Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjensen (talk | contribs) at 07:39, 25 January 2013 (→Reliable press, outside area of expertise.: Prior is a RS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Orlando Bosch

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

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

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

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

Erowid a reliable source about drugs or not?

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

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

diff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know what to make of that. It looks like Earth Erowid and Fire Erowid are fake names aka internet monikers used by the staff members of Erowid.org so that their last names are namesake with the website. This does not inherit expertise to the website. about. The crew.

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

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

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

WP:ELNEVER is the right link, especially for evading pay-walls, thanks. Any way, how can we know what Erowid does is fair use, or if they have permissions or no? I've seen the past discussion on Erowid, but for articles with are sourced (not copied), why not include them? --KDesk (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Before adding further comments, please look at the prior discussion if you haven't already done so:discussion CLICK HERE

Dr. Cat article, is this proof enough of claim

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

2. Article is Dr. Cat

3. Content

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

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

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

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

It might require a secondary source to avoid original research. Tom Harrison 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Johann Hari

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

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

Second: I reverted.

Third: He reverted.

Fourth: I reverted.

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

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

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

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

www.slowtwitch.com/ and Technical Editor Greg Kopecky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• When a source calls something "controversial", it is often a mere rhetorical device to introduce a topic. Journalists need to present things in some pattern, and pro-and-con is one of the standards. Typically, if a writer wishes to do other than present a straight description of the facts in chronological sequence, there needs to be some focus, and human argument is a good one to hold the interest of the reader, because people cannot read an argument without taking sides to some extent, even if the matter does not directly concern them. This extends to WP also: essentially everything in human affairs is a matter of argument, because it affects humans, and affects different groups or individuals differently, and so they fight about it. Perhaps we would do well to eliminate the word as much as possible. In general , finding a source or failing to find one that says something is "controversial" is a meaningless exercise. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis deaths?

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

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

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

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

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

List of award nominations (Kapanlagi.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cineuropa

Is this a reliable source for the statements

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

Two books here's one of them. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you are insinuating that this isn't reliable because it isn't academic. That has never been held to be the case. Ryan Vesey 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Insinuating", no. The policy reason is WP:NOTRELIABLE it "lacks meaningful editorial oversight" (fact-checking), and is "promotional" (relies on rumor and personal opinion). The book does not exist; the movie does not exist. —Neotarf (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just showed you the book. Here's another source for the movie . It's from Variety (magazine). Here's one from RTL Group. The movie is in pre-production phase, from what I gather it will be released in 2014. The books have already been written. Your statement that Cineuropa lacks editorial oversight is made up. You have zero proof for that. Here, you'll see that they clearly do have editorial oversight. Ryan Vesey 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. The site says: "Cineuropa.org is co-funded by the MEDIA Plus Programme of the European Commission, Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali, the Ministry of the French Community of Belgium, the French Centre National de la Cinématographie, the ICAA, Swiss Films, the Swiss Office Federal de la Culture, Filmunio, German Films, Luxembourg Film Fund, Malta Film Commission, Czech Film Centre and the Irish Film Board" That certainly sounds pretty impressive. I'm guessing bureaucrats from half a dozen countries wouldn't be funding a personal blog. I'd say it's reliable until we have evidence otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no claim being made that this is a "personal blog", rather that the publication is "promotional". And yes, government agencies, including agencies formed for the purpose of promoting film festivals, do have huge budgets for promotion. —Neotarf (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Looks like a reliable source to me. As for "This supposed book"--I don't know what that refers to. Two were mentioned, but why In Search of Ephraim would be "a badly garbled rendering of some other book" is a mystery (and it's not relevant for this thread anyway). Ryan Vesey did some useful searches, and the book (Auf den Spuren von Efraim Langstrumpf) is mentioned here. List Verlag, a sub of Ullstein Verlag, is a notable publisher. In addition, Joakim Langer seems like a notable enough author per Googling. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Joakim Langer is the author (actually co-author) of the Petterrson biography. The biography itself is not in question as an appropriate Misplaced Pages source but rather the Cineuropa article written by Jorn Rossing Jensen, which appears to be based on a press release from a film company.—Neotarf (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The above links are not for "In Search of Efraim and Pippi Longstocking and the King by Joakim Langer" but for "Pippi & der König : auf den Spuren von Efraim Langstrumpf by co-authors Joakim Langer and Hélena Regiusby", in German. My understanding is that an English version was originally planned but has never been published. If an English version does exist, there will be a separate ISBN for it. —Neotarf (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, here is a WorldCat search by author for Joakim Langer. Who are you going to believe, WorldCat or twitchfilm.com? —Neotarf (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I just finished reading, The Revolution of Peter the Great. In that book, it mentions a number of books/treatises written during his rein. All of those were written in Russian; however, my book gives English names for them. Why? My book is in English and I would not understand the Russian name. There is nothing in the article to suggest that there is some separate English version that has not come out. Ryan Vesey 23:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Topix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm afraid I agree with Andy. "In an obscure poll that no one else noticed, 16% of self-selected people who claimed to be Armenian, but whom we can't even guarantee to not all be one bored teenager from Duluth, said:" means absolutely nothing, and we shouldn't repeat it, with whatever disclaimers. There are times we repeat unreliable information and say that it's unreliable - that's when the information is notable in itself, even if unreliable, and the fact that it's unreliable is a vitally important piece of the information. Examples of that include Piltdown Man, 9/11 conspiracy theories, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that sort of thing. This isn't one of those. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For Topix it may be the case. But do you honestly think that a bored teenager from Duluth will visit the Center for Armenian Remembrance website and vote? Don't you think 9,000 people is a lot and can mean something? --Երևանցի 01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A poll can only be representative of the people polled - and if the article is about 'Greater Armenia' as a political concept, it would seem logical that a US-based English-language website wouldn't be the best place to look for the opinions of Armenians - and there is no guarantee that the poll data is even valid. The results of unrepresentative polls from sources of unknown reliability aren't appropriate material for an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly stated "Los Angeles-based" in the article. Also, remember that more Armenians live outside of Armenia as in Armenia itself. --Երևանցի 01:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Need assistance regarding Contemporary Christian Music article

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

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

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

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

This topic can be removed. I have decided to avoid WALTER. I posted this so that OTHER users participated and "he" is following me and sticking his nose in what was supposed to be unbias and unrelated to him. I do not want to resolve or discuss it anymore simply because he keeps responding to me in a negative manner and not addressing the concerns on the talk page this is about which asked him to list what was wrong or right about the edit, instead he just removed it all. I am not worried about it anymore, and won't be visiting this topic anymore. I have not even read his responses/input since my last edit. I simply do not care what his "opinion" is after he has made a bad impression on me from the start. I don't deal with people like him, they are toxic/cancer. Again, this can be deleted. I would do it, but i am not tip-toeing around Walter's poor attitude and know he will want to read this when he has nothing better to do, plus i don't want it to seem i am violating any policy (unlike "him"). P.S. This goes for the other mediation/noticeboard pages where this is being discussed (this is the one i created). I am not returing to any of them. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, no hounding is going on. Anon edits pages I watch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yukio Mishima bibliography: Number of works

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

Without access to any of the sources it's difficult to tell whether this is an actual disagreement among experts (after all, when is it a book of connected short stories and when is it an episodic novel?), a mistake, or merely vandalism. The editor みしまるもも seems sincere, but he seems to be in the minority. I found this: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/25/specials/mishima-bios.html which also says 40 novels. I also worry that his point seems to be whether or not a novel was written for profit, or for entertainment, which isn't normally the way literary experts make decisions - there are plenty of novels that weren't written to make money, and there are also plenty of novels that were written to enlighten or to preach rather than to entertain. I'm also worried that he seems to be basing his edits on a "complete works" edition, and yet still writes "about" - you'd think with a complete works edition he could simply count. Without better evidence than that, I'd recommend reverting or, at best, putting a footnote: "such and such complete works edition only lists 34 novels." --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. GRuban. Henry Scott-Strokes said that Mishima wrote 40 novels, and 18 plays etc., but it isn't right clearly. "18 plays" is too little number. And actually, Mishima wrote 34 novels. I've list up all his 34 novels in Yukio Mishima bibliography. Please see. Then, my "about"(number of plays and books of short stories) means that how include Mishima's childhood works, or unpublished or unfinished stories and plays, or include the luxurious limited editions. So, it is necessary to attach "about" word. It is important to show more precisely about Mishima's works.　Sorry for my poor english. --みしまるもも (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with you directly, as I personally don't have an alternate list of Mishima's works. However, I do see many other sources saying 40 novels. A reference book on Japan, the LA Times (written in 1985, so they're clearly not getting this information from our article), a blurb from the cover of a translation of his work, , the New York Times , the Chicago Tribune (again 1985) ... it's possible all of these are wrong, but isn't it a simpler explanation that your collection is incomplete, or that experts consider some books novels which your collection considers collections of short stories or plays? --GRuban (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I don't know Henry Scott-Strokes, but our article Henry Scott Stokes has him as a professional journalist for some respected newspapers, a personal friend of Mishima, and the author of a published biography of Mishima. If he is the source of the "40" number, then, unfortunately, you'll need some pretty convincing arguments to overcome that, as all that seems to make him a pretty weighty source. --GRuban (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. GRuban. Of course, Henry Scott Stokes is an excellent journalist, and is a Mishima's good friend. But Henry do not show list of 40 novels in it, and other newspaper sources do not too. Number of plays "18" is too little. It is wrong cleary Henry researced details about Tatenokai, and relations with Mishima and Japan Self-Defense Forces, but he is not a researcher of Mishima's literature. "Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works"(No.1 - No.42 plus 2) are classified into Novels, Short Stories, Plays, Criticisms (include Essays etc.), These are published by Shinchosha. A lot of Mishima's works were published by Shinchosha in ｄuring his life time too. And this "Final edition"'s editors are experts in research of Mishima's iterature. Actually, Mishima's novels are 34. None of Japanese researcher of Mishima say "Mishima wrote 40 novels". Where are 6 (40-34) novels? Mishima's all novels are recorded in No.1 - No.14. Please see , and please count it. And, "Yukio Mishima complete works No.42-Biographical sketch and Bibliography" Amazon site is . I wish for you understand it.　Sorry for my poor english. --みしまるもも (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Final edition-Yukio Mishima complete works -Novels-" (No.1 - No.14) lists. Mishima's all 34 novels are recorded in them.

No.1

• Tōzoku (盗賊 Thieves), 1948
• Kamen no Kokuhaku (仮面の告白 Confessions of a Mask), 1948
• Junpaku no Yoru (純百の夜 Pure White Nights), 1950

No.2

• Ai no Kawaki (愛の渇き Thirst for Love), 1950
• Ao no Jidai (青の時代 The Blue Period), 1950
• Natsuko no Bōken (夏子の冒険 Natsuko's Adventure), 1951

No.3

• Kinijiki (禁色 Forbidden Colors), 1951 - 1953

No.4

• Nippon-sei (につぽん製 Made in Japan), 1952
• Shiosai (潮騷 The Sound of Waves), 1954
• Koi no Miyako (恋の都 The Capital of Love), 1954

No.5

• Megami (女神 Goddess), 1954 （Book Published in 1955）
• Shizumeru Taki (沈める滝 The Sunk Waterfall), 1955
• Kōfukugō Shuppan (幸福号出帆 The S.S. Happiness Sets Sail), 1956

No.6

• Kinkaku-ji (金閣寺 The Temple of the Golden Pavilion), 1956
• Nagasugita Haru (永すぎた春 Too Long a Spring), 1956
• Bitoku no Yoromeki (美徳のよろめき Misstepping of Virtue), 1957

No.7

• Kyōko no Ie (鏡子の家 Kyoko's House), 1959

No.8

• Utage no Ato (宴のあと After the Banquet), 1960
• Ojōsan (お嬢さん The Mademoiselle), 1960
• Kemono no Tawamure (獣の戯れ Beasts' Game), 1961

No.9

• Ai no Shissō (愛の疾走 Stampede of Love), 1963
• Gogo no Eikō (午後の曳航 The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea), 1963
• Nikutai no Gakkō (肉体の学校 School of the Flesh), 1964

No.10

• Utsukushii Hoshi (美しい星 Beautiful Star), 1962
• Kinu to Meisatsu (絹と明察 Silk and Insight), 1964

No.11

• Ongaku (音楽 The Music), 1964
• Mishima Yukio Letter Kyōshitsu (三島由紀夫レター教室 Yukio Mishima's Letter Classroom), 1968
• Yakaifuku (夜会服 Evening Dress), 1967

No.12

• Fukuzatsuna Kare (複雑な彼 That Complicated Guy), 1966
• Inochi Urimasu (命売ります Life for Sale), 1968

No.13

• Haru no Yuki (春の雪 Spring Snow), 1969
• Honba (奔馬 Runaway Horses), 1969

No.14

• Akatsuki no Tera (曉の寺 The Temple of Dawn), 1970
• Tennin Gosui (天人五衰 The Decay of the Angel), 1971)

--みしまるもも (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Graham Greene distinguished between his own novels and his own mere "entertainments", if I remember correctly; and even the (at his best) excellent (and Nobel-winning) Kawabata also knocked out forgettable stuff for the money. There could be a legitimate distinction between (A) a novel rightly considered part of a writer's real oeuvre (pardon the pretentious word) and (B) a lower order of novel. And there are other imaginable complications too. I'm not much impressed by flat statements that a writer wrote N novels, because (quality aside) I can see immediate problems with the simple/simplistic numbering of the novels by those authors whose work I happen to enjoy. (E.g. Nabokov: is his The Eye a novel or a mere novella, and should his The Enchanter be counted at all?) ¶ This seems to be an excellent opportunity for thinking editors to use reliable sources and their own brains, and work together to come up with intelligent numbers. I've written at greater length at Talk:Yukio Mishima bibliography, and suggest that the conversation should continue there rather than here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I bow to someone who seems to know much more about what he is talking about than I do. I also like the idea that we write "between X and Y novels..." While it's true that what is and is not a novel is debatable, giving a ballpark estimate is still very useful, if nothing else because it gives prospective readers who want to read all of an author's works warning whether they're dealing with someone with the output of Thomas Harris or John Kennedy Toole or Isaac Asimov. --GRuban (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf education: two sources

• Article: Waldorf education

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other sources

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

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

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

Benn: journalist book, not expert educationist, OK for uncontroversial facts. FT: good for news fact only. Ullrich: good source. Rather than the lede saying "it's controversial", which is not informative, it should summarise the detail in the "Responses" section. It doesn't need to introduce new sources. The article needs some copyedits by the way. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship in Islamic societies

An IP editor is removing Fox News as a source on this article claiming a consensus that it is unreliable based on this RFC, which I note was not closed and looks like no consensus to me. What is the consensus on Fox as a reliable source? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You could have informed me that you've decided to report me here. It's been about 2 hours, I find you very attitude very condescending to say the least. Just because I'm an IP doesn't make my reasoning any less valid. You're treatment towards me has been disgraceful. You've yet to open up a dialogue with me concerning this personally on my talkpage. Instead you've issued patronizing warnings which are nothing more than veiled threats against me and even a told me a blatant lie about my own edits. Why you've accused me of removing templates is beyond me. Please don't insult my intelligence, I can see clearly what you're doing. You're hoping to get me, at the very least, blocked here. You think you're superior to me and this is why you treat me like a child. I'll have you know I'm a professor of sociology and yes, if you would have, in good faith talked to me we could have resolved this ourselves. Please carry on with your petty attitude sir. 2.96.201.168 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not accused you of removing templates, as the editor removing the sources you should have used the talk page once reverted. I asked you to come here and get a second opinion. Two editors cannot decide if a major news network is unreliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To 2.96.201.168. This is a Noticeboard for more formal discussion about Reliable sources. Being mentioned here does not mean you have been "reported", and would not normally lead to anybody being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox News argues that they have both news and opinion journalists and that there is some separation between the two. I'm not completely convinced by this, but Fox has employed some highly respected correspondents - for instance Major Garrett, now at the National Journal. I don't think that we can take something reported on, say, The O'Reilly Factor as a reliable source, but I'm not sure we can automatically dismiss something from, say, Fox's White House correspondent. In this case we're looking at a story that repeatedly mentions that it was produced by foxnews.com. It would be helpful if someone could explain the editorial policies and reputation of that website, since I don't read it, but my sense is that we should treat it like we treat a journalistic article published in The Nation or Mother Jones. My understanding is that in those cases we acknowledge that the publication has a strong editorial position but that their journalistic work is generally well-respected and we look at articles on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it seems like the facts can be sourced to other news organizations.GabrielF (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have accused me of removing templates. But that's beside the point. I'm all for discussion of why Fox News is an unreliable source. I'm very puzzled why you've tried to "tell on me" as if we're two kids in a playground. There was ample evidence in the RfC for Fox News that at the very least, it's a highly questionable source to use, even if some of the things it says are factually correct. The other sources are fine (which is why I did not remove them). 2.96.201.168 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't want to get into a discussion on the edit-warring here (Bbb23 has warned the IP, and Darkness Shines should know), but I'm puzzled why DS would go to war over this. The statements are already well-sourced with the other references, and one of the Fox references was indeed from Bill O'Reilly's show, which is just about the last thing we should ever cite here. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who Bill O'Reilly is. I reverted only because references were being removed. I opened this discussion to see if that was right or wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

a. you're kidding, I'm sure. Bill O'Reilly (political commentator).

b. if you don't know, and someone removes it claiming "not a reliable source", then why the eagerness to put it back? Drmies (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

a. Nope, never heard of the guy.

b. To the best that I know Fox passes the criteria set out in WP:RS. Als owhen an IP removes a source saying the BLP is a liar I figure they are removing the source cos they do not like the person. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: assuming good faith is a good policy, but when an anonymous IP removes apparently useful source information, you have to be aware that there are sometimes hidden motives. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I am no Fox fan but this just looks like current affairs. Potentially it could be replaced by reports from another media source in order to avoid problems, but simple deletion looks a bit concerning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox news are reliable source its clearly meets the WP:RS criteria--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox meets WP:RS for all the claims which the IP seems not to like. That he "knows" it to be wrong is not how Misplaced Pages works. Collect (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We're beating a dead horse here, and I'll beat it some more: Bill O'Reilly (or that other one before him, Glenn Beck) is not a reliable source, even if Fox is. Judging whether something is reliable is obviously a matter of some editorial concern and deliberate evaluation. A blanket statement like "Fox is reliable" is simply incorrect: not everything on Fox is to be accepted (and that goes for other stations as well, of course). I'm not defending everything the IP did, but I certainly don't want to defend everything DS did. A better response would have been to investigate the issue, which in this case would mean learning who Bill O'Reilly is, and learning that differentiation is important. If DS had, for instance, restored everything but O'Reilly, they'd be on firmer ground. "I don't know who Bill O'Reilly is" makes DS's position extraordinarily weak, even if it doesn't make the IP's position any stronger (Collect, I certainly agree with your second sentence). Andrew Dalby, we are all anonymous here. Don't rag on IP editors because they're IP editors, and to suppose that they are more likely to have hidden motives than registered (and still anonymous) editors is a severe mistake. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ragging on anyone, Drmies. Some of the best and most useful edits on Vicipaedia, over the last six years, have been made by anonymous IPs, and here on Misplaced Pages too. We'd be much worse off without them. This is just a little thing you become aware of when you've watched for a while: an occasional anonymous IP edit will be the removal of a useful source reference or a useful name. If you make an edit like that with a named account, people might well come and ask you why you did it. If you make it with an IP address, there's usually no comeback. I happened to be dealing with a case like that on Vicipaedia (here -- the same thing has been done anonymously on the French Misplaced Pages as well), and that's why Darkness Shines's comment struck a chord with me. Andrew Dalby 10:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something. Fox is the source under discussion, but is it a Bill O'Reilly opinion piece? I think he was just mentioned as an example of what is wrong with Fox? A lot of media outlets have opinionators who are controversial for reporting news, but that does not make all their news services unreliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies - if Bill O'Rielly is not a reliable source then we should start scratching off all opinion news journalists. Let's also throw Piers Morgan and Michael Goodwin in that pile then. Or alternatively, let's not. Because these folks are professionals and are paid to be opinion columnists, they are accountable to their publishers and producers, and when written in that respect on Misplaced Pages, they make reliable sources. And to add, I have nothing good to say about Bill O'Rielly.--v/r - TP 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd never consider Piers Morgan a reliable source, and I'm on his side in some hot-button issues. We should scratch all those opinion news people (i.e., entertainers): I don't even think of them as journalists. Anywayz, happy dayz to you TParis. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

They get paid for their opinion. I'd call them all reliable sources even if they're only reliable sources on their opinion. They are professionals, if you stretch the term. I don't recall the last time I saw Piers do standup on Comedy Central. Sunday Monday, Drmies ;) --v/r - TP 21:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

According to RS guideline wp:IRS newsorg opinion pieces (which is what O'Rielly does) is not reliable for facts; it is only reliable for stating his opinions, which in most articles will be irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. This thread is about Fox News, not Bill O'Rielly.--v/r - TP 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? If one looks at the diffs, one of them is attributed to O'Reilly. Moreover, the above discussion responded to was how to deal with newsorg opinion pieces, such as from O'Reilly: in general we don't use them, unless somehow their opinion is so important that we need to say, "so-and-so says." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If the main point of contention is Fox News as a source for the reasons for South Park making changes to an episode, then I'd be cautious. Is this fact or opinion? Are Fox News reports reliable to the extent that we don't expect them to present a guess as a fact? I wouldn't be very sure of that. Formerip (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is clearly a reliable source. Some care should be exercised in differentiating between straight new sources and opinion pieces (including talk shows by political pundits). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is ever "reported" here. This is not a disciplinary project. Fox News has been discussed on multiple occasions before, please refer to the archives and come back if there is a dimension that we haven't got consensus on. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. Concerning opinionators such as O'Reilly, they can be problematic for many types of news, but their opinions can also be notable and useful to put in an article sometimes. Generally in such cases we would explicitly state whose opinions we are giving, and not allow it to be said in Misplaced Pages's voice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Gamelan gong gede

Resolved

Gamelan gong gede has no reliable sources. Unsourced material has been thrice restored without any in-line citations (or any citations) in the last hour, thrice violating WP:Verifiability, which suggests posting here. Administrative attention is requested. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Editors have added in-line citations to parts of the article, so this is resolved. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Source for Progressive Utilization Theory

• Source: Bellamy, Denis (1999). "Progressive Utilisation Theory". http://www.culturalecology.info/. Going Green Directorate. Retrieved January 22, 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
• Article: Progressive utilization theory
• Content: Specific content using this source has yet to be determined. Per various discussions as Talk:Progressive utilization theory, the article is in the middle of a major restructuring in order to address issues related to an overabundance of primary source material. This source has been proposed as a reliable secondary source. The information appears to be self-published; however, the author, User:Denis Bellamy, appears to be an academic. Location (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be treated as an expert's self-published writing. Reliable for what PROUT advocates. Not a wonderful source. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish it went through a normal publisher or appeared on an academic website, but it does seem to be an accurate reflection of the philosophy according to what I have seen in primary sources and other secondary sources. Thanks for the reply! Location (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: WP:SPS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I just noticed that Bellamy is a Professor Emeritus of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy (i.e he is an expert in a particular field of the natural sciences, not the social sciences). Does that influence the use of this particular self-published source? Location (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It weakens it a bit, but see that he has a role in mainstream ecosystems management. . This PROUT stuff really is hard to fathom. From its own presentation, its ideas are motherhood and apple pie, or at least liberal social democratic environmentalism. Yet there are sources asserting that it is a violent cult. Weird world. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Kim Jones at About.com on Christian music

I have an anon stating that "The Changing Face of Christian Music", which is on About.com and written by Kim Jones is not a reliable source. It is used three times in the contemporary Christian music article

1. A direct quote linking the Jesus movement of the early 1970s to the formation of a major Christian music industry, which is supported with other references in the paragraph.
2. A similar statement relating how Christian music had, until the late 1960s, been primarily church music.
3. A quote indicating that by the Christian bands were crossing-over to non-Christian (mainstream) radio.

Is this a reliable source or not? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ascribed to Mark Writght and dated April 1, 2009 has much of the exact same language <g>. I think using something as a source which has multiple copyvios is not per Misplaced Pages policy. Find the earliest source you can for any such claims - about.com does not seem to make it. Collect (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Material published on about.com should virtually never be taken as reliable. At best the pieces may be an WP:SPS by an established expert in the field (in cases where they are written by established experts in that field). At any rate it appears there are other sources that can be used for the same information.Cúchullain /c 16:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SPS on European borders

An editor is trying to use this page to cite a European border at Boundaries between continents. The site appears to be some sort of personal blog, and I reckon there'd have to be either a very strong source or quite a few to put any definition on the standing of the others. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I'm adding that definition to the "historical" section where multiple other definitions are already mentioned. That particular one wasn't, so for completeness I added it among the others. I'm not suggesting to replace "the modern definition" (as defined elsewhere in the article) with that one or anything like that. Japinderum (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The website http://www.phespirit.info is not a reliable source for geographic borders. It does not appear to be an academic source and there is no indication that the author is an expert on the subject. If the author had provided sourcing for the comment, then perhaps there would be some trail to follow. Location (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Your attention is called to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. Please comment on whether the website at "Billionaire's Bogus Legal Threats Against Bloggers Threaten Free Speech" can be a Reliable Source at Frank L. VanderSloot#Defamation lawsuit threats. The exact statement in the article is

According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal. the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.

Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Trevor Timm is described by the EFF as Trevor Timm is an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He specializes in surveillance, free speech, and government transparency issues.. His opinions can be cited as his opinions, but there is no indication that his columns are reportorial rather than purely editorial in nature, nor does a fair reading of his post indicate that it is "news" and not "opinion." Collect (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this is an editorial. Timm also appears to be discussing the report that Salon already posted. Is there an argument made for the necessity of including the reference to EFF and the citation? Location (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Press+1 a reliable source?

I'm involved with an AfD where an editor is trying to say that the review website Press+1 is a reliable source. Even though it has been up since 2007, I'm not entirely convinced that it is. It looks to be that the site doesn't have a set reviewing staff and takes random reviews from anyone. There might be some quality checking, but there's no way of actually being able to verify how in-depth it is. The AfD in question is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy (2nd nomination) and there are also some sources in question, such as this article from AWN. I'm almost convinced it's a press release or taken predominantly from one, as the names of the show and its crew are all in capital letters, something that is pretty common in press releases.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I had never heard of it, but it seems to be under editorial control. with named contributors and an editor-in-chief. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Film Fail Awards

Resolved

We are having a disagreement about these negative Bollywood awards being RS or not. There was a lengthy discussion on the Jab Tak Hai Jaan talk page to include negative awards that had user voting just like the Golden Kelas and Ghantas. Now there are more negative awards like the Film Fail awards which are nominated by some of the most esteemed critics and journalists in India http://filmfailawards.com/jury/. A more detailed discussion is available on the Dabangg 2 talk page. A user keeps on reverting my edits because he says this is not RS. It is clearly RS as the reviews by all of these people are included in the film's pages. Can you help decide if this is RS or not? Thanks. Ashermadan (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC) It is an amateur looking blog site running on Wordpress. It is spam. It is most definitely not a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The website is made by http://www.theanthill.in which is one of the most recognized site makers in India. Just look at who the members of the Jury are. Even Rajeev Masand, the best critics in India, talked about them. Ashermadan (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC) From Dabangg 2 Talk Page: Film Fail Awards are a reliable source as a panel of esteemed critics decided them. Golden Kela, Ghanta, Screen and Filmfare all had public voting and are considered reliable sources. As long as they're talked about in the media and are affiliated with reliable sources like Rajeev Masand (CNN-IBN), Anirudhha Guha (DNA India), Baradwaj Rangan (The Hindu), Mihir Fadnavis (Mid-Day), Raja Sen (Rediff), and Rituparna Chatterjee (also CNN-IBN) it's RS. Look here: http://filmfailawards.com/jury/ . We had this discussion during the Ghantas and Kela debate and this was decided. Film Fail awards have more credibility than the Kelas which Zee supported and which aren't even affiliated with any critic and also have public voting. You cannot be the judge of what is RS, we have to abide by Misplaced Pages rules. Zee did not bother to read the jury section or even open the about section. Even Rajeev Masand, one of the top critics in India, is talking about them. Look here: https://twitter.com/RajeevMasand/status/294085421967765506 . Ashermadan (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable press, outside area of expertise.

I recently removed the following ref

<ref>'While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained ''in situ,'' and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.'],''Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry,'' Psychology Press 1999 p.201</ref>

from the Palestinian people article, due to the fact Micahel Prior is not a historian. It is being claimed on the talk page that because the material was published by Psychology Press, it may be used in the article for information about history, which is outside Prior's expertise. Is this correct?

And a related question - is it true that anything published by an academic press is considered prima facie reliable? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My reading of WP:RS leads me to the conclusion that a book is reliable if either the author is an acknowledged expert in the field or if the publisher is a well-respected academic publisher. I see the argument above as one that removes the second condition completely. If only experts in the field are "reliable sources", why mention the publisher at all in WP:RS? And just to note, Psychology Press is part of the Taylor & Francis group. nableezy - 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally independent of this question I recently added to,WP:HISTRS the idea that social scientists other than historians can be reliable for history, ifthey are writing within their area of expertise. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Prior is a theologian of biblical theology, so the history of Israel from the time of the Assyrians to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt is hardly completely out of his area of expertise. Moreover, as far as I can tell, what he says in the quoted part is a fair reflection of mainstream opinion. It's certainly true, even according to Biblical sources, that e.g. the Babylonian Captivity only affected some parts of the population (mostly upper classes and skilled craftsmen), not the population at large. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, he'd be an expert on what the bible says that history is. But that's not really what this ref is used to support in the article. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted here that the article, Palestinian People is not a historical article. The statement the source is being used to support is the first sentence of the lead defining the subject: "The Palestinian people, (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī) also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn), are the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab." The definition of Palestinian People is not a historical question and it is reasonable, in my view, to use experts in a number of scholarly disciplines to give a rounded definition of the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Prior was a professor of Biblical Theology, so no matter how you look at it, the quote is outside his area of expertise. Certainly the part that supposedly (but not quite) supports the sentence in the article. So the question remains - is the fact this was published by an academic press enough to make it reliable? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He could be a good source about Biblical theology but not about historical fact.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Prior is not the only thing to consider here. I agree with NMMNG on what question is outstanding, and I would love to not see this devolve into a contest to see who turns out the most votes. Lets see what people who are actually uninvolved in the topic area say about a question that applies to more than single source and a single sentence. Please. nableezy - 06:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine that something published by an academic press is likely to be accurate, especially as this seems to broadly fall within the author's field of expertise and (based on my understanding) isn't a controversial statement. However, there have to be much better sources which specialise in the topic which should be referenced instead; we're doing our readers a disservice by directing them to works which aren't focused on the subject. I'd suggest finding a scholarly work on the historical demographics of the region and citing that instead (such a work is also likely to provide additional details or nuances which aren't included in the work in question here which can be used to improve the article). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

expertise in Biblical history means expertise in the ancient history of Palestine-- and Prior certainly qualifies. See his book on Prior, Michael,, Western scholarship and the history of Palestine Melisende, 1998, which is cited in numerous scholarly books and articles. Rjensen (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution