to uphold policy and prevent edit-warring make you accuse me of violating WP:OWN. This is an assertion I strongly disagree with. Please take it to the article talk. Be careful about WP:3RR as well. --John (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I am merely trying to add the most obvious piece of information to a Misplaced Pages article in the face of pointless obstruction. You know perfectly well that the "Tiananmen Square massacre" (113,000 Google hits) is called by that name in English (or "Tiananmen massacre" - 55,100 Google hits). Plus, we have brought reliable sources to this Reliable Sources Noticeboard to prove it. Yet I am still prevented from adding this information to the page by you and another user. --Folantin (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion arising from my explanation of the AFD closure seems (finger-crossed) to be leading to a consensus on the inclusion criteria for this list: see Talk:List of events named massacres#Explanation_and_question_from_AfD_closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Help URGENTLY needed at History of Sumer / Aratta - Serious Problem has been ongoing for one week, don't all ignore this at once

Help is urgently needed at History of Sumer. I have been having immense difficulties trying to explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR to a new user who for many days now has repeatedly removed a reference to the view of Samuel Kramer, and replaced it with uncited, dubious OR statements that he refuses to cite. He has removed the citation requests I placed on these statements numerous times, holding his personal authority sufficient to make these claims. And every time I remove the uncited OR statements, he immediately replaces them again without any citation needed tags, and round and round in circles it goes for days without end. On the talkpage discussion, he insists that he doesn't need any sources, but that I am the one who needs to look up reliable sources contradicting him, if I want to remove these uncited statements. Everywhere I have turned for help, I am met with stony disinterest and "just get along" type advice, and the new user seems to be "learning" that all of this behaviour is acceptable and tolerable on[REDACTED] as long as few people are paying attention who will challenge him. Please help! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above RS problem that is still outstanding and still needs attention, I now have an additional RS problem at Lapis armenus with the same user who is blanking references, edit warring and accusing me of vandalism there as well. Please take a look at the references that I have added to that article and see if they look to be in order. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing History of Sumer, since reading the first paragraph here, and there are some indications of progress in defusing a fairly heated edit war. I don't have time to look at this other page though. Msalt (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I was naively optimistic. Page is now protected. Msalt (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done really well though, Msalt. Hats off to your patience. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Msalt (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, now we have another problem with the same user blanking RSS he doesn't like at Aratta and adding the same identical WP:SYNT as at the first article. I am sorry to say the whole situation seems to be getting worse, not better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the kind of problem that will just go away if everybody ignores it, folks. For about a month or two now, many articles pertaining to Sumer are being systematically dismantled, scholarly references are being chucked, and replaced with idiosyncratic, never-published OR arguments by a user who has thus far been held to a much lower standard than anyone else I have ever seen on[REDACTED] in my 3 years of editing. Who is this guy anyway? I was blocked merely for reporting his (not my) 4RR violation on one occasion, so from that I can gather it's someone pretty high up with the "connections"...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference experts needed for above ongoing (3 week) problem

I have added the following reliable references to Talk:Aratta establishing conclusively that the POV does indeed, really, honest-to-god, actually exist and can be found in scholarly literature that the Sumerian Aratta may be connected with the Sanskrit Aratta. However, the same user has determined that this POV is inadmissible and cannot be seen on[REDACTED] because his POV is different; thus he has found what he considers fatal flaws with the arguments in each of these experts and apparently will not suffer any of this to be mentioned in the article Aratta at all, even though they are serious references from well known authors including D. D. Kosambi and Malati Shendge. Could someone please take a moment to click on each of the following pages and please verify that the scholarly discussion marked by the highlighted terms does constitute speculation that the two Arattas may be the same?? -- I feel this POV should not be excluded from the article on such facetious grounds as the say-so of one particular editor who seems to fancy himself the sole arbiter of such questions. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Malati J. Shendge, 2003
2. Alexander Jacob 2005
3. D.D. Kosambi 1995
4. Sanujit Ghose, 2004

This represents only those sources I can find accessible through Google-books; there are a great many more scholarly references there that are not accessible except in "snippet view", so clicking the above research pages is only scratching the surface. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Two sources questions for a current FAC

Awadewit has raised concerns about two sources used in If (magazine), which is currently a featured article candidate.

• Internet Speculative Fiction Database. This is a database which allows open data entry, but the data entry is moderated by administrators. Hence it's not quite clear if it is subject to the restriction on sites anyone can edit. An additional point is that the reference is not being used to source anything that is not also sourced from the magazine issues themselves; the value of this source is that the ISFDB provides an online index that is useful to readers who don't have access to the magazine itself (as of course most won't). So it's a convenience, and is not the sole source.
• Magazine Datafile. This is definitely self-published, by a bibliographer, Phil Stephenson-Payne. It is used only for one fact: the name "Clifford Hong", who is the editor of an issue of the magazine. The only other source I know for this information would be to go to Addall, put in "Clifford Hong" in the author field, and search. You'll find one copy of the magazine for sale, confirming that Hong was the editor. Is either of these a reliable source? Stephenson-Payne's site is widely used as a reference work, and in fact he is now hosting a major index of anthologies put together by William Contento. (I am also citing that index, but Contento is an acknowledged expert in the field, and his indexes are regarded as critical references; Stephenson-Payne is not self-publishing those -- he's publishing Contento's work -- so I feel those are OK.) Stephenson-Payne doesn't have independent reference works referring to him as an expert, though, as Contento does.

Thanks for any help on these. Mike Christie (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Patriotsquestion911.com

On the article 9/11 conspiracy theories (possibly soon to be renamed 9/11 alternative theories or Controversies over 9/11) there has been some discussion over whether the site Patriots Question 9/11.com can be used as a source for the claim that "330 professional engineers and architects that have been willing to go public with their doubts as to the accuracy of this mainstream account". The arguments in favor of using it have argued that it is an "unimpeachable website" and a "a verifiable, primary source" which should be used to balance a reliable source in the article which explains that these conspiracy theories are generally rejected by engineers. The arguments against have pointed out that it is a primary source, not a third-party source, and so we cannot include their claims about their list, or its significance, as true without a reliable source to support them or verify them. All we can use this source to say is "A group claims to have collected the names of 330 people said to be engineers who disagree with the NIST report". What is the correct way to proceed here? --Haemo (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only one question: Has this website ever been mentioned by a reliable source? Alternatively, is this website maintained by individuals that can be presumed reliable given coverage they have received from reliable sources? Very simply, if the answer to both of these questions is an emphatic NO, then this website is utterly indistinguishable from complete bullshit (in either the truth of its claim of 330 engineers or in the presumption that these 330 are at respected or properly credentialed). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At no point has such a source been produced, so I am unsure. I would assume not. --Haemo (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the answer had been Yes to either question, would it be correct that the site's reliability would be determined by how the site or its creators were reported? (Like if the New York Times cited it as a group of conspiracy theorists or something else that does not indicate reliability?) Anynobody 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely not an acceptable source, as it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it is unacceptable per WP:BLP. It lists individuals "who question 9/11" that really should not be on the list. For example, the Pentagon police officers do not belong on the list. They were "interviewed" by a small group of truthers and during the interview they explained that they saw American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. Yet, the truthers nitpick what the officers said and incorporate it into their theory that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon instead of crashed. The officers do not agree with any of the conspiracy theories nor "question" the "official story". It would violate WP:BLP and WP:RS to link to that site. --Aude (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My further question is whether the information from that website about the engineers etc has ever been quoted/reported by a reliable source? ie is information considered notable (or I guess reliable) by anybody other that specific website? Slp1 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, at no point has such a source been produced, so I am unsure. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sajed.ir

Please don't interpret this as forum shopping, but a debate over an image from this site is currently under way at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg, and this isn't so much related to the image as the site itself. (As I understand it hosted content from a non RS source is ok in certain circumstances, for example a personal site which hosts court documents or other verifiable content so even if the site is determined to be non-RS it won't necessarily affect the image debate.)

That said, is this a reliable source for articles dealing with the Middle East, like Iran Air flight 655? It strikes me as being similar to the source being debated above, patriotsquestion911, an unknown website claiming legitimacy except in this case in bad English. Anynobody 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well , there have been a systematic effort to censor that image , first by doubting it's copyright license , then by it's claimed Unencyclopedicity and now by it's reliability. That's a picture released by an official source (a part of Iranian government) and the overall effort of the opponents is based on denying the reliability of a government (Iran). I'm not asking to believe anything that governments say or show, but deleting official statements of the governments with the rules that Misplaced Pages deletes the web logs or ordinary people's comments is impossible. If the opposing party thinks Iranian government is lying, they can add their comment to the text or their source to oppose it, but they can't omit the official Iranian government statement as "un reliable"! Summary: Personal sources are different from governmental official statements, and judging about their "reliability" needs different process.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, as I said this thread isn't about the image, rather the rest of the site and its information like The Land Rover Jeep and Zorro's horse and articles like the one about Iran Air flight 655 which constantly refers to the USS Vincennes as the USS Vincent. Anynobody 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaks on List of songs in Rock Band

More like "request for cluebat" rather than RS/N: should a leak that has been unconfirmed be used as a source in an article? Will 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

comments on book covers as RS?

I think the best way to ask this question is to present the actual example where this occured to me: G. Edward Griffin has written a book about the Federal Reserve System. On the backside of the cover there are several comments, one of which is this:

"A superb analysis. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind."

Ron Paul, member of Congress

House Banking Committee

Now my questions: Is this reliable information? Can it be used to claim that Ron Paul approved Griffin's analysis of the Fed? How do you cite such a comment? Can you verify the accuracy of the comment? Thanks for any replies. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a reason why to dismiss that quote, although you need to take into account that flap comments in book covers are usually promotional in nature. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If a book jacket quote is taken from a larger critical review, you should cite to that review instead of the book cover. Dishonest publishers have been known to pull a single positive comment out of what is otherwise a negative review ... so it is important to present the quotes in context. This is probably not applicable with Ron Paul quote you are asking about... but it is worth repeating as a general rule. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right on all accounts. Indeed, in this particular case Griffin himself says: "I sent a copy to him with the request that he write a brief statement that we could use on the book’s cover". FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is rather: Is it reliable although it is self-published material? I'm asking because I don't see an easy way to verify the accuracy, unless the comment is taken from a larger review. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... I don't think it is a self published source ... Paul didn't publish it, nor did someone working for him. I am also not sure what you mean by "verify the accuracy"... is there reason to doubt that Ron Paul actually wrote these words? Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on the point Jossi makes above, within the book publishing industry the practice of providing blurbs for other authors' books is well-known for a lack of sincerity. I don't think it would be wise to assume support from the quote. I also think the point about publishers pulling cites out of context from longer reviews is a good one thought that may not apply in this case. If Ron Paul has expressed public support for the book, that'll be available somewhere. If not, perhaps he doesn't support it. I don't think this is a reliable source for his support. Mike Christie (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To Blueboar: With "self-published", I meant that Griffin published Paul's comment on his book, and I'm thinking about including this information in an WP article about G. Edward Griffin. I don't believe that Griffin invented this comment, but he is a controversial figure so I don't want to include any information which can be easily discredited. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To Mike Christie: I was unable to find any other source, in which Ron Paul mentions the book, but I find connections observed between Ron Paul's fight against the Fed and Griffin's book. Griffin just asked Paul for a short comment for exactly the purpose of publishing it on the book's cover. But I don't believe that Ron Paul would read a book, understand it and comment it without really meaning it. Perhaps he doesn't widely recommend it elsewhere, because it doesn't support his line of political argumentation, that he needs for political success. It still looks to me that he approves the analysis which lies behind Griffin's argumentation. I'm happy if you can argue against this, because I don't want to use this information if it's not solid enough. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite likely right that Paul would not provide the blurb if he didn't believe the book's argument. Unfortunately I think that's not quite good enough. What's needed is something that someone who knows nothing about Paul can look at and decide is reliable evidence that Paul supports the book. I don't think you have quite enough here, and with polarizing figures such as Paul I think it's important to be rigorous on sources. Because of the general nature of blurbs, it's not enough to show he wrote an approving blurb. The request Griffin made is the same sort of request that gets made in the publishing world all the time. Many years ago I had an editor cut a comment out of a review of mine; the comment made mention of a blurb in support of an argument I was making, and the editor pointed out that the blurb wasn't good enough evidence to be cited. That was a blurb on the back of a work of fiction, but the rule applies throughout the industry. Now, if you can find a statement of Ron Paul's that says "I never provide blurbs or quotes for books that I don't one hundred percent support" then you have something -- not ideal but certainly usable. Mike Christie (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your experience. Another argument supporting your view just came to my mind: The fact (?) that Paul does not recommend the book elsewhere (although he did recommend some books) indicates to me that his own opinion might not be as close to Griffin's as implied by mentioning the blurb comment. That makes it an WP:NPOV issue as well - probably too delicate for inclusion. Well, I guess that leaves me with citing only the article from USA daily, which at least doesn't come across as a claim that Paul approves everything Griffin says, just that they fight in the same arena (against the Fed). FeelFreeToBe (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A big problem with blurbs on book covers is that they are usually edited and taken out of context. Somebody may say, "The book is nonsense and I wouldn't recommend it to anybody" and it comes out as "I would ... recommend it". Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PublishAmerica publications

PublishAmerica is basically a disguised vanity press with little to no editorial control. Yet, books published by them have been used as sources or "further reading" entries; sometimes pretty extensively (For example, Voynich manuscript, a Featured Article, uses a book from PublishAmerica as a source for some claims). Since PublishAmerica has no editorial control, shouldn't all PublishAmerica publications be considered, by default, dubious as far as WP:RS is considered, in topics unrelated to PublishAmerica? As I see it, this is definitely the case. And secondly, how do we tackle this mess, anyway?

(The site was again brought to my attention a few days back, apparently someone at PublishAmerica message board wanted to use Misplaced Pages as a marketing device. That, however, is another matter. I was just surprised to find that PublishAmerica books are actually used as a source in many articles!) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Help settling a dispute

There's a dispute going on at the Flyleaf on the bands genre. These links that I have list them as Christian rock:

• "Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band"
• "Like jumbo shrimp or civil war, "Christian rock band" can seem like an oxymoron. After all, rock and roll has always been the devil's music, and Jesus surely wouldn't approve of the sex-and-drugs lifestyle. So why is the Christian band Flyleaf playing on this year's Family Values Tour with Korn, Deftones, Stone Sour and Bury Your Dead? Did some booking agent make a terrible mistake?"
• "Christian Rock"

But some editors refuse to acknowledge them saying they are all not valid. Please help settle this!Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider the VH1 and Newsday articles to be reliable sources, but they are ambiguous in a way. A rock band could consist of Christians, and thus be called a "Christian rock band", without playing the genre of music known as Christian rock. One obvious example is U2. I'm not certain that the VH1 and Newsday articles are specifically saying that Flyleaf plays Christian rock as opposed to being a rock band who are Christian. The Wal-Mart citation does identify the band's genre as "Christian rock" but that is in a catalog rather than a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Over usage of internet sources

On the article on the nation of Colombia, there is an "internet references" section.

See: Colombia#Internet

Every citation is on a website and none of the books in the "further reading" section are used as sources.

Is this standard procedure? If so, is there some reason internet sources should actually be preferred over non-internet sources? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The only unusual thing about it is they bothered to section off internet references at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sad to say this is very common. But no, there is no reason to favor internet over print, or print over internet when it comes to sources. We should use what ever sources are the most reliable for our topic... in whatever format they may take. Blueboar (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References for Sengoku-jidaigeki

I'd like to utilise the following links, , , , , , as sources for the various sections in Jidaigeki. Do any or all pass Misplaced Pages:Reliability? And I found this site. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• The LiveJournal link isn't going to qualify as reliable because it's basically a blog. And the Pasthound link isn't going to qualify because it's just a search engine result. The others may qualify; I looked at them but I couldn't be sure. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Traffic (band) - need help

Is this an unreliable source? It appears to be a fansite, yet it has a wealth of information about its subject that could easily be used to improve the article. I don't want to make the same mistakes as I did with Family (band), as I may try to get Traffic (band) to GA status.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Respond either here or on my talk page if you feel you can help... thanks.--h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks self published to me. I would use verifiable sources first. --neonwhite user page talk 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

y!m

Is Yahoo! Movies a reliable source? I know IMDb isn't, since—akin to a wiki—it's a user-generated production; but I was under the impression Y!M isn't. — pd_THOR | 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section edit to prevent archival. — pd_THOR | 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing Yahoo Movies, which I'm not all that familiar with, I would disagree with the suggestion that IMDb is an unreliable source. Parts of IMDb are user-generated without editorial involvement: the message boards, user comments, plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outline or plot summary), parental guides, resumes, and FAQs for individual entries (as opposed to the FAQ for the database as a whole). But the rest of the content (as far as I can recall) is reviewed by the IMDb staff before going live on the web site. They do have editors who are full-time employees to review the user-submitted content such as the actual credits for the films. Obviously, IMDb does contain some errors even among the edited content, but the same could be said for almost any book, newspaper, or magazine. I would trust most IMDb content (other than the user-generated sections without editorial review) unless I had reason to believe the particular information was inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd always been under the impression that IMDb was an unreliable source, I was even told such at WT:RS (Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/archive 15#IMDb.3F). But moreso, I need to know about the reliability of Yahoo! Movies as I've used it extensively as sourcing for several articles. — pd_THOR | 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As regards Yahoo! Movies, it looks like it depends on what aspect of Yahoo! Movies you were planning to cite. The content there ranges from articles from the Associated Press and Reuters, which are reliable sources, to user reviews, which are not reliable sources at all. It is true that someone at WT:RS said IMDb was an unreliable source, but I disagree with that person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made heavy use of Yahoo! Movies' actor biographies, and basic film statistical information. Wherefrom is that information; is it reliable? — pd_THOR | 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To check the notability of an actor (e.g. for an AfD discussion) I wouldn't rely on IMDB alone, since how the screen credits are listed may differ among sources. I'd trust the film's own web site more. If a film is reviewed in US newspapers, then metacritic.com will usually offer an excellent set of reviews in what we consider to be reliable sources. This is good information on films though often individual actors may not be mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not really talking about IMDb, I'm asking about Yahoo! Movies here. — pd_THOR | 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further section edit to prevent archival.

Does anybody know one way or another whether Yahoo! Movies' biographical and film statistical information constitutes a reliable source? — pd_THOR | 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability question - a band

I am not saing any specific names yet, because I suppose it could influence the response, so just keep on this NEUTRAL facts here please: There is an 8 track, 51:05 minutes long record by a band. It was their first record, only 1000 copies were made and so it is rare now. I made a research in the internet and I found out that the large majority of sources and the RELIABLE SOURCES (professional websites) cite it as their first, debut ALBUM and include it in the discography of the band. But the BAND MEMBERS ignore or disown this record in some ways or call it a DEMO and generally do not see it as their first album on their homepage, and in their interviews and so it is also on their today's label's homepage. Also the third album after the first release (the disputed one) has number 3 in its name what indicates that the band does not see it as their first album. Are the reliable proffesional cources OR the band members' stetements and attitude the reliable and verifiable sources for Misplaced Pages? Which Misplaced Pages's rules could be cited as a reason?--Lykantrop 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would use the professional sources and ignore the opinion of the band, you can disown an album but you can't change history, it was still released, therefore it was the first album. As a precedent Ocean Colour Scene also disown their first album and usually refer to their second album as their first but it still appears on the article. A good way to deal with this is to simply explain the controversy in the artist and album articles. --neonwhite user page talk 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

But there are several users who defend the band's statements. I REALLY need some rules that make it clear....--Lykantrop 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable second party source it should be given more weight than a self published primary source. If the artists opinions are self published then the rule would be that self published material should not be used in an article about itself if is contentious. If they are published by a second party source then it is likely they are presented as an opinion only which can't really be used as a verifiable fact. Maybe you could provide the sources here. --neonwhite user page talk 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The band's statements (assuming they made them in reliable sources) are reliable for the opinion of the band. The industry statements are reliable for the opinion of the industry. Both opinions should be discussed in a neutral tone, per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for information. I solved the problem with a very nice compromise. The problem was with in public pretty infamous band Slipknot. Their first album Mate.Feed:Kill.Repeat. is listed in the discography now with a note of band's attitude: Slipknot discography. If somebody vandalized it, see for last version by me. I think it is ok now.--Lykantrop 10:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability question about a Geocite website moved to WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Reliability_question_about_a_Geocite_website

This issue is being moved to the Sri Lanka Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation The forum which deals with this issue and other issues related to Sri Lanka in particular the Sri Lankan Civil War. There is 1 edit restriction and how sources are to be taken particurly in the Sri Lankan context is better.The edit war has come down after the project was started.Please put your comments there.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA may not be a reliable source

I was reading some quotes cited to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and I found a few problems related to the ongoing "Jewish lobby" headache.

• This CAMERA blog article , uses the term "Jewish lobby", and links to an op-ed piece in the Guardian which uses the term, which in turn links to the actual report, which does not use the term. See Report of the All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism (UK) The closest the report gets is "An example of this would be remarks about the Israel lobby. No-one would seek to deny that there is well-organised support for Israel in Britain, but in some quarters this becomes inflated to the point where discourse about the ‘lobby’ resembles discourse about a world Jewish conspiracy."

• CAMERA quotes Desmond Tutu saying, in a speech in Boston:

"People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what?...Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."

This speech from Bishop Desmond Tutu was also reported by the BBC. Interestingly, CAMERA appears to have dropped a line from the middle of the quote. The BBC quotes him as saying:

"People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."

CAMERA dropped the bolded text, which distorts the meaning a bit. Tutu was speaking against Israeli apartheid at the time.

So I'd suggest that using CAMERA as a reliable source for quotations is somewhat iffy. What comes out of CAMERA may not be what went in. CAMERA may be useful as a finding tool (they're powered by Google), but actual quotes should come from a less partisan source. CAMERA's output is mostly derived from other press sources, so if CAMERA has something, there's probably another source for it. --John Nagle (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, CAMERA is generally a reliable source for opinions and interpretations, as long as they're attributed in the text to CAMERA. On questions of fact they are dubious at best, and certainly not appropriate for quotations of living people. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See also MEMRI above. Pretty much any quotefarm from an advocacy source should be double-checked with reference to the original documents. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA is reasonably reliable, but one must recognize that they are an advocacy group. They're obviously not an academic source, or a major news outlet. Jayjg 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Is an e-mail a reliable source? Discussion. I say nope, but just in case...

Odd that there's apparently no mention on WP:RS, but I saw it as common sense. Unless people are willing to hand out their e-mail addresses and passwords to all editors, there's no real way to verify. It would be a WP:SPS and any expert who writes an e-mail should be expert enough to point to reliable sources rather than opinion. WLU (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In a word... No. Information cited to a personal email would also be Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran_Air_Flight_655 - Is Sajed.ir a reliable source?

Someone tried to insert an image from sajed.ir in this article: Iran_Air_Flight_655

See: Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Sajed.ir_as_a_reliable_source.3F

Is the photo of a girl from a reliable source? I doubt it, but who knows. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Already asked above. Relata refero (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.throng.com.au/

This source has been used in the Home and Away article. I've tried to work out if it's reliable or not but im not sure. I guess it's a third party source but theres 2 questions im not sure about.. would you deem it to be reliable and because it's a online community is it classed as self published??

The specific article also concerns me . http://www.throng.com.au/home-and-away/mark-furze-ric-dalby-leaving-home-and-away As it contains little information about the subject and no claims on how this information came to light.

What do you think? thanks Printer222 (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not reliable... fan forum websites are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources and do they conflict with NPOV?

This article describes an organisation in language which I don't consider conforms to NPOV. Edits by another user, perhaps misconceived but which at least aim to introduce neutral language, are regularly reverted as "vandalism" by an editor who defends the description of the organisation as a "racist hate group". He asserts that he is accurately reproducing what the sources say, and that WP considers the source websites as reliable (although I can find no mention of them in any WP policy or guideline document). Yet the sites belong to interest groups with agendas which do not predispose them to neutral descriptions of the organisation. They produce unsourced and sometimes vague claims out of thin air without references to back them up, and I have reliable academic sources which contradict the websites on some specific points.

I don't consider that an encyclopaedic article can be written in this way or style. But even if I write up my own sources in neutral language, this will not address the bias already in the article, deriving from claims on the websites which are difficult to confirm or deny. The other editor obviously doesn't intend to address them, either. Is he correct that Misplaced Pages considers the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Centre to be reliable? And if so, is this a proper way to use them? Or, as I think, do non-neutral descriptions in even "reliable" sources have to be reported in neutral language? Gnostrat (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League's views should probably be used with caution and attributed as an opinion of that org. I would consider Southern Poverty Law Center more reliable as it has a legal background. I dont see a problem with the articles POV but more with the lack of claims to notability. --neonwhite user page talk 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The ADL and SPLC are the premier organisations in this area. However, wherever possible, such opinions should be attributed. I note, however, that other references, including scholarly ones, describe it as "Odinist", "esoteric neo-nazi", "white anti-semitic and racist", etc. It might be more appropriate to put the scholarly description of such groups, especially "esoteric, paganist neo-nazi" more prominently than that of various advocacy organisations. Relata refero (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks : ) I'll take all that into consideration. Gnostrat (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How old is too old?

Regarding the middle power article, is a single source citing info from the mid to late 90s a good enough to include a country on the list of "middle powers"? I opted to delete Russia from the list, since Russia has gone through some massive changes over the past 20 years, hitting an absolute low point at around the time this article was published. The info on that source citing Russia as a middle power is dated as 1997. It doesn't at all reflect current day reality, and I could find no recent articles that consider Russia a middle power today. Here's the source 99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over the source and found that it doesn't even directly support the notion of Russia being a middle power, and actually contradicts it. I explained myself on the talk page of the article if anyone is curious. So do I have a case for deleting Russia from the list? What do you people think? My attempt to remove it has been reverted twice.99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, this source does not at any point explicitly label Russia as a middle power. It's a very interesting article and could be a good source for expanding the article. It also has a very brief summary of the emergence of the concept. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Currently, on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article (possibly to be renamed "Controversies over the September 11, 2001 attacks" or something) there is a discussion over Thomas Eager's statements made in The Utah News (and a couple other papers in the USA). In the article, he explains the methodology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "the 'reverse scientific method'" and a number of other statements which are cited in the article.

However, a number of editors have moved to exclude this material on the basis that:

1. Empirical studies made by Eager have been claimed by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to contain errors.
2. He has been accused of participating in a cover-up by Jim Hoffman (a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement).
3. The empirical claims he made about the collapse are "clearly" wrong, and it is common sense to exclude his opinion as an expert on that basis.
4. He is speaking outside his field of expertise, and is not a credible source.

None of these statements have been sourced to anything beyond primary sources, so far. With that said, is it acceptable to use Eager's statements in the article? --Haemo (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribute statements directly to Eager wherever they aren't echoed by independent reliable sources, and attribute any relevant responses to his criticisms. When would we (the non-POV pushers) ever remove criticism from an article because the target says it's wrong? And if Eagar has been covered by several newspapers, then maybe he's notable, and the solution to this would be more obvious if there were an article on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft open letter used as reference

.

A edit war on the OOXML Standardization page has been going on over the use of a open letter on a Microsoft website. The letter describes Microsofts opinions about IBM's actions. IMHO the page is a self published source that has claims about a 3rd party. As such I do not believe the page is usable as a reference to prove "IBM's "global campaign" in opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process". Here is a link to a previous version since the section gets deleted and added quite a bit. Here is a link to the Microsoft page that is used as a reference. Kilz (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about this particular reference started here and (after a page split) is now here. My position is

• Microsoft created Office Open XML, and as such, its statements are valid in an article about Office Open XML, so long as a neutral point of view is maintained.
• Misplaced Pages's policy on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says "...readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source." Kilz argues that the reference should be disallowed because it is a "self-published source." The material on self-published sources opens with, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." There is no doubt the reference in question is a "self-published source," as it was published by Microsoft. However, Microsoft isn't "anyone creating a website and claiming to be an expert." They are, in fact, an expert in the field and a reliable source.
• The reference adds balance to an article that already has references written by competitor IBM, competitor Google, the "Office Open XML Is Defective By Design" blog, ODFAlliance.org (ODF is a "competing" document format,) ODFAlliance.org again, and again, an anti-OOXML wiki, OpenOffice Ninja (OpenOffice is a "competing" office suite,) Open Office Ninja again, the Groklaw blog, and the Groklaw blog again.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Balance is not an issue here, but if the source is a reliable source according the WP:VER and WP:SPS. Neither is where the discussion started. It has always been my opinion that self published source discussing a 3rd party is unusable. IMHO the arguments that a bad reference should be used to support a section based on it are faulty. The section should be removed if a creditable source isnt found.Kilz (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and just to clarify. Am I correct in saying that Microsofts pages can be used as secondary sources to show what their opinions and actions are as secondary sources. But that primary sources should come from what has been said in independent media. Kilz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. The microsoft pages would be a primary source for what microsoft says. The independent media would be a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But the reply by Itsmejudith says that the article relies on statements by software houses, of which Microsoft is one. That the article should rely on independent media. To me that says the articles main statements need to be backed up by independent media. If not anyone could start a company, make statements, regardless if they are true or not and we would then take them as reliable and truth.

Also by what you are both saying, Microsoft cant be used as a reference to describe the actions or thoughts of anyone else. Only its own actions and thoughts. Those thoughts should probably be clearly labeled as opinions and not be made to look like facts. What about unfounded accusations about a third party? Should we allow libel as a reliable reference? Kilz (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The confusion probably comes from the definitions of the terms "primary source" and "secondary source". See WP:V for some pointers. The original distinction was made by historians. If a historian goes to an archive and finds very old documents, then those are "primary sources". If the historian instead uses books written by other historians, those are "secondary sources". Misplaced Pages is mainly written from secondary sources. So when we say that Microsoft's statements are a primary source, that does not mean that they are the best source for writing a Misplaced Pages article, in fact it means the opposite. A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It helped clear up some misconceptions of terms I had, but reinforced what I believed was the correct use of the references. Kilz (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

National Terriers Club LLC?

We've got a discussion going on at Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier. There's an entire section that cites only this page for its sourcing. Aside from this section (here) having a very unencyclopedic tone, I'm questioning the reliability of the source. The page is rather inflammatory and comes off as a fringe essay - it blames "The Corporate Media's agenda" and how "For the media it is soley about profit." The group that runs the page, the National Terriers Club LLC, seems dubious. It only yields 26 google hits (113 without the LLC) and no news articles for either. What do you guys think? Should this article be using this source? — HelloAnnyong 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the only part of the page that is cited is this part from the very bottom of that page.

"Fighting dogs were bred for their gameness and/or ability to win. Most fighting dogs would take a hold of their opponent and rely on their gameness and/or their conditioning/stamina to win. A very small percentage of American Pit Bull Terrier's possessed the ability to kill another fighting dog, and it was very rare for a dog to be killed while fighting. American Pit Bull Terrier's would fight other dogs within inches of people (their handlers) and they would even be picked up by their handlers during the heat of battle. If any of these dogs showed any aggression towards either handler, the dog would automatically be declared the loser and the fight would be ended immediately. This led to a very stable breed of dogs that simply and rarely would even consider biting a person for any reason at all. The American Pit Bull Terrier is not the type of dog that just "snaps", they are thoughtful decendants of fighting dogs whom under any situation have the calm, cool, and thoughtfulness of a dog sitting on a couch."

They even cited the sources on their page of where they gathered the information from. If you look they cited the SDJ "Sporting Dog Journal" , AGDT "American Game Dog Times", and Your Friend & Mine magazines. These magazines were well known for reporting dog fights, having cover to cover accounts of dog fights, articals about dogfighting, and interviews with dogfighters in each issue. Link to those magazines

Those who are historians or are doing research on dog fighting, or the history of the American Pit Bull Terrier often purchase those magazines for information, data, statistics, etc.

They also paraphrased Don Mayfield.

Being that the only information posted on Misplaced Pages is what I have written above, and that information seems to have been thoughtfully gathered, studied, and then put on the National Terriers Club LLC website, I dont see what the problem would be. Working terriers (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Go take a look again: the article is referenced at the end of the first five paragraphs in the article. — HelloAnnyong 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That is clearly a mistake, and the references to the National Terriers Club LLC website concerning information thats not even on the National Terrers Club website should be removed. However, this is not about a reference mistake, you have called into question the reliability of the specific infomation mentioned above cited directly from the National Terriers Club LLC website. Right?

If this is about a citation mistake made on a Misplaced Pages artical, then that issue doesn't belong on this page. Working terriers (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Per this edit - "I also contacted the owner of the NTC and he said he will make some changes to the NTC's APBT page" - I believe the page is even more invalid as a reliable source, not to mention a COI. — HelloAnnyong 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Management and Ownership of registries talk to many people. Infact, anyone can call or e-mail just about any registry and ask to speak to the owner/s of them. Its called customer service. Working terriers (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

USA Today

I'm curious whether people think this USA Today article is a reliable source regarding a controversial article in a medical journal. (This issue arose at the Misplaced Pages article titled "fetus.")Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem with this article? Can you provide more details? From the looks of it, the journalist is just reporting on the controversy in a mainstream newspaper. Do other newspapers contradict any of the facts or quotes presented in the USA Today article? J Readings (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to mention the USA Today article in a footnote. The accuracy of the news article is undisputed, as far as I know. Here's the diff.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that if you attributed the "bias" to specific anti-abortion activists mentioned in the article (i.e., name them), while maintaining NPOV in the wording, then the USA Today article would serve as a reliable source. After all, it's a nationwide mainstream US newspaper. Everything is about context. J Readings (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The stuff I put in the footnote simply said, "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias." I guess you're saying that it would be better to specifically say who is accusing. How about if I say the following? "The journal's editor said she wishes two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, but the editor says it would not have influenced her decision to publish the report." Would that be better?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and reinserted the USA Today link into the footnote, with a new sentence.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Reverted again, of course.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Livejournal

When is livejournal acceptable as a source of material? In the case of Russian presidential election, 2008, someone posted two pictures of "alleged fraud" which are sourced to a livejournal in Russian. I found this to be highly suspicious, considering there were no official reports in the media or by any of the election monitoring groups about election fraud. This sort of thing would have been widely reported after all the pre-election speculation by western media. I removed the pictures on the grounds that they're not reliably sourced and don't actually add anything useful to the article (and in fact contradict all of the sourced, reliable information in the election fairness section), but I have a feeling this is an edit war waiting to happen. Sbw01f (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of a case where a personal site like Livejournal would be a reliable source--except perhaps as a primary source in the rare case that a Livejournal entry itself were the subject of an article about a notable event (for example, Anna Svidersky's Myspace page is linked in the Anna Svidersky article because the page itself figures prominently in the story of her murder). But that's hardly the case here. I'll add the article to my watchlist in case anyone is looking to start an edit war.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded upon my point on the article's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

blogcritic.org

seems self-evident to me that blogcritic.org constitutes an agglomeration of blogs, thus, as blogs, they fail as reliable sources. an editor is referencing a blog on blogcritic as a RS, claiming that blogcritic is 'an online magazine' (which is how they bill themselves, conveniently). i don't see any evidence that blogcritic has any reputation for fact checking and reliability. am i right or wrong that this is not a reliable source? from the blogcritic 'about' page: "Bloggers publish their stories at Blogcritics.org because of the immense value and benefits that are offered." Anastrophe (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to their own website, they'll let just about anyone with a blog write for them, so of course they can't be considered reliable. See also our article about Blogcritics; apparently, they've won several awards and have become a popular site, but are ultimately a collection of obscure, self-published web authors.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

as i expected. thanks for the confirmation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The A/V Club

I'd like to clean up one of those "In popular culture" sections and am looking for sources. I found an excellent article on the Onion's A/V Club, which--unlike The Onion itself--is not a satirical publication. Does this seem like an acceptable website to use as source when describing critical opinion about a pop culture subject?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The AV Club seems to me to be a reasonably reliable source. I wouldn't have any problem with seeing it cited in an article about a pop culture subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles with no sources

Recently I have been giving more attention to patrolling new pages. I nearly always add an {{unreferenced}} tag to any article that has no references or external links of any kind. I am starting to get a certain amount of resistance and would like some guidance. These are the kinds of things I am hearing:

• sports data that is "eminently verifiable" does not need a source
• a place (small village) that is "inherently-notable" does not need a source. (I have noticed that a majority of new articles of this type do give an atlas or gazetteer as a source.)
• articles without sources should go straight to AfD. This was from Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk · contribs) who used Twinkle to revert around a hundred of the tags I recently added, with no explanation until I asked what was up. The explanation seems inadequate and the action taken inappropriate.

I believe providing sources for almost all articles is important. Articles I don't tag include disamiguation pages and some lists.

I'm asking for suggestions. Is there a general rule of thumb for the type of article that never needs a source so I can save myself and others needless trouble? ✤ JonHarder 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not offer an opinion as to whether mass-tagging of new articles is a good thing, but I find that the 3 responses listed above are, to varying degrees, misguided:

• Removing a request for sources while saying that boxscore data is "eminently verifiable" is pugnacious editing at its best. If it's so verifiable, then your friend should have no problem verifying it. For example, if I wanted to find a reliable source for a Super Bowl boxscore, I might go to a site like this.
• The more obscure the village, the greater the imperative for independent verification of its existence. Without such verification, it becomes easy to create hoaxes
• Hogwash. A request for sources is far more constructive than an AfD nom. Take it to AfD only if you believe sources are unlikely to be found.

Hope this helps.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered doing some basic google searches to see if you could add sources to these articles? That would be a much more constructive way to deal with the problem. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has spilled over to WP:ANI#Unreferenced tagging of Frech commune stubs with apparently me as the villain. My response, which speaks to some of the comments raised above, is here. ✤ JonHarder 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

www.Biography.com

Is this a reliable source? Thank you.

Wanderer57 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm.... It is the website of The Biography Channel, which belongs to the A&E Television Networks, . Depending on the context, it may be a useful source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jossi. Since it is a "maybe", will you please look at the specific case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paris_Hilton&diff=prev&oldid=197148665

(As background information, I should mention I think there are also other issues involved here aside from the reliability of the source. I reverted the edit shown in the above diff. There is discussion at Talk:Paris Hilton#Re reverted edit in lead.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless the $300m fortune is disputed, I do not see why it would not be usable. I am sure that there must be other sources about the Hilton's fortune. Best would be to discuss in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Screen caps of end credits

Are these reliable? They change regularly and can vary by channel. For example NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast soaps which are rebroadcast on SOAPnet. The credits are different on the broadcast stations from what they are on SoapNet. So, are screen caps considered reliable? KellyAna (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since they are created by the show's producers, I can't see why the credits from the latest first-run episodes wouldn't be the most reliable sources possible for the names of characters and the actors and actresses that portray them. Unless there's a large body of evidence that can be posted on Misplaced Pages from the show's dialogue itself that contradicts the latest credits, those credits should be the most reliable source for information regarding television programs. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The credits should reflect the attached show (similar to the "cite the book you're holding" standard -- base your edits on the paperback you're holding and tell us it's the paperback and not the hardcover edition). Being different on different presentations may be due to contractual, style, or editing differences. It's possible for the appearance to be different while having the same content; there are now advantages to using reformatted credits so they can be displayed in different formats (so the next show or commercials can fit on the screen during credits). I don't know how much detail is needed in articles; I don't know if movie articles describe all of the alterations made to fit a movie to broadcast TV or airline requirements. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please expandon or link to that "cite the book you're holding" standard please? It seems that KellyAna is making the assertion that anything you see on a television program yourself (or in secondary sources) is less important than the website associated with it. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The "cite the book you're holding" standard basically means that, using KellyAna's soap example above, you would specifically reference the credits you are citing as being from ABC, SoapNet, etc., so that even if they differ for a given day for some reason, it is clear which source the info is from. In the case of books, obviously a page number referenced for a quote will differ from edition to edition, so noting the edition/ISBN would be crucial when citing page numbers. — TAnthony 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a violation of WP:NOR to me. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a television screen capture a published source, just as a book is? -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to my understanding of the word published. Published by whom? A television station, cable or satellite company broadcasts a program, and a Misplaced Pages editor screen captures the closing credits of that program. Who is the secondary source? It seems like the epitome of original research to me. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly cite the credits listed at the end of a television program... The airing of a program is considered equivalent to "publication", and the TV program itself is a reliable source for what is stated in that TV program. As to the NOR issue, citing something you see on a TV program is no more a NOR violation than citing a book or webpage you read. It isn't a conclusion or synthesis originating from a Misplaced Pages editor. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:NOR. I didn't think I was able to use my own reading and interpretation of a book as a source for an article about that book. Of course you can cite a book in reference to the books subject, but that's not what we are talking about here. I guess I'll pose the question at WT:NOR. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If a screenshot couldn't be used as a reliable source, how could any exist on Misplaced Pages then? How could anyone prove a screen shot picture of, say, Darth Vader was really accurate? Under your scheme it would all be original research. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion may be getting off track with this "other stuff exists" argument. I can't imagine a situation where someone would dispute the accuracy of this screen shot. However, I definitely take issue with the proposition that a production's credits should automatically be considered reliable as a source for an encyclopedia article about that production. Many credits are fictitious, jokes, pseudonyms, etc. Who played the "Victim in the Field" in Fargo? If you went by the credits you would never have heard of J. Todd Anderson. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The key word is "interpretation". Simple statements of fact (such as who played what role, who the director was, or where the show was filmed, etc.) about what appears in the credits do not involve any "interpretation". In fact, the similarity to a book or website is more exact here... unlike the rest of a TV program, the credits are in print format. We can read them in exactly the same way we read a book. No, looking at the closing credits is "Sourced based research" not "Original research". Now, if you were to go "beyond the source", and state (for example) that all members of the production team were of Irish descent, because everyone listed in the credits seems to have Irish names... that would be OR. Do you see the difference? Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if we assume that referencing the credits is not OR, I am wondering about verifiability. If I were to state in an article that Meryl Streep played Erica Kane on All My Children for a day on February 4 2008 based on my viewing of the episode and noting the credits, is that verifiable if the episode will probably never be broadcast and never be available on DVD? Or is the threshhold that a copy of the program exists somewhere, and although an everyday person may not have the resources/access to confirm it, the possibility exists? Although we know that a source does not have to be available online to be reliable/verifiable, KellyAna has more or less made the convincing argument elsewhere that if a website does exist, it should perhaps trump an "as seen on TV" reference (which is not so easily verified), regardless of which source is technically more accurate.

I am just thinking that as much as a screencap is obvious "proof" that could be used between editors to clarify a dispute, I doubt that in most cases a fair use screencap of credits would have an appropriate place within an article just for the purpose of such clarification. This actually is one element of the discussion that prompted KellyAna and Dougie WII to dicuss the issue here. — TAnthony 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question is good in a general sense, but in this specific case of Passions, the episodes are available for up to eight weeks online, a source already determined to be valid. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but months from now when the series is no longer airing ... I'm also looking at the bigger picture, there are several articles which reference things like "so-and-so noted his birthday as May 15 in the May 1 2007 episode" which are not noted in the official site recaps, and so are not readily verified. — TAnthony 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source?

I came across a Greenpeace report that gave a list of USN ships involved in Gulf War I that had been equipped with nuclear missiles. This does explain why some ABL-equiped ships did not fire their entire complement of tomahawk missiles during Gulf War I, but I am not sure if Greenpeace is a reliable source on the matter, in particular since the official USN position is that they do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear ordinance on thier ships. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that ships would have fired all available missiles. I can think of several reasons why some missiles should or could not be used in a single event, but we're just guessing at military decisions and actual events. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. there could be any number of reasons why the other missiles were not fired, hence the reason why I did not add this report to the articles right away. Additionally, there is is conflict of interest since Greenpeace is anti-nuclear, hence the question 'can their report be trusted'? Thats why I brought it up here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a biased source but still usable if you attribute it to Greenpeace. Taprobanus (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Taprobanus if I understand what he's saying. Attribution to greenpeace should be explicitly in the body not in the footnote. "According to Greenpeace..." JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David Fasold

I wonder what people think of the sources used for this article about a now deceased Noah's Ark searcher. In particular,

a usenet posting by the subject

a scanned letter about the subject

Wyatt, Ron (1989). Discovered: Noah's Ark!. Nashville: World Bible Society Publisher's website;

Dawes, June (2000). Noah's Ark: Adrift in Dark Waters. Belrose, NSW: Noahide no information about publisher available

Deal, David Allen (2005). Noah's Ark: The Evidence. Muscogee, OK: Artisan Publisher's website

These books appear to be books written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push. What could or should these be used for in referencing the article.--Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the scanned letter. You can decide about the usenet posting. As to the other three, you are correct, they are "written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push." But, aren't all "history" books "pushing" some agenda? Just because these are odious "creationist" books, and might offend empiricist, scientific sensibilities doesn't mean they aren't on point and help the article. I point you to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Extremist_sources: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." I think this applies here, and as they are buttressed by other sources I believe they are perfectly acceptable.

TuckerResearch (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Tuckerresearch. My problem is that this is not an article "about themselves". ie it is not about World Bible Society or creationism or whatever. And in fact, in this particular case, Fasold actually testified in a court case on an anti-creationist "side", , making the use of the book material very problematic in my view using this argument. But mine is just one view, and I am hoping that others can give guidance here.--Slp1 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovered: Noah's Ark! is about the Durupinar site, and Fasold is a "main character" in the book. Noah's Ark: The Evidence is a biography of Fasold (actually, it is not well-written at all, it is comprised of cobbled-together bits of newsletters and news stories with chapter-sized segues of "biography" in between). Noah's Ark: The Evidence is about the Durupinar site and contains info about Fasold (I haven't read this one yet, just looked at bits and pieces). That is, at least, tangentially "about themselves" I admit, but you can't expect an article about a biblical "scholar"/"creationist" to be made up of stellar scientific sources. But, then again, their are notes about Fasold from Science, and he "co-authored" a piece in about the Durupinar site in a peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Geoscience Education). I think these considerations should allow these three to stand as published sources for this subject. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For my two cents, I'm surprised that the alleged Fasold e-mail cited from a Usenet chat forum is being cited in any article on Misplaced Pages. With Fasold dead, there is no way to confirm that he actually wrote it, and even if he did write it, so what? It shouldn't be used as a reliable source for much of anything on Misplaced Pages. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the usenet posting, it was added by someone who wanted to torpedo the article. Whatever you think is best on that. Perhaps put it in a footnote in a highly questioning tone? TuckerResearch (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you are talking about the Usenet quote I added (with a link to it), I liked the guy (we were in email correspondence before he died) and I certainly didn't want to torpedo the article. There's no question that it was him, it's a direct quote from him and there is nothing comparable available. I normally wouldn't use Usenet, but anyone who knew him would be able to confirm it was him and it is one of his last statements about it. There is no email cited in the Usenet quote. I thought I was getting on with Tuckerresearch until he just accused me of trying to scupper the article, I said keep Fasold as a separate article and beef it up.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I confused you with the other guy editing the article with a a name that started with "D" named "Dab". I apologize. TuckerResearch (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More outside opinions on the reliability of a Usenet quote and how to use the Creationist books would be gratefully received. Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Usenet posts are definitely NOT reliable. We have no way to verify that the writer is who he claims to be. We can not take the word of a Misplaced Pages editor that it was him (meaning no disrespect to Doug), as that would amount to Original Research. The books are a harder issue to give a definitive answer on... they do not seem to be the best sources, but they seem to pass the basic verifiability test. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for more opinions, I would like to second everything Blueboar just wrote, he stated my opinion very well! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Re the Creationist books, I was wondering whether the best solution in the circumstances might be to attribute the information clearly. I am particularly worried about the following sentence, about this (as well as the peer-reviewed journal)]

"Still, those closest to him note that before his death he believed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark, including fellow ark researchers like Don Patten and David Allen Deal. His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote: He kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark."

.

The references given are from two of the books above. It seems to me that the sources of these retraction of the retraction claims needs to be at the very least signalled as coming from the Creationist camp. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PMW

Is Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin a reliable source on news reports (that may or may not be reported elsewhere)?

The bulletin features headlines like "Abbas rejects Jewishness of Israel...proud to have taught terror to world" which is a very contentious allegation.Bless sins (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a WP:SELFPUB, and should be used in that context. If the report on Abbas is correct, you should be able to find other sources that describes that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For example

"I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps ."

— Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008

.. could be used as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically we can use it in conjunction with other sources, but not by itself? Also WP:SELFPUB says that the publication should not make claims about third parties, which the PMW does all the time, nor should the information be contentious, which it also is in the PMW.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs: Jason Matusow

I am writing another question about OOXML. One Im sure I already know the answer to, but I need to point someone to the answer. WP:VER, more specifically WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable sources except in some limited ways, like if the blog is an interactive news article on a news site. I do not believe that The blog of Jason Matuso can be used as a reference for the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. But some anonymous editors and one registered user believe that it can be. The problem is that Jason Matusow is an employee of Microsoft, as such it is expected that he will have a pro Microsoft bias. The site has no editorial oversight. No fact checking by anyone. He is not a third party, he is involved. Not only that he gives opinions about things he didnt personally see. An admin has recently stepped in and removed this blog and others. Now someone is trying to add it again. The simple question is this, Can or should this blog be used as a reference and source for Misplaced Pages? Thank you in advance. Kilz (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To bring everyone up to speed, Kilz asked a few days ago whether an open letter written by Microsoft was an acceptable reference. Some responses to his query include

"Documents published by Microsoft are reliable for showing what the opinions of Microsoft are, also probably for what Microsoft's actions have been. However, in the context of this article statements by software houses are primary sources. The article should not rely on them but be mainly written up from what has been said in independent media."

"A report in a completely independent news medium would be much better for writing the article. However, you can use Microsoft's statements directly if you are careful and sparing."

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the question I asked. That question you mention was about an open letter on a Microsoft site. This is about a blog. Please do not post off topic comments in a section I started asking a question. Questions on reliable sources is exactly why this board exists. Since those that want to use unreliable sources wont ask, I have to if noting else but to make sure that I am looking at it correctly. This is the second time you have followed me to another area to post off topic statements. Please do not do so again.Kilz (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz, please Assume Good Faith. My comments were not off-topic. I quoted a response to your previous question. That response was about

"Documents published by Microsoft..."

Clearly documents have to be published by people. "Microsoft" is not an entity that can publish documents by itself. Therefore, "documents published by Microsoft" means "documents published by employees of Microsoft." The blog in question is published by a Microsoft employee.

It is true that an open letter on Microsoft's website is different than an employee's blog. But, to add some more context: the blog you're asking about is Jason Matusow's. Jason Matusow is Microsoft's Shared Source Manager. One can find interviews with him and statements by him in plenty of 3rd party news sources, including USA Today. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also noteworthy is that Jason Matusow is not just an employee but a senior director on standards and interoperability within Microsoft. hAl (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WalterGR, I did not come here to drag an edit war with me. I did not announce my posting here. I wanted the opinions of someone not involved with the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page to answer my question, thats why its on this notice board. WalterGR and Hal and everyone else posting on the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page please stop posting here so that I may get the answer to my question from a party not involved with the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. I feel that you are trying to delay the answer and are disrupting the work here. That he is quoted in newspapers is the same as Andy Upgrove who has a blog and is quoted all over. But as soon as he is suggested , he is shot down on Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML A new question for the people who work on this board, isnt the reason blogs are not used is the lack of editorial control? I see it as a slippery slope, as soon as one blog is allowed 5 more will be used. Thats why an admin had to come in and removed all the blogs from the page. Kilz (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mailing Lists Question

Recently a user has added a great dal of negative information to the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and sourcing it to what appears to be a University of Wisconsin mailing list. Here's a few of the quotes and references:

"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. "

"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) by the head instructor. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. "

"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. "

I've brought this up on the article's talk page, but there appears to be an edit war percolating on this page. I'd like clarification on the validity of the sources. It seems to be similar to a blog, but I'd like the opinions of more experienced editors. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

IMO, the user would need to have a very good reason to include self-published forum postings to the article, especially when they are of a negative nature. My inclination is to remove everything immediately and aggressively until reliable third-party sources can be provided. J Readings (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Second comment: I just looked at the page. That whole "criticism" section should be removed per WP:OR, unless third-party reliable sources can be provided. In fact, I hate to say this, but most of the article strikes me as being original research. Granted, that's just my first impression after quickly skimming the page, but the fact that it's very detailed with very few (if any?) sources, strikes me as being more than a little suspicious. Sorry, strike that last sentence. They're not using the standard inline citations that I'm used to reading, so my eyes glanced over them. J Readings (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear mailing lists are not RS period. Taprobanus (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: question-->AnswerAnswer-2008-03-12T08:09:00.000Z">

I believe the forum list redrocket refers to is a legitimate source of citations. Many different people's posts on that list are cited in the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and those posters are clearly experts on Hoofers. Further, as Redrocket correctly notes above, much of the Hoofer Sailing article is not referenced/cited at all. (Of course this is true for many WP articles because it is often difficult to find authoritative third party references for non-scientific subjects.) In fact, some of the best-referenced parts of the Hoofer article are the criticisms. Most of the rest of the article is "supported" by links to the Hoofer Sailing Club's own website, which of course is not much of a supporting reference for itself. Certainly a Forum open to anyone is more objective than the club's own website..!

Further, Redrocket seems to have a vested interest in seeing that the Hoofer Sailing Club article is as favorable as possible. That may indicate that Redrocket is a Hoofer himself, perhaps a Hoofer leader with a free club membership and lots of extra privileges. If so, then Redrocket may be biased, or worse, may be trying to exercise censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the article to be objective (NPOV), it requires criticisms along with all the happitudes. I am in the process of adding more supporting references. (Tortugadillo (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))Answer"> Answer">

At this point, I have to ask who "Hoofer X" (sic) is? Realistically and following the basic official policies of Misplaced Pages, all sources should be attributed to a publicly verifiable reliable source. Chat fora have no editorial oversight. They have no transparent institutions that are designed for fact-checking before self-publication. Therefore, they are not reliable. Worse, the source(s) in question hail from "Hoofer X" (sic) and his or her unaccountable (negative) thoughts on the Hoofer Sailing Club. Are we honestly going to argue that the anonymous negative musings of a poster to a chat forum are considered a reliable source for the article simply because...? One last comment: invoking the "First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" in order to keep the e-mails as references suggests that you should re-visit the official policies and guidelines which have been established by the community of Misplaced Pages editors. J Readings (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cant agree more. Just read WP:VERIFY, it goes into to great length to disqualify any chat rooms as RS sources. Taprobanus (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed... mailing lists and chat rooms are NOT reliable. The article in question actually has a lot of problems. It does not come close to meeting the notability requirements set out in WP:ORG... almost the entire article is cited to webpages associated with the org. I have prodded it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You have apparently mistaken Misplaced Pages for the United States government. "censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" does not apply to a private endeavor. Not that what is being done with the article is censorship, by any stretch of the imagination. Tortugadillo's repeated insertions of personal opinion and attacks is bordering on disruptive. Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I particularly like this edit suggesting that I must be a "Hoofer leader" to disagree with his/her edits so much! It would be an awful long way to go for a sail and we have our own lovely Canadian lakes to enjoy!!! --Slp1 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic Box?

A slight issue has been raised at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee about whether the Magic Box is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable here, but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

<copied from Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who runs the site? At a first glance, I would say the "gaming news" section might be reliable... and anything published in the chat forums would not. However, to determine if the "news" section is reliable we would need to know how this information is compiled and if there is editorial oversight. Blueboar (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Handbook of Texas?

Is the Handbook of Texas (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/) a reliable source? It's an online archive from the Texas State Historical Association, and their articles do provide bibliogaphies, presumably of sources. I want to beef up the Ima Hogg article. Corvus cornix_talk 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that article Handbook of Texas exists. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We do cite the Handbook of Texas a lot, and it has been discussed at WT:EL. There is even a template {{Handbook of Texas}} for citing it properly. (Creation discussed here). See for instance this edit which converts an old-style Handbook reference to the new form using {{Handbook of Texas}}. I personally believe the template is better, since it avoids an unwanted extra link to the home page of the Handbook's site, and instead provides a link to our WP article on the Handbook. For what the resulting citation looks like see Ref 1 of the article on White Rock Lake. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it is reliable, and it has passed FAC before (can't recall where). But ... please don't use that citation template, as it doesn't return a complete citation (no last accessdate). Do you have quick plans for Ima Hogg? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quick. I do plan on doing some work on it this evening. Corvus cornix_talk 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that why I thought I would tackle Ms. Hogg. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would definitely consider the Handbook of Texas Online a reliable source. It's published by a scholarly historical association, with co-sponsorship from various universities and a board of academic advisors. The only problem is that it's a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the epitome of historically reliable. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Websites and Blogs

I see these are 'largely not acceptable'. However, when the person who owns the website is an acknowledged authority within his field, eg a well known archaeologist, historian, or anthropologist, with loads of peer-reviewed publications, etc, do I assume that their blogs or websites are acceptable? As an example, John Hawks Anthropology Weblog. I hasten to add that I agree with the policy, but when the owner of the site has the qualifications, peer review, etc....--Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. If you can demonstrate that you are using the blog from an expert published by secondary reliable sources in the field to cite something in that same field, they can be used within reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I would recommend avoiding here is citing such a source when it disagrees with a clearly reliable source. And the reason is that certain less-than-scrupulous "experts" use their personal publications to make claims they couldn't sneak past peer review. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! (That's why I said "used within reason".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd go further than when it disagrees: if it makes a claim that seems a little out of the ordinary and is not substantiated by a reliable source, I would be wary of using it. Relata refero (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Banglapedia a RS for history?

Well this encyclopedia, the "National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh", has some articles, particularly those written about the Bangladesh Liberation War have an editorial tone which seems to be Bengali nationalistic in nature

• Article on Bangladesh Liberation War -
  • "the Pakistani military junta was bringing more troops to Bangladesh and at the same time wantonly killing innocent civilians all over the country. This clearly showed that they were totally insincere about handing over power to the elected representatives of Bangladesh. No sooner the talks failed, the genocide began"
  • "Several hundred people chanted the slogan Joi Bangla which lasted for about 15 minutes. But soon guns silenced them. The army moved into the city before scheduled time and started the genocide. The military forces killed everybody in sight on the footpath and destroyed everything on their way. "
    • Did they literally kill and destroy everything??
• Mass upsurge -
  • "...started with the student unrest of 1968 against the tyrannical rule of ayub khan, President of Pakistan."
• Mohammad Shamsuzzoha -
  • Hagiographic language in the article, such as use of "martyr". Words like "martyr" and "freedom fighter" are used repeatedly on Banglapedia.
• Mukti Bahini - , "freedom fighters"
• Kotalipara Upazila - - "Hemayet Bahini (a group of freedom fighters led by its commander Hemayet Uddin) and the Pak army was held at Ramshil Union. Hemayet Uddin was given the Bir Bikram title for his heroic role in this battle."

And so forth. Does this cheerleading style make this encyclopedia a non-RS for Bengali history? Opinions? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked Blnguyen to post here. I think these issues alone demonstrate that Banglapedia should not be considered a reliable source. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 04:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, horribly POV language here indicates that it probably shouldn't be considered RS. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:VERIFY, the test is, is it a

• Academic source
• Third party scrutiny
• Respected mainstream publication
• Is it a wiki
• Is it a Questionable source

It is not very obvious that it fails WP:RS because of the above. It is obviously a POV source so we can use it as long as it is attributed. But when it is in conflict with a clearly RS source you cannot use it to counter the RS source. We should keep in mind, western encyclopedia’s such as Britannica as used without any question. How are we sure that they don’t have a bias ? just food for thought Taprobanus (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is indeed a wiki, then it is obvious that it fails. Wikis (even Misplaced Pages) are not considered reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the negative to mean that it is not a wiki, as you can see from Banglapedia, its contributers are all eminent scholars of Bangladesh, some internationally well known. It's effort and working plan is no different than any encylopedia project except their language requires further refinement. Taprobanus (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Banglapedia in Bangladesh related issues is similar to using New Catholic Encyclopedia in Catholic related articles. Use it with a grain of salt and attribute when saying controversal facts.Taprobanus (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a martyr is a matter of point of view, not fact. However, the article should say "xxx from Banglapedia says..." in regards to a controversial statement (ex. martyr). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly see here about Attributing and substantiating biased statements Taprobanus (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there are legitimate issues when we start writing stuff like "According to xx of Banglapedia, Ayub Khan had a tyrannical rule." The statement is attributed, but that would not make it neutral in that case. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The initial question was, is it RS? The answer is it is borderline RS. Then how you use it in any article depends on the context. Obviously what you just pointed out will not be acceptable even if it came from say Britanica which is clearly RS. Taprobanus (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Brittanica would not make a statement like that. There are some inaccuracies with that encyclopedia, but there are no neutrality issues. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd only use it where there's absolutely nothing else, and then with a disclaimer (per Nishkid at 21:06). Daniel (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We are digressing away from the original question. Is it RS or not. The short answer is it is. Whether it uses NPOV langugae or not, can be be used in any sentence or not is not the purpose of this discussion or this board. Alwaysr remember for a source to be RS, it has to be verifiable. To be verifiable, it has to pass a few tests (I have listed them above). Neutral language is not one of the requirements of verifiable source test because all sources have some sort of POV. Some show it like Bangapedia and others hide it very well under neutral langugae. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the source can be used but should be attributed, and claims from the source should not be presented as facts.Bless sins (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation article re: Daniel Pipes

On the follow paragraph below, is the source from The Nation reliable for what it is being used for? Another user said because the author of the article does not have other articles online published and is not a scholar, that it is an unreliable source. And obviously the article, like many on Fox News, is written with a bias--but that doesn't make it unreliable for the context it is used in. I just need more opinion as to if the source is unable or not.

According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers."

1. ^ McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
2. Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
3. Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.

Thanks.—Christopher Mann McKay 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to violating WP:RS, it violates WP:BLP. Something this poorly sourced might be all right for a Pokemon article, but not for a living person, when it contains potentially defamatory material. IronDuke 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would allow the McNeil column to be used as a representation of what some of Pipes' critics think about him rather than as a representation of what Misplaced Pages thinks of him. The Nation column does include the quotes from Pipes that are claimed to be there, and the reader can verify that those quotes actually came from Pipes' columns by referring to the columns themselves, which are linked (one to Pipes' own web site, and the other to NationalReview.com, where the column was published). However, I would rephrase the passage as follows:

In a column in The Nation, writer Kristine McNeil described Pipes as having "anti-Arab" views. McNeil cited columns in which Pipes described the customs of Muslim immigrants as being "more troublesome than most" and referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers".

1. ^ McNeil, Kristine. "The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation (2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
2. Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review (1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
3. Pipes, Daniel. "Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review (2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.

Note that McNeil's bionote on The Nation web site describes her occupation as "writer" (as opposed to "journalist"), and my proposed rephrasing is intended to indicate that this is all based on McNeil's characterization of Pipes' comments rather than our own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, M90. The Nation is a reliable source, and material from McNeil's piece may be used without violating WP:BLP as long as the attribution is clear and accurate (as you have done). NSH001 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that looks acceptable by wiki standards.Bless sins (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly acceptable :) Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, is it ever not acceptable, drive-by ditto-heading aside. Metro, would you consider saying "Writer Kristine McNeil does not believe in evolution, preferring to explain biology in terms of intelligent design" in the evolution article? Why not? She is, after all, a writer, who actually managed to get one article published in a partisan magazine six years ago. You see how silly it looks? Is she any more of an authority on Pipes than she is on evolution? As far as I know, she isn't. IronDuke 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If it was an article - one of not very many - actually published in a reliable source discussing evolution itself as opposed to mentioning it in passing, then yes.

Please be civil about community input. "Drive-by ditto-heading" is people taking time out to review a problem and give their opinion. It is reasonable in such a situation to accept that the community seems to disagree, and attempt to either change its mind or to move on, instead of being rude. Relata refero (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what RR said, there is a mature and robust scientific consensus behind the theory of evolution, which has stood for at least 85 years (to put it conservatively.) Thus, it would be a violation of NPOV to dote on this or that contrarian writer, even if they were an expert on the subject matter (cf Michael Behe.) There is no such robust consensus behind the claim that Daniel Pipes doesn't habitually bash Arabs and Muslims. In fact, a number of reliable sources have reported on his being called anti-Arab or Islamophobic; USA Today, Jerusalem Post, Public Radio, etc. To say nothing of al-Ahram and Dar al Hayat, which are notable enough sources even without the more reliable Western papers. Clearly, Pipes is an extremely controversial figure who has been accused by many Arab and pro-Arab sources of being an outright bigot. WP's biography of him should reflect that, while not taking sides in the controversy. <eleland/talkedits> 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note I don't like the rather vacuous phrase "Anti-Arab", nor do I really believe it is applicable in this case, but as I have subsequently mentioned (and provided) on the article talkpage, there are several academic sources that use the phrase in Pipes' context as well. Relata refero (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I’ve been neither rude nor uncivil. I don’t believe people posting “yeah me too” in such a situation is useful. I would say, further, that false allegations of incivility ratchet up the temperature and also, given that you just responded to me on the Daniel Pipes talk page with an edit summary of “rot” – actual and obvious incivility there -- you might consider practicing before preaching in future.

As to the substance of your points, we have more than enough sources which are critical of Pipes. We don’t need any fringe ones. And that you would be willing to publish a non-scientist’s view as a legitimate criticism of evolution is troubling; it suggests to me that you fail to understand some core policies.

Eleland: I’m all for reliable sources, whatever they may say. Kristine McNeil is not a reliable source: does anyone here want to dispute that? IronDuke 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Pipe's listing of dangerous academics was a political act and within the realm of politics, I find the source in question reliable. But also make sure to include the possible praises Pipes has received from his friends for doing this and give it a balance. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You just heard five independent editors disputing that; forgive the bluntness, but what is your major malfunction? <eleland/talkedits> 00:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll actually not forgive the "bluntness" if it's all the same to you. Five users? You mean 4 POV-pushing editors and a drive-by amen can overturn core policy? News to me. And you haven't answered my question. IronDuke 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, stop trolling. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Core policy hasn't been violated; you haven't made a case that it is even affected here. The Nation is considered a reliable source; please re-read the footnote to WP:RS that deals with the various meanings of "source". This McNeil person, whoever she was, nevertheless was considered a notable opinion by a reliable periodical, and her piece was subject to editorial control and fact-checking that we expect. Also note that this is far from a marginal viewpoint, however incorrect it may be. (Ample evidence has been provided here and on the article talkpage.) Please also explain who precisely are "the four POV-pushers" here. It would be nice for those of us with no opinion to know. Relata refero (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Nation is indeed a reliable source (allbeit one with a distinct political slant). How one phrases the information (so that it comes across in a NPOV manner) can be worked out in the article talk page... but the information itself comes from a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd quote

I'm actually kind of embarrassed to bring this somewhat trivial here, but I'm involved in a stale dispute here and would require some "official" clarification on the quality and use of a quote.

The text in question is a passage in the Hamas article which reads:

Other articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews. According to Robert Wistrich,

"Like other Islamists, the Hamas uses antisemitic language, full of hatred towards Jews, ever since its foundation in 1987. In its Sacred Covenant , there are frequent references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would have gladdened the hearts of Hitler and Goebbels. It is difficult to see what any of this has to do with spirituality, works of charity, dialogue or the search for peace."

As I state in the article talk page, this quote has several problems:

• The quote presented does not substantiate the claim that "ther articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews."
• The quote itself is factually false, since the Hamas Covenant refers to the Protocols exactly once (check it out here).
• The source itself is heavily parsed and the quoted statements appears in an ellipsis, and is hence probably not part of the statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
• The original, unedited statement is itself not catalogued by the United Nations. The only two documents in which the author, Robert Wistrich, is mentioned are here.

The most pertinent problems are the first and the third. The first is trivial and regarding the third, the quoted text is part of an ellipsis stretching, in the source, from "Not only that..." to the end of the quote and is therefore presumably not in the original, which was read at a meeting of the UNCHR.

Now, judging by the language in other ellipses in the text, it is probable that Robert Wistrich himself penned those lines. If this is effectively the case, however, the source should be rejected as self-published, since, as the initial page of the hosting site itself states, Robert Wistrich is the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, which published the document in question.

Any thoughts? Am I completely wrong in this assessment?

Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 08:30

All I can say is that something as egregious as Hamas mentioning the Protocols in its charter is likely to have been covered by many, many considerably more reliable sources. Replace this reference with one of those, and nobody has a leg to stand on if they want to object. Relata refero (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's already in the article (Hamas' mentioning of the Protocols), which is why I didn't think this quote was necessary... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 14:44

Oh, I know why its necessary. Someone ran a google search for Hamas antisemitic to justify keeping "antisemitic" in the lead. That's how Misplaced Pages works in these areas.

I think you have made a sufficient case that this quote is from a self-published source by an acknowledged authority. Whether that qualifies it for inclusion in the article then becomes an undue weight issue. Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your input :) Anybody else want to weigh-in? Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 17.03.2008 11:20

Emporis

Hi. Is http://www.emporis.com/ a reliable source for building data? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

They make their living by providing accurate data, so we have to assume that they have an inbuilt sytem to check their facts. But it is not an academic source so how they collect data and how it is scrutinized for accuracy is not transparent for others to judge about unless someone else says so. Hence I will use it but attribute it to the website. Taprobanus (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary

• http://www.skepdic.com/
• Is this a reliable source? Specificly for the Afrocentrism article, is ? Yahel Guhan 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this question (about the Skeptic's Dictionary as a source) has come up before here, though I haven't looked through the archives. It would be worth seeing what people said last time - I seem to recall that the Skeptics' Dictionary was borderline acceptable so long as it was attributed in the text ("According to the Skeptic's Dictionary...") But that was on a different article - this situation may be different. MastCell  20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The article cited seems to me to be hopelessly inadequate as a summary of what is both a political movement and an academic current. Try academic writers instead. Mary Lefkowitz is suitable to use but is at one pole of the argument and needs to be balanced, e.g. by Martin Bernal. Vijay Prashad might be a useful source also Henry Louis Gates Jnr or if you can find anything by Stuart Hall (cultural theorist). Wikiproject Critical Theory might have some leads. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to the above discussion: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Skeptic's dictionary. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Bernal has some valid and well-researched observations on classical historiography. On classical history itself, he is WP:FRINGE, although extremely entertaining. I would not use the Skeptic's Dictionary to say so; his books have been extensively and negatively reviewed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion, but basically what was said was that Robert Caroll is a published academic and indeed the Skeptics Dictionary is also a published book by a respected publishing house. This makes it by Misplaced Pages definition a reliable source. You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. And policy (not guidelines) says "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source." What was suggested in the discussion is that when used it would be best to write 'Robert Todd Carroll, in his (or maybe the) Skeptics' Dictinary, says...' So he may be right or he may be wrong, but either way, it doesn't matter, it can't be excluded. Where it is put is another matter. Please note that I am not saying he is wrong or right on this, just that using it is definitely allowed by Misplaced Pages policy, see WP:V.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Carrol is an academic and the book is published. It's contents may be right or wrong, but I can se no reason why it should not be citable. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I would think that few sources should have a blanket approval as a reliable source -- and that in most cases they should be evaluated regarding quality and accuracy and expertise. In my experience, regarding a topic that I'm familiar with, Carroll's coverage of that topic was problematic, mostly relying on the sort of sources that Misplaced Pages disallows. Even as we were debating whether specific information from Carroll could be used in this specific article, Carroll removed the problematic material from his web site. I'd use Carroll with caution, and I'd look closely at the sources he uses. TimidGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't take a source apart and say you can't use it for this but you can use it for that. -- actually, the policy says exactly the opposite: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. Dlabtot (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As so often, there seems to be confusion about whether a source is citable as a legitimate academic opinion or whether it's citable as an accurate source of facts. The only issue is whether Carroll's is a citable opinion, not whether he is right. By the way, his main source on this topic is quoted at the top of the article, the very well respected critic of Afrocentrism, Clarence E. Walker. As for his having "removed the problematic material from his website", what do you mean? It still says what the quoted words say it says. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook and US Department of State

I am inquiring whether the following tertiary or secondary sources are valid or "reliable" for use on Misplaced Pages, specifically in the article French people. Two users, User:Ramdrake and User:Enric Naval, have been pushing their POV by keeping these sources in one part of the article but removing it from another part. Here are the following links to the sources in question: CIA Factbook - France and Background Note: France.Epf (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow... It has been some time since someone asked about these sources... you ask a question that used to pop up a lot. In any case... These are certainly considered reliable sources. The best way to handle the dispute is to directly attribute any statements. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The source was taken out because it was being used on the lead to state things not supported by the article, by WP:LEAD. The source is being used once on the body of the article to illustrate how the ethnic groups on France are described on the CIA factbook, and that's all. Thus, using it as the sole source for the lead was giving it undue weight, specially since it was being used as an excuse for deleting the references to norman ascentors that appear on another part of the article and that epf's doesn't seem to agree with and calls POV and unsourced, because he says that normans are not part of the french ethnic group (which brings us again to the controversial and disputed problem of defining the ethnic group).

Also, the reliability of factbook is put on doubt for the especific topic of ethnic groups for France, not for all the rest of stadistics which are probably trustable, but are not actually used on this article

Also, I made the argument on the talk page that the "french ethnic group" topic is a controversial and disputed issue, and that we should find secondary verifiable sources, and not a tertiary source that doesn't indicate sources, like the CIA factbook. If the factbook is really right, it should be easy to find secondary sources supporting the statement, like, for example, the ones used by the factbook, but this has not happened yet. This was brought out by me when I discovered that all 3 sources provided as support appeared to be copied verbatim from the factbook itself. Given that's is a controversial and disputed topic, Per the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_statistical_data use of statistical data on WP:RS, we should be discussing the survey methods with sound secondary sources, none of which are provided neither by the factbook, nor by epf.

In other words, this is more of a content issue and lack of secondary sources than a reliable sources issue, and the reliability of CIA factbook on ethnic groups should be evaluated on the context provided. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Enric... no need to shout (ie no need to put things in bold). Now, as to your comments... remember that reliability is not the same as factual accuracy, and it is especially not the same as "truth". You can not call a source "reliable" for some facts, but not others. It is perfectly acceptable to question whether a reliable source is factually accurate or not, but please don't invoke WP:RS to do it. The question was: are the sources considered reliable?... and the answer is a definitive "Yes, they are". What you are arguing about are follow-up questions: Should the sources be used in the article and, if so, are they used appropriately?... the answer to those questions are not really in the scope of this notice board, and should be discussed at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but just to note that while the CIA factbook is RS it is also a tertiary source. Its comments on French ethnicity seem to be very cursory and introductory in nature. There should be much more comprehensive secondary sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again like Blueboar suggested, that would me something you have to hash out in the talk age of the article or take it to mediation if it fails. Taprobanus (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the advice, and sorry for bolding --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Lawsuits Original Research When Text From Them are Inserted Into BLP's?

Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. David Starr 1 (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, but it can inherently violate neutral point of view for exactly the reasons you state. A lawsuit should never be included in a BLP unless it is covered by secondary reliable sources. In such a case, content should be lifted from the secondary source itself, and not the lawsuit. One can still make an external link to the lawsuit in this situation (so long as it's not hosted by an attack site, which is often the case). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the issue is whether the source is sufficiently reliable to verify. A lawsuit has issues similar to quoting a blog or personal website because court papers are only the view of the parties, not the view of a reliable expert or authority on the subject. Agree it's best not to mention at all unless a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper or law review) considers the lawsuit notable. If the lawsuit has been covered by reliable secondary sources, I believe it can sometimes be OK to use the judge's final decision (or the decision of an appelate court) as a source for some additional details. Even here one has to be careful not to go beyond what the judge actually determines, many kinds of decisions (like summary judgement decisons) accept one party's view of the facts and do not actually evaluate them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And a judge's finding can be overturned on appeal. For this reason alone we should not quote directly from lawsuits. 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We have had this question before... Official court documents are considered reliable for statements about what is contained in the document. There are numerous ways that one can verify them (at worst, someone can go to the court house and obtain copies). The key is to clearly attribute any statement, and make it clear who is saying what. A lawsuit is a notable event. If a lawsuit has been filed against the subject of one of our articles, I would think it appropriate to mention this in the article. And it would be appropriate to cite the Complaint (or the Reply) in doing so. However, we must remember that what is stated in a Complaint or a Reply are NOT fact... they are allegation and response. Thus we need to attribute any statements taken from such documents. I see nothing wrong with saying something like:

• "According to the Complaint filed by Joe Schmoe on August 21, 2004 in the Northern District of Ohio, 'Mr. BLP molested small kittens' <cite to Complaint>. In his Reply papers filed on November 3rd, 2004, Mr. BLP stated 'I never did' <cite to Reply>. The case is still before the court."

This said, we must be carefull to cite the actual court documents, and not some third party who may take snippets from the court documents out of context. This is one of those rare situations where citing the primary source is actually better than citing a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But if no secondary source has believed Joe Schmoe, is this Undue Weight? In particular, if Schmoe v BLP has been thrown out as frivolous, the judge doesn't believe it, and we have an obligation to say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source or no?

I'm looking for sourcing re: the Postcards from Buster controversy. Is this a reliable source? Thanks!Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The organisation clearly has a viewpoint and agenda but would seem to be reliable for the chronology of how the controversy played out unless it is contradicted by another account. Best to make sure you attribute to FAIR everything you use from the webpage. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We really don't have a better source than a Mormon apologetics site? (I assume it's that FAIR - the link won't work for me right now). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the one you're thinking of. This FAIR is a liberal organization with no Mormon connection. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since is heavily referenced, you could go to library and track down the sources they use and use them yourself. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need to do that. Sources like articles from the New York Times are online. Just take the quotes they use and run them through Google and you can find the original sources. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Self published / Google video?

I'm working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and there's currently a citation of a Google Video (it's the last paragraph in this section). What's the consensus as to the reliability of this source? Should it be allowed as a statement of the author's belief, or removed as unencylopaedic? Sheffield Steel_stalk 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it proves anything. Someone made that video - that's all we know. We would need a separate reliable source to say that it was "Pilots for 9/11 truth" and that it was the named person. If we have a separate source backing up the provenance of the video then I think it should stay. If not then it might be some guy in his basement who doesn't believe that stuff but is trying to wind us up. On the other hand it might be worth leaving in the article as an example of the sort of thing that exists - without attribution. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo Election Central

Problems at the Ronald Kessler article. Kessler's in the news currently for a story he wrote about Barack Obama; that rebounded pretty badly and then User:KesslerRonald turned up and removed the criticism section from his own bio. (The section was pretty badly sourced and overly negative at the time.) The website Talking Points Memo Election Central picked up on this, and someone wrote a post/article, which was then cited in the Kessler article. (Following all this?)

I came along to the article in response to a complaint and did some cleanup. Most of my changes have stuck, but objections have been raised on the talkpage to my removal of the TPM-EC article about Kessler and WP.

These objections are:

• TPM - specifically its main contributor and editor Josh Marshall - won a Polk award last month.
• "We wouldn't treat the blogs or opinion columns on WashingtonPost as reliable sources either, but that doesn't mean we automatically dismiss all their news reporting. Can you direct us to a Misplaced Pages guideline that everything published by TPM Media, which does employ a small staff of paid journalists and editors and has won a journalism award (as noted above), is to be dismissed as a blog here on Misplaced Pages. Or is that simply your personal view? "
• "I'd like to point out that this wasn't published at TalkingPointsMemo exactly, but at TPM Election Central. Election Central is considerably less blog-y and more news-y than TPM proper. Is there really any bright line difference between an online-only magazine like Slate or Salon and TPM Election Central? The piece in question was written by a paid professional journalist and Election Central is described as a "website" in his bio rather than as a blog."

As this is too much information for my brain when St. Patrick's Day is barely over, I'm bringing it here for advice. Relata refero (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP editing seems like a very low-level event of marginal significance to Kessler's notability as a whole; I also think that Kessler can hardly be faulted for removing a section sourced to various left-wing blog postings and open publishing sites. The "controversy" section as it stands now, with reference to the "hate sermon" gaffe and subsequent retraction, is better-sourced, and appropriate. It's our job as Wikipedians to write neutral biographies, it's not the job of our biographical subjects to salvage neutral biographies from cruft and dross. You handled the situation correctly. <eleland/talkedits> 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Um, TPM is hardly an "open publishing site." Nor is it really a blog, under the "online diary" meaning of the term. Whether or not it is left-wing really has nothing to do with it. eaolson (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• The question here on the Reliable Sources noticeboard is whether TPM Election Central is a reliable source. Whether the material itself is sufficiently noteworthy is a question for the article talk page, and has nothing to do with source reliability. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe TPM as a whole is reliable for most purposes. This bright line between blogs and non-blogs is fuzzier all the time, with news sources like Red Herring (magazine) using a blog-like publishing format (leading some to question its reliability despite a history that predates blogs and, in point of fact, the web), while The Register regularly publishes rumor and tripe (such as the laughable claim that the space station is run on Windows NT) and continues to be treated as reliable, with only minor formatting differences from blogs. My point being that it is not the blog format per se that is, or should be, the issue. In the case of TPM it was a one-person blog in 2001, but in 2003-2004 moved to NYC offices and hired a staff. In a strict sense the main TPM page is still a "blog" roughly half written by Josh Marshall, and half written by David Kurtz or another employee, posts that mainly point to TPM-owned sites like TPMMuckraker. If you squint you could call any of them blogs (exception: Parts of TPMCafe, a forum, with some blog material to spark discussions) simply because they post stories "when ready", but my local newspaper does that now too. It's a bit of a strain to call TPM self-published, since Marshall appears to have investors and acts as a professional editor and publisher. Simply put I don't see how TPM fails any reliable source metric you care to use, unless you don't want your reliable sources touching the word "blog" with a ten-foot pole, which seems like a backwards way to go about making those choices. (Heck, I see people wanting to throw out the New York Post -- one of the oldest newspapers in the U.S. -- as a reliable source because it's a tabloid. Others merely want to exclude all alternative newspapers.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading this recent New York Times article about Talking Points Memo. Among the highlights:

• TPM won the Polk Award, one of journalism's highest honors, for "tenacious investigative reporting."
• the NYT refers to the website as a "news operation"
• the NYT describes "a style of online reporting that greatly expands the definition of blogging"
• the NYT describes "a newsroom in Manhattan and seven reporters ... including two in Washington" (paid journalists)
• the NYT describes Marshall's activites as "full-time online journalism"
• the NYT makes a distinction between Marshall's liberal "personal blogging" and the nonpartisan "reporting" that happens on the site (much of it at TPM Election Central)

Sounds like a pretty clear case for reliability to me. (More reliable in this case than the Bill Kristol column that started the whole thing.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As the line between journalism and blogging increasingly blurs, we are going to get questions like this more often. For a long time we held firm to "NO BLOGS". Even the websites of major news organizations were not considered reliable, because they were in blog format. About a year ago, this began to change. More and more Misplaced Pages Editors made the valid point that news sites are reflections of what is printed in the print edition of the paper, or of what is aired on the TV broadcast (in the case of sites like BBC.com). We began to differentiate between "blogs" and "news sites that used blog format". For the news sites, we also differentiated between reporting and opinion pieces. The reporting is now considered reliable in almost all cases... the Op-ed pieces are considered reliable only for statements about the writer's opinion (and should be clearly attributed as such).

Pure blogs (ie those that do not have a print or broadcast equivalent) are still in the "No blogs" category. The problem with blogs like TPM is that the line of seperation between reporting and opinion is still blurred. It is still too difficult to distinguish between the parts that are "Journalism" and the parts that are "Opinion". I suspect that the consensus to not allow any blogs will eventually change... but it is going to take time for that consensus to change, and we are not there yet. Blogging is still a new form of journalism, and we do not have a consensus on what makes one blog acceptable and another blog unacceptable. Until we reach such a consensus we can not allow blogs... even a highly reguarded blog such as TPM. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• We certainly do allow some web sites that don't have print or broadcast equivalents. Slate and Salon for example. Ironically enough, also NewsMax. Plus sites like Media Matters. And so on. Format is irrelevant to reliability. The issue is journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM demonstrably have both. The basic problem is with your statement that there is a problem with "blogs like TPM". Define blog. I'd say it's essentially a self-published op-ed piece. The reason we don't treat blogs as reliable sources is the same reason we don't treat Bill Kristol's NYTimes editorial as a reliable source. It has nothing to do with publication format, and everything to do with journalistic standards and editorial oversight. The news parts of TPM clearly have both -- it has paid journalists (real ones with real journalism backgrounds); it has won a major journalism award; it is describes as a "news" site by the NYTimes; and Marshall is a real editor with experience as the associate editor of a major news magazine. Where does it fall short of any reasonable standard? Yes, it has opinion pieces and we should not allow those any more than we allow any opinion piece (newspaper op-ed, or self-published blog). However the news part has as much or more credibility as a great many other sites we routinely allow. The dividing line on reliability should not be, and demonstrably has not traditionally been, solely publication format. 59.167.36.94 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But TPM's sources, which they usually link to, are a different question (it would be civil to include a reference to TPM in the process of citing them). In this case, if I follow correctly, they assert that Kessler's own blog said something; which it did. See WP:SELFPUB for mroe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no reference to Kessler's own blog. TPM is asserting (a) that the article history shows a change by a user that appears to be Ronald Kessler (he has confirmed himself as such on the talk page), and (b) that a TPM reporter called Kessler on the phone and interviewed him about making those changes. Item (a) can be verified by checking the article history. The reliability question goes to item (b): Do we believe that TPM's reporter picked up the phone and called Kessler? I think the answer is clearly yes given the general reliability of the reporting aspects of TPM, as confimed by the Polk Award and NYT story. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, we are evalutating the reliability of this particular report at TPM election central. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable limitation of WP:BLP. In effect, we are using TPM only to confirm that User:KesslerRonald is indeed Ronald Kessler, and since he uploaded his own image, asserting that he was indeed RK in the process, this seems small. see Image:Kessler author 2005 med res.jpg and its history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Visual Novel News sites.

Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Issue_with_H-Games, I'm trying to figure out if http://www.visual-news.net can be considered a reliable source with regards to news about the existence of unauthorized translations of various visual novel-style games (like Utawarerumono and Tsukihime). I believe this site to be a reliable (if small and specialized) gaming news site, as opinion seems to be relegated to a separate review section. (Alternatively, would it be appropriate to cite the translator's web site?) — PyTom (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Article subject-provided translation of subject-provided clippings

Isha (spiritual teacher) is sourced almost exclusively to clippings hosted on the article-subject's site (www.isha.com) of Spanish-language clippings (most of which appear to be from obscure Latin-American glossy magazines -- thus themselves of often murky reliability), with translations into English provided by the subject's website. Can these be considered to be a reliable source within[REDACTED] policy? Does the potential for severe selection bias, due to the fact that the article-subject would generally provide the most favourable clippings, affect this assessment? Hrafn_Stalk 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Is it acceptable to cite an otherwise WP:RS-worthy book that you only have access to via Google Books preview? The library the book came from and the date it was scanned are noted in the preview page - should that be included in the cite template somehow? I'm talking about full page previews, of course, not the 'snippet view' that only gives you a few lines. -- Vary | Talk 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Indeed, if it was not even on Google Books, it would still be usable (unless I am misunderstanding your question). It is not a necessity that other people can view the work on the web, or we would never be able to use scholarly books that aren't fully searchable in HTML. --David Shankbone 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that a book doesn't have to be available online - I'm wondering if I'm allowed to cite a book that I've never physically held in my hand, but have accessed through Google Books. -- Vary | Talk 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, as long as you are not taking information out of context--that you have enough pages of the book available to understand the context of the bit you want to use, in order to use it accurately. Cite away! --David Shankbone 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Vary | Talk 19:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Patricia Jasen

Dr. Patricia Jasen, Professor of History at Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, wrote a paper entitled, "Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States."

On one hand, the paper contains a considerable amount of useful historical information about research into an hypothesized link between abortion and breast cancer ("ABC"), and numerous citations to other sources, many of which are certainly reliable sources.

But, on the other hand, the paper contains numerous severe inaccuracies, and editorializes strongly for a particular POV: namely that the pro-life movement is characterized by a strategy of violence, and that the supposed ABC link is mainly just a political strategy of right-wing fundamentalist Christian political activists.

My question is: can such a paper be considered a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles?

Here are some examples of the inaccuracies in the article:

1) "...the coalition was founded with the support of Concerned Women for America, a national right-wing Christian organization which defines itself as anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education (as well as anti-Harry Potter)..."

But that is not at all how CWfA defines or describes itself. It is a misleading caricature, not an honest description. CWfA's actual self-description is on their web site, and their measured position on Harry Potter is, "CWA takes the position that parents know what is best for their children. ... Scripture speaks strongly about the occult, so parents should explore the Harry Potter books themselves to decide whether they’re appropriate for their children."

2) "The evangelical leaders Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave their support to the violent strategies of such groups as Operation Rescue."

In fact, Operation Rescue has never employed violence, and neither Robertson nor Falwell have ever supported violence.

3) "Conclusion... As the conflict intensified and anti-abortionists replaced violent strategies with a more acceptable “woman-centred” approach, they adopted the “ABC link” as a means of fighting abortion in Congress, state legislatures and courts of law."

Actually, there is no evidence at all that any abortion opponent has ever switched approaches from violence to promoting the ABC link. Although a few pro-lifers have been guilty of violence (and others have been victims of violence by pro-choicers), Jasen's characterization of abortion opponents as having a strategy of violence itself does violence to the truth. Incidents of violence by pro-lifers have always been rare and isolated, and universally condemned & renounced by all the leading pro-life organizations, including even the most radical/hardline organizations, such as Operation Rescue.

4) "in the early 1990s... the anti-abortion campaign had reached a stage in its increasingly violent history when new strategies were needed"

Actually, violence by abortion opponents has always been rare, and had nothing at all to with the ABC issue.

5) "...supporters of direct action rose to prominence , first employing tactics, such as sit-ins, inherited from the tradition of civil disobedience, but moving on by the mid-1980s to clinic break-ins and bombings."

Actually, no one who committed or supported clinic break-ins or bombings has ever been prominent in the pro-life movement. Not even one person. Jasen just made that up.

6) "Before abortion was legalized, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been the force behind most of the lobbying but, following Roe v Wade, they were joined by increasingly militant, and increasingly numerous, Protestant fundamentalists dedicated to the anti-abortion cause."

But the "fundamentalist" label is inaccurate. Protestant pro-lifers are mostly evangelicals, but they come from many Christian denominations, not only (or even predominantly) fundamentalists.

7) "...by a majority of Americans had come to accept the right of adults to seek early abortion."

Actually, polls have consistently shown that most Americans think that abortion should be permitted only in special cases, such as rape, health complications to the mother, or fetal abnormality. The poll numbers today are not much different from what they were in 1988. Gallup polled Americans Sep. 25-Oct 1, 1988, and found that 24% supported unrestricted abortion, 57% said abortion should be permitted only in special circumstances, 17% said abortion should always be prohibited, and 2% expressed no opinion. By Jasen's math, 24% is "a majority."

8) "Within a year of the publication of Daling's report, legislation had been passed in two states and proposed in several others, either directing authorities to investigate the cancer link or taking the form of “Women's Right to Know” acts requiring that women be advised of a possible cancer risk."

That makes it sound like the ABC link is the motivation for "Women's Right to Know" laws, but that is not so. Actually, the ABC link is of very minor importance in "Women's Right to Know" / "Informed Consent" laws and bills. These laws and bills always require that a wide variety of information be given to women by abortion clinics prior to an abortion, including information about fetal development, legal rights, alternatives to abortion, available social services, and the medical risks of both abortion and childbirth. Information about the evidence for an ABC link is a very small part of all that, and these laws and bills always require that all information supplied be unbiased and accurate.

9) This example is less obviously inaccurate, but it is the most insidiously misleading. After describing a study which found an apparent link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, Jasen wrote,

"interpretation of such figures would also be complicated by the fact that cancer patients who had never had a completed pregnancy were being compared with a control group of parous women."

The reason that is misleading is quite technical, so please bear with me. "Parous" means "having given birth." Jasen's implication is that the appropriate control group to compare with women who have had abortions, when trying to determine whether or not abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer, is nonporous women -- i.e., women who have never given birth.

That is wrong. The ABC debate is over the relative risks of the two choices available to pregnant women: to give birth or to obtain abortions. That means only parous women should be included in the control group of women who did not obtain abortions. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges: women who had been pregnant to women who had never been pregnant.

The reason that is important is that women who never have a full term pregnancy are well known to be at substantially increased risk of breast cancer. In fact, the later in life a woman has her first full-term pregnancy, the greater her risk of subsequent breast cancer. So including nonparous women in the control group, as Jasen implies should be done, is a way of distorting the results to justify understating the increased risk of breast cancer which results from an abortion obtained before a woman's first full-term pregnancy.

So how does WP:RS apply to a paper like this? NCdave (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Has the paper received any published reviews? --Be happy!! (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The paper is certainly reliable for an attributed statement reguarding Prof. Jasen's opinion on the matter. And where her opinion is contested, counter statements expressing the opinions of others can and should be included. But we should note that the good professor is a PHD in History, not a doctor of medicine. For statements of medical fact she is less reliable. Where her opinion is countered by medical experts, I would lean in favor of the medical experts. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and can certainly be used. If there is specific contradictory information in equally reliable sources, they can be contrasted as differences of opinion. However, the personal blog-style "fisking" you performed above has no relevance to the reliability of the source. In at least one case, you're arguing against your own rather than against the actual paper. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for improving my vocabulary. (BTW, it's a journal of history, not a scientific journal.) NCdave (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Documentary

I have a documentary, composed of interviews from published academics and experts, and a little bit of filler material in between. Is this a reliable source? I can list out and name all the experts interviewed, and what they published.

I've been told this isn't good enough because the producer of the documentary isn't an academic. pschemp | talk 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to quote what the academics have directly said during the interviews, it would be acceptable as a reliable source; however other details may not be used. If there is an online link to the documentary, it would be useful to provide that as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did quote what the academics said...but have been told I can't use this as a source because the citation format cites the documentary and not every academic individually. And there is a link to it, but I was still told it isn't good enough. Not only that, the article lost featured status because one person (the FAR closer) decided that the documentary wasn't a reliable source, but never gave me a chance to fix the cites (no one else has an issue with the source, the FAR was for other things, and that wasn't even brought up). This seems a bit extreme to me, but I suspect because of the content, the decision was biased. pschemp | talk 08:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

When citing the documentary, I think you should mention the relevant minutes (e.g. min 15-18). This makes it completely verifiable. Otherwise, it seems clear to me that there is no legitimate ground for removing the quotes. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You know his exact words were that it was an unreliable source and that that wasn't even "debateable." Its verifiable as it is...anyone can get the documentary and watch it. I have to say that after the way this has been handled, I don't much feel like spending more time trying to improve the project only to have one person's ignorance turn it all to waste. All the crappy drama here doesn't bother me, but this just makes me want to quit. pschemp | talk 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of the article? Can you please provide a link to the FAR? You might also want to notify the FAR closer regarding the discussion here.--Be happy!! (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity for Boys

An editor is particularly keen to use this document . in a number of articles related to sexuality. The booklet is entitled "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006". As this indicates it is published through UNESCO, but the second page clearly states, "The opinion expressed in this documents are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi".

The text of this document is full of grand ex cathedra assertions. For example:

"The masculinity with which boys are born is natural masculinity. This is given by nature. However society has created a mechanism by which it does not acknowledge this masculinity."

"modern heterosexual societies take sexual exploitation of men to new heights - often with official sanction. Grown up boys and young men in the west are required to strip naked before female doctors, nurses and officials"

"Now ragging in the West almost always involve boys being forcibly stripped by girls (with the backing of male seniors) or being forced to masturbate in front of them".

I could add more passages, which seem to me to be very...eccentric. The general argument seems to be that it is natural for men to bond with other men, and to sexually desire them, but that the western distinction between "gay" and "straight" identity causes confusion for boys, who are also being sexually humiliated by over-assertive women, who are given power by this "heterosexualised" culture. In India traditional models of gender and sexual behaviour do not involve these problems, but India is being tainted by Western ideas.

However, my personal opinion of course is not a good reason to reject a source which has at least some claim to authoritative status via UNESCO. Any thoughts on how to evaluate this source? Paul B (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing on-line EB as a source

I was under the impression that WP was generally trying to avoid citing to on-line EB as a source - otherwise WP simply becomes "EB lite," and editors will not do the real work of finding and citing primary and secondary sources. Is there a guideline/policy that addresses this question?

Second, on-line EB is paid, and I was under the impression that WP was steering away from paid sites. Again, any guidelines/policies on this topic? Thx! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Having to pay is not an issue. As for our generally avoiding citing other tertiary sources such as the EB? yes... as a broad general concept we prefer to cite secondary sources. But it is understood that there are times when the best source is a tertiary one. So... while citing to the EB is discouraged, it isn't prohibited. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - is there a WP policy/guideline somewhere that sets out that tertiary sources are to be avoided if primary or secondary sources are available? NorCalHistory (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS (although the current version does not seem to have any recommendations against tertiary sources). Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mazin Qumsiyeh on qumsiyeh.org

Is Mazin Qumsiyeh and his personal website http://qumsiyeh.org a reliable source? Jayjg 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He is an activist a board member in the "Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine" which is a political advocy group who work to undermine Israel's right to exist Zeq (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com

Are Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com reliable sources regarding Israel? Jayjg 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know about reliability... but my Norton anti-virus flags it as a potential scam site (in fact, including a link to it made Norton flag this page as a potential scam... removing the "http:" prefix seems to fix that problem). For this reason, we should probably disallow it. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about reliability, either, but it's a site for advocacy of afro-american rights, so it will be very biased and POV when treating those topics --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FromOccupiedPalestine.org

Is http://FromOccupiedPalestine.org a reliable source? It appears to be someone's personal website. Jayjg 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a blog by http://jonelmer.ca/bio. Zeq (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Singh

In article Singh one user name User:Gurkhaboy is making up names and Not providing Refs for Claims. User does not seem to be educated in that field and is making up names. see Rajputs used Kumar and Kumari and that Gurkhaboy is Making up Names like Kunwarani which does not make any sense and not related at all. --99.237.254.25 (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards