Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 4 November 2013 (Archiving 19 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 158) (bot). 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

Religious demographic data in Russia

In the article Russia's infobox, statistics on religious affiliations in Russia from the CIA World Factbook have twice been replaced by statistics from the following two sources:

• sreda.org (the Independent Research Service, a Russian NGO founded in 2011)
• Kommersant (a series of maps, their legends all in Russian, published on the web site of a Russian newspaper)

I make no claim that the new figures aren't accurate, but I am not persuaded that their reliability has been adequately assessed. Note that the new figures are significantly different from the previous ones. I opened a discussion on the talk page but the user reinserting the content has not replied thus far. Additional opinions would be much appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It hardly matters. Religious demographic data is notoriously unreliable at the best of times. Even the CIA fact book has to use local, widely differing sources, depending on self identification in response to wildly differing census or other questions the book has no control over. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. However, I think it does matter. Just because the best sources on a particular topic are flawed doesn't mean we might as well throw up our hands in despair and use any old sources. Using the most reliable sources available to us goes some way towards safeguarding articles from insertion of content based not only on misinformation but also on disinformation. (Not that the CIA is above peddling the latter, but that's rather beyond the scope of this thread.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone else care to offer an opinion? Pretty please? Rivertorch (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to take the CIA World Factbook as any more reliable than the other sources cited. As HiLo48 says, they don't do research on such things, they merely cite whatever they can find. If we don't have reliable sources, we should tell the reader so, rather than citing questionable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, then. The only way I can think of to "tell the reader so" is by way of inline maintenance tags, which I have now added (and noted on the talk page). My sense about it was that the CIA source, warts and all, is at least a known quantity, whereas sreda.org is very new, which makes it hard to tell where they're coming from. I hope the tags will inspire someone with bilingual skills and a knack for checking foreign-language sources to look into this more closely someday. Thanks much to both Andy and HiLo for their input. Rivertorch (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion was asked by the person who added the new sources, and I'll repeat the pertinent part of it here as well. Personally, I don't have a problem with the sources being added—they both are reliable in the WP:RS sense. Kommersant in particular is a well-known publisher of various regional stats. I do, nevertheless, lean to using the CIA Factbook figures, since that's what's used most often in the articles about other countries, making it possible to directly compare the stats across different articles. As HiLo48 said, the religious demographic stats often vary wildly from one source to another, so the least we can do for our readers is to use the same source consistently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2013; 20:59 (UTC)

Good point. However, without making some major changes to the section, which I won't undertake at present, I don't see any way to put the Factbook figures back in. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is the main Russia article, but there is also a subsidiary article with the focus on religion. It has a breakdown of the smerda-dataset, in a table all by itself. Suggest adding a table with the CIA dataset, for comparison purposes... or if possible, a combined table, which shows the CIA/smerda/kommmersat percentages, or even better, 1980/1990/2000/2010 triplets. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a repository for huge tracts of land vast statistical tabulations, but when the sources conflict, we should describe the conflict in a way that mirrors the sources, not pick winners and losers.

   Agree that the *prose* sections cannot easily be repaired... but note that the pie-chart (which is in both the top-level Russia as well as the subsidiary article) can be tweaked to advertise the conflicting-source-problem. For example, in the big purple 'orthodox' section, there is enough room to say "30% to 49%" or whatever the real numbers are, and then hyperlink that line-of-text to the separate-tables-or-combo-table down in the subsidiary article. Readers (and editors) that really care about the answer, will at least realize that the 'answer' you get is highly dependent on who is doing the answering, and will not have to hunt up the raw numbers themselves. HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy

1. Source. Bernstein, David (January 8, 2008). "More Trouble for Ron Paul". Volokh Conspiracy..
2. Article. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
3. Content. The source is used to describe the views of George Mason University Law Professor (and libertarian) David Bernstein regarding the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Specifically, the source is used to note that Bernstein believes the Institute is associated ("plays footsie") with racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists. No particular person, living or dead, is mentioned, and these views are specifically attributed to Bernstein.

The basic question is: Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?

I ask that editors involved in the Mises Institute page offer their views as to whether it is an RS on a separate thread below. With so many problems and allegations of bias/edit warring on the Mises pages, we need the input of uninvolved editors. Steeletrap (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification question

Are asking about:

1. With respect to establish the statement being made, or to
2. establish (per the RS-based wp:npov requirements) that rs's have covered it in relation to the article topic for inclusion in that particular article?

North8000 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

North, thank you for asking for this clarification. It has compelled me to form the question in a more specific and made way. However, I ask that you delete this post (or move it down to the "involved users" thread) because it is cluttering the thread.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

The clarification moves it a step towards resolution which is to show that it is now somewhat self-conflicting because you are still referring to presence in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article which is a different (higher) standard than how you have framed the question. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

The source is certainly reliable for his own statements, but a throwaway comment like this is unsuitable for use in an article in my opinion. The post is about Ron Paul, and only mentions LVMI in passing. Certainly this is too weak to be used on any individual BLP page, where you would be causing a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to link the statement to that person, where they are obviously not mentioned in the source. Additionally, as a WP:SPS, the statement would be a brightline BLP violation for any BLP article. In the context of the LVMI article itself, it is less objectionable, but still so, because of the throwaway nature of the statement, and there is no evidence that Bernstein's opinion on LMVI is notable (is he known for writing about them? no.), and selection of this quote out of context, creates a WP:OR WP:POV issue. Why is this quote selected, out of the thousands or millions of other possible quotes about the LMVI? and is still a WP:SPS which should be used exceedingly sparingly. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(reply to uninvolved editor by OP) Concerns about notability of the source are off-topic as far as the reliability of a source goes. I do strongly disagree with your view in that regard, however. That a major libertarian legal scholar refuses to publish with the Institute bc of its association with racists/anti-semites seems very notable, even if Bernstein's mention of this was cursory in an article about Ron Paul. Steeletrap (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The source may be reliable, but after reading what the source actually says and the way it is (was) used in the article is a clear BLP violations. The sentence included says ".view that the Institute "play footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists." This goes beyond what Bernstein said and is a BLP violation. Bernstein did not directly associate LVM with any specific group other than general conspiracy theories. He listed a number of conspiracy theories along with racists and anti-Semites, but did not make a direct connection. Also he said "Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them." A direct reading of "latter types" per his previous paragraph would be "to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc." but even that is Original Research. The question of RS is really moot because the source, as was used, was a clear violation of BLP via Synthesis of Material. I have removed it as a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable and a BLP violation. This appears to be a self-published source. You can't use an SPS as a third-party source about living people. Period. See WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• The Volokh Conspiracy is not a reliable source for this topic. It is a self-published source, and they can only "be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So it might well be permissible to use a post by David Bernstein on US evidence law or US constitutional history, which are areas in which he is an academic expert, but he is not a published expert on the Ludwig von Mises Institute and therefore this cannot be used. Neljack (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• This may be a valid source if it is accurately described, but it is not accurate to say that Bernstein thinks LVMI plays footsie with racists. He said LVMI plays footsie with people who "hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories". I do not think Bernstein said (or meant) that LVM plays footsie with that entire range (i.e. with every single person or every single viewpoint within that range). Anyway, this does seem to be a BLP issue even though LVMI is a group rather than an individual. LVMI appears to be a small group, and so BLP applies. According to the BLP, "The institute has a staff of 16 Senior Fellows and about 70 adjunct scholars from the United States and other countries." According to WP:BLPN, "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." If this does fall under BLP policy, then the Bernstein stuff probably cannot be included in the LVMI article: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved Editors

• I am somewhat involved, having recently edited at the article's talk page but not about this source. The "plays footsie" connection is very weak. I think too much is being made of the Bernstein source—it is thin soup, with no absolute statements made, just implications. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, the only reason "too much" is being made of this RS citation is because of the unfounded attempt to impeach it, contrary to policy, to deny the associated text. "Played footsie" is quoted in the text, so there's no question the source said it. If the RS said "facilitated" or "enabled" instead of this quirky but clear figure of speech, the meaning would be identical. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Having initiated the BRD at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Blog & law student commentary, I'll briefly restate: The source is a group blog, Bernstein is actually commenting about Ron Paul & the Mises.org comment is incidental, Bernstein is a professor of law and the subject of "Mises.org", its' history or philosophy is not within his area of expertise. Also, I note that Bernstein said "Congrats to the Mises Institute on this project a staggering array of libertarian literature on-line...." – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Added comment: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says cited material should "directly support the information as it is presented". The blog posting fails in this regard. 19:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you're wikilawyering again but your claims as usual, are tenuous and transparent. Suppose you were a trial attorney and Bernstein were an expert witness in the field of entomology. Suppose he testified that he saw an African killer honeybee sting the plaintiff, your client, in the ass. Do you think you could get the judge to strike the testimony because the entomologist doesn't have academic training in human anatomy? Your argument, which you use to contest source after source here, is specious. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My client is a strawman, so killer bees can't harm him. In any case, your analogy to trial practice does not help in this discussion. Testimony from a percipient witness is always admissible evidence if the witness is competent and the evidence is probative. So if the witness saw the bee sting someone, that testimony is admissible. The bee-keeper expert witness might be competent/qualified to testify about bee behavior, but may not be competent to testify about the effects of bee venom on humans. (As a percipient witness, s/he could say s/he saw the bee sting someone on the ass.) In this case Bernstein can testify that he did not accept an invitation to publish with Mises.org, but cannot testify as an expert that Mises.org had any particular characteristics. His lay opinion about Mises.org would not be admissible. Along the same lines, his blog comment about turning down an invitation to publish is not encyclopedic even if he gives an opinion on why. – S. Rich (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich - You managed to completely misrepresent my example and question, which was so brief, to the point, and carefully worded that your evasive reply (I do assume you understood my words) only strengthens the obvious inference that you are wikilawyering and throwing up specious and unfounded theories. Please re-read my message and you will see that your remark above concedes and affirms my rejection of your argument. You have made no credible or even coherent argument for rejecting what is manifestly a Reliable Source for the content on which it's cited. Case closed, as Judge Judy would say. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• (OP) It seems to me that Volokh Conspiracy, one of the most widely-viewed websites in the legal world (regularly cited by the NYT, WP, and other mainstream news sources), whose writers are tenured professors at second-tier, first-tier, and elite law schools, is a reliable source for the views of Bernstein (which is the only thing it is used to source in the article). It seems to me that a major libertarian scholar's refusal to publish with the Institute bc of its alleged association with bigots is notable. But concerns regarding notability are off-topic; this thread is about reliability of sources. Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• This www.volokh.com search shows only a few uses of the site . This WP:RSN found it not appropriate for WP:BLPs. Since the institute is made of individuals, a number of whom are mentioned in the article, I don’t think it should be used to make a blanket accusation of “racists, anti-semites, and conspiracy theorists”. If it's used it should be within the context of being written during the Ron Paul newsletters revelations period (because a lot of people panicked and disassociated selves or were far more critical than today). So, in addition to comments above, another reason not to use it. User:Carolmooredc 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Carol. Two points. 1) BLP isn't applicable here because no particular person is mentioned. Broad statements about institutions are not BLP statements. If I say something like "BYU is full of homophobes", "Brooklyn Polytechnic students don't do their homework", or "The Mises Institute is full of racists", I won't be accused of libel even if I provide no evidence (and indeed even if the statements are false), because that's not the same as making those statements about a living (or dead) person. This is an important logical distinction.

2) Volokh has been used 203 times in WP articles. I have never heard the term "a few" applied to such a huge number. Steeletrap (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarified above - uses of the site as a reference. Also note that BLP concerns are expressed as part of RSN notices above. BLP implications of this are now under discussion at Misplaced Pages:ANI#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute. User:Carolmooredc 21:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Volokh is RS for this content This is a straightforward statement which is directly supported by the source, I see no problem with this one. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is fatally flawed The question is posed as merely supporting the statement, but but context is a totally different standard. 01:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the setup question – The basic question is: "Is the Volokh Conspiracy a reliable source to establish that Bernstein made the statement attributed to him above?" – is flawed. It is safe to assume that Bernstein made the statement posted in the blog. (And thus meets requirement #4 in WP:ABOUTSELF.) But editors are commenting about the appropriateness of using Bernstein's comment in the context of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it is rs for what Bernstein said. The real issue is WP:WEIGHT. A website that says the moon-landing was faked for example may be rs for what specific writers have said, but that does not mean they should be included in articles about the moon-landing. TFD (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TFD. If I understand your view, then, the discussion should take place on the article talk page, without further debate as to reliability of the source? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it never should have come here. The question posed was never an issue at the article, and the question at the article has not been posed here, and someone incorrectly implied that it was. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks North. I ask the group then, are we ready to close this thread as RS confirmed and discuss the WEIGHT question back at article talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

First, it's clear that most editors do agree it's undue weight and on those grounds should be removed. Considering that Volokh Conspiracy only has been used a couple times as a reference. I think it's reliability for what still looks like a personal blog entry, unedited, negative personal opinion which by implication casts aspersions on dozens of individuals is questionable. I don't see any ref that he's a "libertarian" or anything like that in his bio. And his comment could be motivated by biased factionalism. User:Carolmooredc 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I think you're getting confused again. The weight issue should be discussed, but this is not the proper place for that. Rather than throw up all your balls in the air at once, you should try to separate your concerns and address them in the proper venues. Once again, nobody has stated that the weight issue is resolved, but the RS question appears to have been resolved. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The group blog is RS only in one respect – we do not dispute that Bernstein said what he said (WP:ABOUTSELF #4). But another factor must be considered – what is the subject of his comment? This is needed because ABOUTSELF #2 restricts comments about third parties and #3 says blog comments may "not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" . Because Bernstein's blog comments involve third parties and because Bernstein goes beyond claims and events not directly related to him, the question of WEIGHT does not come into play. (WEIGHT would be considered in Bernstein's article, not other articles.) The non-involved editors opine that it is not RS in this context and most of the involved editors opine not RS as well. – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, please. It doesn't say related exclusively to the source. You are misstating and misapplying policy. What would be related exclusively to the source? "Bernstein said he believes that his arms are too long" ? Many editors here, including myself are prepared to consider the WEIGHT issue on the article talk page, where such discussion belongs. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

SRich makes a good point. To me it's just one more in a long line of self-published negative/hostile opinion pieces some editors want to use in the Austrian Economics articles, which happily is now under official community sanctions here. User:Carolmooredc 16:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Closure proposal

1) We close the RSN as solved, with Bernstein's Volokh post clearly being a reliable source for Bernstein's views (this would be progress, as many were questioning the RS aspect of this on the talk page, and now are shifting to other concerns). 2) We create an RfC on the LvMI page to address WP:Undue and WEIGHT concerns with the use of Bernstein. 3) We do not re-add Bernstein into the article until a consensus has been developed. Steeletrap (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with this proposal: One, it stages the question as if the RS issue on Bernstein is settled "as RS", which is not the case. Two, this closure proposal only serves to prolong a needlessly convoluted discussion. That is, the issue was raised at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Blog & law student commentary and hashed out quite enough on this page. And it proposes to throw the issue back onto the article talk page. (Reminder, RS is determined in terms of how the source is used a la WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.) If enough discussion has ensued, then a WP:ANRFC should be posted. (And I recommend that one be posted.) I am confident that the reviewing (and dauntless) admin can figure out the issues, thereby giving us peace. (And I doubt that an RfC would bring in anything new or useful). – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Note – a WP:ANRFC has been posted. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A request for closure immediately following a rejection of respected editor Steeletrap's proposal? With no resolution of the disagreement? How could that possibly make sense? I am dumbfounded by this request, Srich. Closing Admins are not here to choose one side or the other, they are here to recognize consensus. Srich, you are premature. Please withdraw. Reinsert at consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• (OP) Support 1) Bernstein's views are clearly accurately described and do not relate to a living person. WP:BLPGROUP states that statements about organizations (that do not name particular people) are not generally considered BLP statements. There is no compelling argument prevented above that LvMI -- a huge org with by its own account 350 associated scholars (1) and a multi-million endowment -- should be an exception to this general rule. 2) Weight and undue concerns are legitimate, but should be hashed out on talk page, as it's off-topic for purposes of an RSN (use of a source can be undue even if it's reliable, and vice versa.) 3) Re-adding the material would serve to polarize editors and encourage edit warring. Steeletrap (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is clear from the above discussion that the Bernstein bit is not appropriate for the article. Whether it is reliable for Bernstein's opinion turns out not to be as important as other considerations such as weight, balance, applicability, accuracy, etc. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Our job here is to determine RS for the associated content. Weight, undue, and "accuracy" are not what we decide at RSN. Please review the thread -- editors are prepared to discuss your stated concerns on article talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Three sources on Ludwig von Mises Institute article

I’ll make each a subsection. While these are in different stages of debate, we might as well address the repeated use of questionable sources in one thread. (Volokh Conspiracy originally was on the list.) User:Carolmooredc 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Gene Callahan personal blog

• This sentence: In a discussion about alleged racism in the Institute, former Institute Scholar Gene Callahan noted that the Institute had sought to appeal to racists for years, citing Neo-Confederate causes, but also said that "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time ... I got there" in in the early 2000s.
  • Ref: Gene Callahan’s blog “La Bocca della Verità”, article “Murphy on LVMI”, January 2, 2012

• Discussed here:

1. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_156#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com Recent WP:RSN discussion ruled not usable for another statement.
2. Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Callahan_personal_blog_material_.28BRD.29 discusses this use in more detail.
   

Uninvolved editors

• Unreliable and a BLP violation Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. See WP:SPS for further information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I read the policy, and that's absolutely not what it says. It says we can't use self-published sources where there is risk of WP:BLP violation, but there is no such risk because the LvMI is not a living person, or even a small organization of them.

I am forced to conclude that, as your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of policy, it has no bearing on this issue. Please read WP:SPS and WP:BLP more carefully, and consider them before further involvement. MilesMoney (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? You are forced to conclude? I'm the fifth most frequent contributor to RSN so perhaps my opinion shouldn't be so easily dismissed without reason. But if you think I've missed something in regards to WP:SPS and WP:BLP, then I encourage you to point it out. Unfortunately, you've failed to do so, so I am sticking to my previous opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Since AQFK has quoted directly from WP:SPS, I'm not sure how MilesMoney can opine "that's absolutely not what it says". Bizarre or what? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What's bizarre is that you think a rule against BLP violations can apply to reliable sourcing in cases where BLP is impossible. MilesMoney (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable Again, a self-published source can only "be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There is no evidence that Callahan is a published expert on the Mises Institute or racism. Neljack (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The subject matter is the LvMI, which advocates Austrian economics and provides jobs for people like Callahan. As an economist and former member, he is eminently qualified to speak on this matter. If you'll pardon my skepticism, you seem to be defining the requirements so tightly that absolutely no real person could qualify. In reality, our requirements are intended only to prevent people from talking about things they have no expertise in, which is obviously not the case here. MilesMoney (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Originator opines: It's self-published, he's making a throw-a-way comment about his past experience, not a reasoned analysis from specific incidents/statements/etc. from a libertarian "expert" perspective.
• RS for this content It's preposterous to assert that only "a libertarian expert" is able to recognize what, in his opinion, is racist. Anyway, Callahan happens to be one of the foremost living libertarian experts and was a key Mises Institute scholar on site for many years. So it's a no-go double whammy trying to impeach this source. This issue has already been vetted, shredded, sliced and diced on the article talk page. Callahan's blog is RS here. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• RS for this content This falls under WP:ABOUTSELF as the assertions of Callahan are attributed to him, and not presented as if they were facts (nor are there any statements about people dead or alive). Callahan was one of the Institute's most high-profile scholars, so his criticism of the Institute is particularly notable. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Non-RS – This is Callahan's personal reflections on what might have occurred before he came to Mises.org. The statement he makes does not directly support the information presented in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It violates WP:ABOUTSELF #3 because he is commenting on "about events not directly related to the source ". – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, that's the sixth different reason you've trotted out to quash Callahan. None have been valid, and the cumulative effect of swinging blindly at the perceived pinata is making it hard for readers even to give each new assertion serious consideration. (Of course we do, but it's difficult. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• RS for this content It's WP:ABOUTSELF by an expert witness. Callahan is fully qualified to comment on the organization that he was a member of. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Even if he was not a member at the time he refers to? - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. His membership qualifies him to compare the state of the organization during his stay with what he knew about it prior to that. Membership makes him an expert opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

He certainly has expertise on the past of the organization having been a prominent scholar in it. A Catholic Cardinal knows more about Church history than a layperson, even if he "wasn't there".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

I'd like to see you verify your analogy regarding cardinals because it seems like pure opinion to me: are members of the Catholic clergy ecclesiastically ranked according to their knowledge of church history? What about church historians who are not members of the clergy and are therefore uninvolved? As for Callahan, he may well struggle to fairly compare something he did not experience with something that he did experience. I've no idea how much his opinion might be influenced by hearsay, for example. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not RS, at least not for this stuff. Recently got to the article via the drama on ANI, SPS is quite clear on this, Callahan is not being used to cite anything about his expertise (economics), he is being used to cite stuff about racism, neo confederate causes, and all this before he even joined the bloody group. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bleeding Heart Libertarians web blog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• This sentence: In a discussion of the paleolibertarian period of the Mises Institute, Austrian economist Steven Horwitz criticized what he describes as the Institute's "numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers".
  • Ref: Steven Horwitz, "How Did We Get Here? Or, Why Do 20 Year Old Newsletters Matter So Damn Much?", Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.

• This sentence: Horwitz and political scientist Jacob Levy state that Rothbard identified the need to attract social and religious conservatives to establish a libertarian-conservative fusion constituency, distinct from the more socially progressive followers of Cato and the Koch Brothers.
  • Ref: Jacob Levy, "Ron Paul continued." Bleeding Heart Libertarians website, December 23, 2011.

• Discussed here: Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Several_unreliable_sources.3F but no response on this specific source.
  

Uninvolved editors

Involved editors

• Originator opines: These both are self-published blog entries on an advocacy site, as discussed at the about us page. "All of us who blog at this site are, broadly speaking, libertarians." Just negative personal self-published opinions that don't belong on Misplaced Pages. User:Carolmooredc 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• RS for this content An author's being "broadly speaking, libertarian" doesn't disqualify the author. If it did, we couldn't use sources involving any of the Mises Fellows, its Founders, or even Mises himself. Horowitz is a distinguished Austrian economist, and this statement is credible RS for the WP content it supports. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• RS for this content Non-libertarians don't tend to write much about libertarians, especially not at the same level of detail. BHL is a perfectly good source. MilesMoney (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Remnant (newspaper)

• This paragraph: The Catholic journalist Christopher Ferrara responded in the "The Remnant" newspaper to Mises Institute scholars Llewellyn Rockwell and Mises Fellow Thomas Woods' criticism of his 2010 book "The Church and the Libertarian: A Defense of the Catholic Church's Teaching on Man, Economy, and State". Ferrara criticized the Institute's outreach efforts to Catholics and its attempts to persuade them that anarcho-capitalism is compatible with Catholicism. He wrote that part of the "Institute’s mission is to sell Catholics an outrageously phony bill of goods: that a school of thought dedicated to the legacy of , a radically laissez-faire liberal agnostic who defended the legal right to starve unwanted children to death" and as being compatible with and even congenial to Catholic principles.
  • Ref: Christopher Ferrara, Fury in the Cult of Rothbard, The Remnant, September 4, 2013

• Discussed here: Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Several_unreliable_sources.3F but no response on this specific source.
  

Uninvolved editors

• I basically agree with S. Rich. In fact, I would go further and say that the material should be excluded from the article altogether on UNDUE grounds. There should be no shortage of criticism of the Institute to include, but I can't see why we should include a paragraph about an article in an obscure newspaper by an obscure author responding to criticism of his obscure book. We don't just include any old person's opinion at criticism - we look for people with expertise, prominence or influence. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I (an involved editor) disagree because the LvMI makes a major point of being -- in contrast to libertarian groups -- an organization sympathetic to religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Ferrara is well-published, in mainstream RS and publishing houses, about religious and theological matters; he is a good RS for purposes of responding to the Mises Institute's attempts to recruit Catholics to its ideology. Steeletrap (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Originator opines: According to its Misplaced Pages article, The Remnant (newspaper) is an extremist advocacy site which Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate site; it doesn't call Mises Institute one, FYI. This sort of publication not usually considered WP:RS, even if articles seem to be passed by the editor Michael J. Matt. User:Carolmooredc 22:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• One can be hateful while still having solid/reliable scholarly standards (see most famous Western philosophers); do not conflate the two. Ferrara is a well educated guy, attended a top 30 law school (Fordham), has had a fairly prolific career as a journalist, and has published academic works with mainstream publications. He's an RS. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable source for the opinion, but placement/emphasis is undue. In an earlier edit I put the Ferrera comments into a footnote . Later on they were restored to the text. A full paragraph for his comments, and a second footnote to his book which does not provide page numbers for criticisms of Mises.org (which may or may not exist), does not further WP:BALANCE. – S. Rich (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Publications promoting hate cannot by definition be reliable sources because their objective is to defame (i.e., present false information). Individuals are not reliable sources, it depends on where their writings are published. Barnes for example had articles published in academic journals, which are rs, but his writings on holocaust denial are not. And opinion pieces are not rs for facts. We are supposed to present topics in accordance with how they are presented in reliable sources. Unfortunately, there is no extensive writing about the LvMI and its writers, hence little to report. TFD (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Brigham Young University is (arguably) hateful against LGBT people, yet its academic journals are (properly) deemed RS. Aristotle -- a grotesque sexist -- is an RS. I don't think there is a tight logical connection between hatefulness and lack of scholarly rigor. Steeletrap (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Better source

The Dina Eastwood article needs a source for her middle name. I think that This PDF file of divorce papers filed October 22, 2013 is a better source than This tabloid article containing a copy of one page of legal separation papers that have since been revoked and need approval. Mystiques00 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that either citation is useable, but I may be misinterpreting the guidelines on primary sources. While the separation filing is a primary source, it's being "quoted" (through being printed verbatim) on third-party sites. My one concern is that the Daily Mail uses it within the context of a news article, while Radar Online — a gossip site not normally a reliable source, but one that does post public documents and does directly interview named sources from time to time — posts it independently, without journalistic comment. My question is, is it still considered a primary source in the Radar case, or is it useable since it does appear on a third-party site, albeit without being part of a journalistic news story?

As a side comment, I would note that while the Daily Mail is a tabloid-format newspaper, like the New York Daily News or Newsday, It is not a tabloid in the sense of a tabloid magazine such as the Weekly World News. While the Daily Mail can be sensationalistic and while some celebrity stories use unnamed "anonymous sources", rendering such stories highly dubious, it is still a major, professionally run newspaper in other regards. I believe the editor above in his characterization of it tars with an overly broad brush and gives an inaccurate impression.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a similar problem with the birthyear of a BLP, where few sources claim anything exact, and the sources that do make claims, require use of WP:CALC to backtrack from "here she is in 2000 as an 18-year-old frosh" to the contrasting "here she is at 27 for her 2013 birthday party". The article ends up with the infoboxen explicitly saying both: "date of birth: ~1982 or ~1986 (sources differ)". This was based on the Mariah Carey article, which has a similar problem with 1969/1970 as the birthyear. Misplaced Pages should mirror the sources, not pick winners and losers: when they conflict, describe the conflict. "Dina Anne or Betty Eastwood...." Hope this helps. p.s. In the birthyear example, *one* source must be correct and one incorrect, but in the middle-name example, that is not necessarily true, since people like George Herbert Walker Bush with multiple middle names do exist, and names can legally change over time, unlike birthdays. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Senhaja language and Ghomara language

Hello,

Here's an issue related to linguistics: On the articles Senhaja language (Talk) and Ghomara language (Talk), a user insists on using as the sole source a list established by Blench in 2006 to classify these dialects as "Zenata dialects" (by opposition to "Atlas dialects") ; The point is that the author (Blench himself) says clearly on its first paragraph that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems".

On the other hand, the same user persists on deleting three sources claiming they're not RS ; The following sources classify these languages as "Atlas dialects" (see respective talk pages for more details):

• BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam: 1913-1936 (1993), Morocco - VII. Linguistic survey, p.598 (for both articles) ;
• Bernard & Moussard (1924), p.278 (for the Senhaja article) ;
• J. el Hannouche, 2008. Ghomara Berber: A Brief Grammatical Survey, p.20 (for the Ghomara article).

Note that recent (highly creditable) sources link ethnic Ghomara and Senhaja to ethnic Atlas Berbers, but without discussing linguistics.

Thus, the main problem is that Blenche's classification is contradicted by the three last sources.

The questions are:

• Is the list established by Blench a WP:RS even if the author himself says that it isn't correct?
• Are the three other sources (BRILL's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, Bernard & Moussard and El-Hannouche) WP:RS or not, even if some were published long time ago?
• Is that contradiction a WP:NPOV or a WP:RS case?

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Blench listing is reliable, but you should say in the text that it is a draft list. Hannouche is reliable, even though it is only a masters thesis; you should say tht it is a masters thesis. The older texts are no use any more. Are these the only sources available? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately these are the only WP:V academic sources available. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit1: Just found that Mena Lafkioui describes Senhaja language as "non-Zenati" . However she gives no-statement about Ghomara language. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit2: non-RS sources include Souag's communication to Ethnologue describing Senhaja language as "not Zenati, but rather Atlas". --Omar-toons (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit3: About El Hannouche's work on the Ghomara language (MA thesis), note that even Stroomer (& Kossman) implicitely acknowledge that this work is highly valuable (see p.6) and take it as a basis for their ongoing study. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Souag and Lafkioui seem both to be reputable scholars, and even their comments in non-reliable sources might be usable, with the big IF that we mustn't imply that any classification of these languages is settled. It is clearly a matter for exploration and debate. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My take is only very slightly different from the excellent advice given by Itsmejudith above:

• Both views should be presented, with relative sources
• The older sources would be reliable for describing a change in academic opinion if there has been one ("it used to be thought that ..., but recently ...")
• The ethnic connection could be mentioned, with due care to avoid drawing unsupported conclusions from it.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers. --Omar-toons (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted the change to Senhaja, since Omar was eventually able to provide a RS that supported it. I don't think there's any problem now with that article. However, AFAICT, he has no RS contradicting Blench for Ghomara, so we can only report what Blench says. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

El Hannouche says explicitely in his thesis (a thesis that Stroomer acknowledge as a valuable work) that Ghomara language has its origin in South Morocco. Unless you can give us a RS saying that there are Zenati languages in South Morocco (per WP:SYNTHNOT), El Hannouche thus links explicitely the Ghomara dialect to Atlas languages. --Omar-toons (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I agree with Justlettersandnumbers's opinion: both views should be presented as long as there's no consensual opinion among scholars. --Omar-toons (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

In a couple of years' time the scholars will probably have reached agreement. :-) Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• A question remains: is the list established by Blench in 2006 a WP:RS, despite the fact that the author himself claims that it is "a preliminary list" and that "there are still many problems"? --Omar-toons (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The answer above was "yes".

Hannouche does not say anything about classification, so we can't use him as a ref for classification. We can use him as a ref for where the language came from. The two are not necessarily related: English is not an American Indian language just because most native speakers are in North America. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I made a draft on Talk:Ghomara language. I would like to have your opinions regarding that. :)

--Omar-toons (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's still a bit complicated, as it often is when the scholarship isn't settled. I know I said that the older sources are no longer reliable, and that's still the case, but assuming that we think Camps & Vignet-Zunz is reliable, and it does seem so, then their comments on Colin are also reliable. Kwami, I do think that in this case "where the people came from" and "where the language came from" are related questions. By way or an analogy: the southern and northern Cheyenne are separated by hundreds of miles, and the reason for that is a matter of recorded history, so linguists automatically classify varieties of Cheyenne as varieties rather than separate languages. It is also a bit like the link between Finnish and Hungarian, which aren't very close at all today, but as it seems with these Berber languages, were spoken more widely in the past. I'm sure we all understand that language and ethnic identity aren't necessarily tied together, but sometimes they are, or at least ethnic identity can be a clue to language and vice-versa. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com and http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is a one-person blog (although the author has professional writing experience - http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/about/) with no hits in Google Scholar or Google books; in a quick Google web search I did not recognize reliable sources citing the website:

1. http://www.google.com/search?q=desktoplinuxreviews.com
2. http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Adesktoplinuxreviews.com

The author claims to have been published by sources such as ZDNET, Forbes, MSNBC, Salon but I could not find it:

1. https://www.google.com.br/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Azdnet.com,
2. http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Aforbes.com
3. http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Amsnbc.com
4. http://www.google.com/search?q=jim+lynch+linux+site%3Asalon.com

I did found him on extremetech and PCMag:

1. http://www.extremetech.com/author/jlynch
2. http://www.pcmag.com.br/us/article2/0,2817,10414,00.asp

http://desktoplinuxreviews.com is used in Unity_(user_interface)#Reception as one of the sources for the claim "Its design and deployment has been controversial with some software reviewers finding fault with its implementation and limitations". I actually agree with this claim, but would like to remove this particular source. Editor User:Ahunt disagrees and wants to keep the source.

The other questionable source is http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk. It is used all over Unity_(user_interface) and Ubuntu_(operating_system) to back several facts and opinions. -- Jorge (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Lynch appears to be a regular contributer to ITWolrd.comTwo kinds of pork (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• As noted Lynch has been widely published in third party publications and so meets WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". OMG Ubuntu is an independent third party publication covering Ubuntu and related topics with editorial oversight and so meets WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't source anything to Lynch's blog under WP:SPS. Not accountable to anyone for what he writes there. I especially would not rely on such a source for anything controversial. With respect to omgubuntu, I don't see a single article that they ever issued a correction for. I wouldn't rely on it, it is just another SPS with some guest posts. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Times of India

Is this source "Writing Her Way to Glory" by journalist Munna Mishra in the Times of India reliable for citing that Rashmi Singh is "amongst the few female writers from Bihar writing in English fiction"? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment here. Green Cardamom is mis-stating the issues somewhat. They are not merely related to whether this might be a puff piece but also to linking to a copyright violation, incomplete citation and seemingly inaccurate representation. I've been trying to find the original story online so that the entire thing can be evaluated, especially given that there is a history of misrepresenting sources in the article and an outstanding request for translation. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In my judgment:

• TOI's main "news" section would generally qualify as a reliable source. Of course, it has occasional problems with accuracy, POV, publication of lightly edited press releases etc... but these problems are not dramatically greater in TOI than its competitors amongst Indian newspapers and can be handled by cross-checking with other sources and using common sense.
• On the other hand, TOI's Metro and some other supplements are no better than tabloids. Mainly filled with gossip, puff pieces, and (local) celebrity profiles and interviews, they show little no sign of fact checking. These should be used with great care/ not be used. (And if someone believes that I am being unduly harsh, here is how the publishers themselves describe the metro supplements).

So in order to judge the whether the article is reliable for the claim, we will need to see more than an extract and also determine which part of the newspaper it was published in. If you know the date for the article, I can look it up on Proquest. Abecedare (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The image linked to says that the thing was "in conversation with TN". The citation said that the source was ToI & Green Cardamom seems not to have picked up the discrepancy. Is TN a ToI supplement or stablemate? The ToI often regurgitates PR puff pieces - some people call it the "Toiletpaper of India" (!) It is already evident that there has been much PR puffery surrounding the subject of the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

New information has come to light, TN apparently stands for Times Neighborhood published by Times of India, an example cover. According to a previous AfD they are "built on a platform of citizen journalism where the content is uploaded on social media". Obviously not a reliable source if true, and confirmed with TN Facebook and Twitter pages. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is useful to know.

I guess the rule of thumb is: The more local Times of India gets (National->Metro->Neighbourhood), the less reliable it becomes. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• One hilarious example I've come across of appalling reporting by Times of India is this. In October 2009, Faking News, a parody and satire sub-site (which I love reading) posted a hilarious article on a made up guy called Vaibhav Bedi, claiming he sued Unilever as the Axe deo he bought failed to act in the same way as it was shown in the advertisements. Guess what Delhi Times, a city supplement of Times of India, does in May 2011. They fall for the faking news and print it as real. In other words, what Abecedare says above is more or less true. Wifione 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

chinaag.org

For your consideration:

Website: chinaag.org

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anna -- I'm going to let somebody else give their better-researched-commentary here... but what it basically sounds like is, there is a wikipedia editor User:ChinaAg32, who self-publishes a blog at www.ChinaAg.org, in which they have synthesized some original research by combining the not-very-trustworthy figures of stats.gov.cn with some cross-referenced data-sources like the USDA, USA Today, trade rags, and so on. This is, pure and simple, WP:OR. However, there is an important exception, that *might* apply here.

    In real life, is User:ChinaAg32 somebody with Notable expertise in the field? For instance, if you are a stanford professor of economics, and you publish a position-paper in your official professor-blog, then in some cases that can be treated as WP:RS on your position, and because you are a Notable expert in economics, can be exact-quoted in an article. There is no peer-review of the blog-entry, necessarily, but there is peer-review of *you* as an expert.

    So, there are two ways that the *direct* contents of ChinaAg.org can be used directly as a Reliable Source. The first way, is if some 'normal' reliable source, such as a newspaper or a peer-reviewed journal or the blog of a Notable expert in USA-Chinese trade relations, re-publishes the material under *their* stamp. The second way, is if User:ChinaAg32 (or to be more precise -- the acknowledged author of the content at www.ChinaAg.org -- I'm just presuming they are the same humanoid), is in fact *themselves* such a Notable expert on USA-Chinese trade relations, with a PhD in economics and/or international relations, and such.

    Failing those, it sounds like ChinaAg is a blog, by a non-Notable-in-the-wikipedia-sense human, with no editorial-and-fact-checking-staff in the background. Of course, there is always the possibility to use the secondary sources, which were collected for the ChinaAg analysis-papers, to offset the 'official' information from stats.gov.cn -- but citing ChinaAg as a reliable source when it is not, or alternatively synthesizing/editorializing within the pages of wikipedia, is Not Good. When you have a USDA report that claims X, and a CNBS report that claims Y, wikipedia should mirror the sources, and give both numbers, not pick winners and losers. HTH. p.s. If you cannot use the dataset from ChinaAg, you *might* be able to put it into the External Links section... not as a source/ref/citation, but as a Unique External Resource, kinda like the "one major fansite" exception to the WP:LINKFARM policy. That situation would be a different question entirely, of course. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the very intelligent and thoughtful reply. I fully agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

VoiceChasers.com

Hello. I would like some opinions on the following site, VoiceChasers.com. I was hoping to use this to source voice actors in video games, specifically for the Batman: Arkham Origins page. Currently, as the in game credits are not formatted like that of a film's (actor name with a character attachted to it), myself and others on the page are currently forced to try to search an actor's personal Twitter feed, in hopes of a confirmation, or hoping that a reliable new agency's review mentions some of the characters and their actors. This site would be a tremendous helping in allowing info to be added to the page that we currently cannot, because no RS can be found to support it.

I believe this source to be reliable, and unlike a site like IMDb, because of the following:

• The site is run by a select group of people - While it does allow people to register and participate on the site, in regards to their database, outside users can suggest updates, not actually contribute to updates themselves.
• The Batman: Arkham Origins page does not have every credited actor attached to a role yet - This leads me to believe that a name is only attached to a role once it has been verified by the site, reliably. Since I found the site a day or two ago, before starting the discussion here, the game's page did not have Khary Payton's name attached to Warden Joseph or Killer Croc - both since confirmed by Payton himself on his Twitter here and here.
• I don't see much difference in this site than Behindthevoiceactors.com, which is considered a RS. - BVA.com utilizes a green "check" next to an actor when they are confirmed, and I do not see this as any difference than the system I believe VoiceChasers uses as I noted in the bullet above this.

Just as an FYI, this site was asked about on the RSN in February 2012, here, with the commenting editor saying that "it looked like a blog" with "no evidence on whether they check their information for accuracy," both of which I'm not inclined to agree with by my looking at the site and would like others opinions. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Favre1fan , I've done a bit of looking at both sites. At first I thought BTVA was *not* suitable to be a reliable source: "unofficial site.. for fans, run by fans in their spare time..." The key reason why BehindTheVoiceActors aka BTVA is used as a reliable source is because they have a verification process. "...any green checkmarks those are confirmed credits. Click the greencheck mark to see the source... official voice actor websites, voice actor resumes, DVD/Blu-ray ending credits and from conversations with the voice actors & voice directors..." Especially valuable is this bit: "Sometimes multiple sources conflict... leads to additional work on our part to find out the truth." They are definitely a fan-site, but they have an editorial-slash-fact-checking process. The process *is* flawed, of course, since a green checkmark might just be 'sourced' to some blog or twit of a pretend-actor that claims credit for roles they did not actually perform; cf WP:SELFPUB. It might not even be a blog -- BTVA trusts private email from actors, saying "I was the voice of so-and-so" which might never be corrected. Still, pretty reliable, at least on the level of the politics section of a daily newspaper in a mid-size city, right? Right.

   You are asking whether VoiceChasersDotCom aka VCDC is also good enough. They have a similar approach, where fans post in forums, and then the VCDC staff puts the information into the database. What's the editorial-and-fact-checking-process? They do not say, neither giving details, nor even whether they *have* any fact-checking. "Our large, comprehensive database... over 120k voice credits..." Notice the focus on quantity of info, not quality of info; they say comprehensive first, accurate as an afterthought, and they give a total count only, never giving a total-count-and-a-verified-true-count. "... meant for research, education, and entertainment purposes only." It is also run by a dedicated group of volunteers, like BTVA... but although VCDC claims to be an "accurate resource for professionals" they give no evidence, in the we-commit-our-reputation-to-the-following-written-process sense, to back that claim up. At the end of the day, they sound more like IMDB than like BTVA.

   That does not mean all is lost. Maybe VCDC *does* have a strong verification-process, maybe even stronger than BTVA, and have just not documented it in the FAQ. Maybe email them this link, and see if they'll commit to publishing their verification procedures, and adding something like the green-check-means-verified-click-here-to-see-cited-source. Another workaround would be, look up the info you need to verify with a reliable source (e.g. Warden == Khary Payton), and post the info at BTVA. Once they give Warden==Khary the green checkmark, you can put it into the wikipedia article. Anyways, at the end of the day, I have the same bad news as the 2012 person: "no evidence on whether they check". Your experience of watching the evolution of the Batman listings *is* evidence, of course... but it is anecdotal evidence. Maybe you were just lucky. Maybe they sometimes verify, but not always. Maybe some VCDC contributors verify, but with others anything goes. Maybe they verify batman, but not Bill Murray. The key is, they do not commit to verifying, they do not document how they verify. That is the substantive difference. HTH. Ping my talkpage if you have any question or concerns, I rarely check this noticeboard. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food - Advice on a source

1. Source. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers The first line of the report reads:

"Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded."

2. Article. genetically modified food controversies
3. Content. From the wiki article: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food."
4. Discussion. We would like some advice on the use of this source, and I do not want to sway any neutral parties, so I won't offer my own view or any other info about our previous discussion until we hear from some new faces. I would urge my friends from the gm food pages to do the same. Thanks everyone --Geraldatyrrell (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

American Association for the Advancement of Science is respected scientific organization, yes, they are a reliable source. But I'm not sure I would word the content the way it is above. The article doesn't really say that there is broad scientific consensus, although one could certainly draw that conclusion. Instead, the article lists specific organizations. I suggest we do something similar. Also, the source article doesn't quite say "conventional food". Instead, it uses the phrase "conventional plant improvement techniques" which may or may not be the same thing as "conventional food". So, I think the AAAS is an excellent source for the article, but we should try to stay closer to what it says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Quest, thank you for pointing out that AAAS is a reliable source here. Speaking as an involved editor, I want to address your concern about "broad scientific consensus". The source also says: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”" I think that is tantamount to "broad scientific consensus", and that the AAAS is reliable as a source to make that assessment. I'll also point out that the community very recently made a careful examination of the question raised here, at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 6#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus", and the consensus there was that the language on the page is reliably sourced. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Have you tried finding a source that says what you want it to say? If you don't mind using the popular press, here's a source that says what you want it to say almost word for word. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically modified crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'll bring it up at the article talk page. On the plus side, that source uses language that is just about word-for-word what the page says. On the minus side, they are popular press as you say, and I wonder if they mirrored the language from Misplaced Pages! Of course, the AAAS source is a reliable expert source, and I don't think there is the slightest bit of OR in going from the passage I quoted to the language we cite to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment from an involved party: The content that this source is used to support (which is narrowly focused on the relative safety of food from currently marketed GMOs), and the many sources used to support that content, went through an RfC not too long ago - see here. The conclusion was that the statement and sources are fine. More recently, Gerald wanted to remove this particular source; he is not currently challenging the content. Gerald failed to gain consensus for removing the source on Talk, so I recommended he bring the source here. I will leave it to him, to make his own arguments. I have argued that under MEDRS, specifically the section on Medical and scientific organizations, that this source is acceptable. It is not the kind of peer-reviewed secondary source that we generally rely on for sourcing (of which we have several already) but it is really valuable to have a statement by such a reputable major scientific body to support the content (which is in a controversial area, where the scientific consensus is clear but the public is very emotional). The only legit grounds I could see to exclude this source (given the paragraph in MEDRS) is that the AAAS is not a "reputable major scientific body". I don't see how that argument could be made, so the source should stay. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern was that the source doesn't back up their own claims with cited info. Honestly, I'm not sure why they referred to the 2 cited sources at all. They could have easily backed up the report by citing more heavily or just left them out completely. Maybe aaas is suggesting that those are the two best sources available. I'm not really sure what to make of it. I would appreciate other thoughts on this type of source in general. When is it appropriate, when not and why this over something more closely linked to the science. With all of the public confusion over the scientific consensus, I understand why the aaas would want to put the issue right, but I didn't think it was wikipedia's job to address that same public confusion, but instead to report the facts. Jyt and Tryp have the right of it, this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it. I would appreciate some comments from RS folks on the lack of peer-review and limited citations of the report. Thanks Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Why you continue to ignore the specific authorization of this kind of source in MEDRS is beyond me. For you to be solidly grounded in policy and guideline, that paragraph would have to not-exist. But it does exist. You just have a preference that we not use the source, but you are not arguing that way. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the paragraph and recognize that it permits use of sources like this. The questions I'm raising are more for my own education. Seems like there ought to be circumstances that drive which types of source to use. Does that exist somewhere? (I'm curious when one should cite an organization's statement and what makes it preferential.) Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a much more reasonable position than the one you have taken thus far. But I think your efforts on the Talk page went beyond raising questions to strenuously making claims and arguments that this source should be cut. In any case, wanting to learn is always a good thing. My sense (but I too am happy to be taught) is that Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines specify what types of sources are most preferred, which are less preferred, and which are not acceptable, both generally and for health-related content in particular. With respect to choosing among acceptable sources, there is no guidance other than a) use the most preferred kind of source whenever possible, and of course, b) the fifth pillar (there are no rules, use common sense). In this case, as was stated several times on the Talk page, the AAAS source is both acceptable and is extremely useful for supporting the given content (the board of one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the US, issued a statement clarifying what the scientific consensus is. (Rhetorical question - who would know the scientific consensus better than the board of such an organization?). Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw this on Forbes the other day stating:

A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.

So, Forbes is stating in no uncertain terms that there is scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe (well, as safe as non GMO)Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No comment on the substance, but the Forbes article is an op-ed by a named contributor, and hence only representative for the opinion of that particular author, not Forbes itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't see that oped part. The link to the research is inside for those that care.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Policies (e.g. wp:ver and wp:nor) establish sourcing/source/sourcability requirements for the presence of material. There is no policy requirement for the presence of a source. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure what you are saying. WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS are policy and guideline, respectively, on acceptable sourcing. Please elaborate! Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that North8000 does not understand why there is an argument about whether a *reference* is worth removing, and is pointing out that most wikipedia policies talk about *sentences* sometimes needing to be removed. Basically, they are asking what the point of this whole discussion is. Methinks the answer is WP:STICKTOSOURCE, because here is what Geraldatyrrell said: "...this is not about the statement itself, just about the use of this source to support it." In this case, the AAAS report is signed by 'board members' and gives a general-sounding statement, which is in *agreement* with similar statements made by other folks, but does not *cite* very many of the other folks. In a nutshell, the AAAS report almost sounds like a communal blog, where the board writes up their opinions, rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

(added later) in hindsight, I realize that I misunderstood an argument that was being made; and that my comment a couple posts back is not relevant to this discussion. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks!Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

    Since the sentence in question does not depend solely on the AAAS report, and since the AAAS report was somewhat weak-seeming (in terms of academic formalisms) when you follow it a little deeper, Geraldatyrrell was trying to get a better feel for how valid using such a source might be... in a hypothetical situation where it *was* the sole supporting WP:RS for some sentence. My take is that the 'board members' of the AAAS, and their newsletter, are best seen as a *journalistic* body, rather than a *scientific* publication. The board members act as the editorial and fact-checking department, in practice very much like a science-oriented magazine such as Technology Review functions. They don't cite deeply-and-broadly, because the are *reporting* on existing conclusions, not generating any new ones. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is just a quibble with what you said, and I think that you are largely making a very reasonable point. But I'm going to quibble with your characterization of the AAAS Board as acting in an editorial/fact-checking capacity. Although they are indeed expressing an editorial view after reviewing available factual material, they differ from typical editorial offices (including the staff of the editorial office of their major publication, Science (journal)) in that most Board members are highly distinguished scientists, selected somewhat like the National Academy of Sciences. They are a governance board, as opposed to office staff. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Source:Building a Legend: The 'Skinny' on the Slender Man

Article: Slender Man

Content: The classic distinction between folklore and fakelore, and whether it applies to this phenomenon.

It's a paper that's obviously passed muster at university level, but it is by an undergraduate. I've been keeping this source on ice for a while, because I'm not sure if it meets all the criteria, but the information it imparts is gold, and reliable sources on this topic are, as you can imagine, rare. Serendious 14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the PhD thesis and Masters thesis paragraph. The key phrase is "shown to have had significant scholarly influence" which basically means, lots of other academics have cited it, in lots of other thesis papers, peer-reviewed journal papers, and similar. I'm guessing that is not the case. Did anybody publish the work, as part of Proceeding of the 7th Annual Such And Such Conference, or the equivalent? If neither a bunch of cites, nor a non-COI-publication, then prolly not usable as WP:RS. The paper itself *might* be suitable as an external link, though, specifying pretty clearly that this is an undergrad student paper published by the student on the university wiki (or whatever the actual detailed explanation is). Hope this helps. There was actually just a rewrite of that section of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is why I remembered that sentence about Masters thesis stuff. If you want the explanatory details, ping my user-talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia, sorry my news is likely not what you were wanting to hear. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:No Gun Ri massacre

I'm a non-participant in ongoing edits/talk. This looks to me to be a POV noticeboard problem so I have posted at POV noticeboard, but might be worth someone looking at the problem from the RS perspective too. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote

User:CFredkin claims that Talking Points Memo is not a reliable source for documenting a Senator's vote. The content will be easily sourced from elsewhere, being a US Senator's vote, but I don't like editors attempting to move the Overton Window by making false claims. Please advise. — goethean 16:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither Talking Points Memo or Policymic are reliable sources. They are both pushing an agenda. A similar argument has been made elsewhere regarding Breitbart. If TPM and Policymic are reliable, then I would argue that Breitbart would be as well.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No experience or opinion with TPM/Breitbart ... but last I remember, PolicyMic is not at all a reliable source, it is like examiner.com , anybody can write for it, no fact-checking. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming here? You think that Kirk didn't vote the way that these journalists say that he voted? Or are you just using RS as a weapon to remove content that you don't like? — goethean 18:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear that the vote referenced in the content you're trying to add to the article is significant. Mention of it in a reliable secondary source would indicate whether it is significant. I don't believe the sources mentioned above would be considered reliable.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you are making a different argument. Whether the content is appropriate is a different question than whether the source is reliable. Your first argument was that the source is unrelisble. Are you discarding that argument for a new one? — goethean 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's a tit-for-tat. Breitbart is an obviously unreliable source, so you are attempting to impeach other sources which you know are reliable. That makes sense. — goethean 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Breitbart seems very comparable to these 2 sources to me (although obviously from different political perspectives).CFredkin (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo is certainly reliable in this instance. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What's your rationale?CFredkin (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

While partisan, this is a legitimate news operation with professional editors and reporters, who has credentials that can be verified. I'm not saying this should be used in the manner suggested, but as towards the claim it makes it seems utterly reliable,Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that if Kirk's vote was any more notable than any other vote he's had, it would be commented on in an established WP:RS and not some partisan rag. WeldNeck (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've never heard of this source before, but they appear to be a professional news organization with editorial oversight. In absence of other contradicting information, I would lean towards it being reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• TPM is a liberal/progressive opinion source. Much like Newsmax. They are reliable for their own views, but information from TPM is going to be liberally biased. There opinion about others should take this into consideration. Generally speaking, if something is that notable it will be covered as such by less biased sources than thses. Additionally, the manner it which it was being used in this instance is clearly pushing a liberal POV, which makes the edit a NPOV. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference in question is not an opinion piece. We should accept it as reliable. Whether or not its usage here is warranted per NPOV is a different question altogether.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, just because the source is a biased one, does not mean coverage in that source is not reliable. It sounds like folks here are pretty well agreed that TPM in this case counts as a reliable source, and if a reliable source gives something significant coverage, then that something is almost certainly WP:NOTEWORTHY, though not necessarily WP:N enough for a dedicated wikipedia article or anything. There is a separate question, which is how WP:UNDUE applies... maybe the stuff the reliable source is discussing, are worth a tiny mention in the mainspace article, or even *no* mention if the editors reach consensus that the stuff is just not necessary to the article, per WP:IAR. But usually, wikipedia should mirror the sources, and maintain NPOV tone by *saying* that "avowed liberals at TPM said '...' in October 2013...." for instance. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with AQFK's argument for why it's a reliable source. MilesMoney (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Then presumably Breitbart would be considered a reliable source as well.CFredkin (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture

Over at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture there is an ongoing discussion concerning the sources used to support claims about the effectiveness of acupuncture. This could really use another set of eyes looking at it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Forbes/Forbes.com

After seeing a WP:Edit war between Atotalstranger and NorthBySouthBaranof, evidenced by this, this and this, over whether or not Forbes.com is a WP:Reliable source, I decided to bring the matter here. Notice what NorthBySouthBaranof links to in the first diff-link. I always thought that Forbes.com counted as a WP:Reliable source for celebrity/public figure information; it's certainly widely used on Misplaced Pages with regard to who is richest and/or most influential, though it's often being used to source itself in such cases. I haven't checked this noticeboard's archives to see if, or how many times, Forbes/Forbes.com has been discussed here, so forgive me if this thread is redundant.

It is also worth noting that Atotalstranger's approach to sourcing is currently being discussed at WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Forbes should be considered reliable, despite North's claim otherwise. It's an elementary exercise to prove this, so I won't. However the link in question is an op-ed, so it's an opinion piece.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Two kinds of pork. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong. The Romenesko article I posted specifically points out that Forbes.com bloggers are NOT regularly fact-checked or edited. This means that they are no more than personal blogs with a fancy name. Fact-checking and editing are at the heart of our reliable sourcing policy because we rely on those external sources being true. Absent internal controls at the publisher level, there is no guarantee that what is posted in that blog is true because it has NEVER been examined by a fact-checker or professional editor. This does not apply to material published in the dead-tree magazine, which the material in question is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also see this bit that Tarcil added to the Forbes Misplaced Pages article; NorthBySouthBaranof has a valid point on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't the source in question an op-ed? I don't think anyone is going to contaminate the entirety of Forbes.com over this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Any of the blogs hosted by Forbes.com are un-edited, non-factchecked, self-published posts. See this article from the Poynter Institute: "There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will “check it more carefully,” DVorkin said. This flies in the face of what we demand in a reliable source. It doesn't matter what the name is, or what we "contaminate" - the contamination to be worried about is the contamination of Misplaced Pages content with material that hasn't been vetted by a traditional system of editing and fact-checking.

At the very least, this makes any Forbes.com blog an unacceptable source for contentious material about living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Blogs hosted by generally RS Websites (such as Forbes.com) can be treated as analogous to columns in RS newspapers, which also are not generally fact-checked and often given no more than very rudimentary editing. Fine as a source for the writer's opinions, and in practice fine for non-contentious statements of fact if there's no other source available (especially where the writer is an expert), but not good sources for contentious factual suggestions, especially where BLPs are concerned. Barnabypage (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of putting it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Newsblogs (which Forbes blogs count as) are opinion or editorials and can not be used to source any facts. All opinion from them must be accompanied by attributing the source in the text like: "John Smith of Forbes.com believes..." with the inline citation to the blog.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "can not be used to source any facts," but Mark Miller is referring to what the WP:NEWSBLOG policy outlines. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Rarely used to source facts. Per: WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Although I have yet to see when an editorial has ever been used to source a fact reliably.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some analysis articles are very serious and are excellent sources. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to find objective criteria to distinguish them from filler pieces. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well the point isn't about something as ill-defined as a "filler piece". What is at issue is whether an opinion piece (or editorial) is appropriate to use to source a fact. The answer is simply, "very seldom, if ever".--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

References for Sagar Dutta Memorial Medical College and Hospital

The third reference in the article appears to be a copy of this wiki article.Even the language is exactly the same.Am I correct in my judgement in the fact that this is not a reliable source?The one objection that can be raised against the points I have made is this:It is hosted on the official website of the department of health of the West Bengal government,which oversees the functioning of Medical Colleges(as medical schools are known in India.)

The section I am referrng to is this:

Sagore Dutta Charitable Hospital and Dispensary initially started as a philanthropic organization with an objective of all round health care of the poor peasants and industrial workers of Kamarhati and adjoining areas. Its immense service to fulfill the objectives was recognized when the then Medical Secretary, Dr. Anderson, on his India tour, visited ‘a rural hospital and dispensary situated outside Calcutta, the Sogore Dutt Charitable Hospital and Dispensary’ in January, 1937.The Sagore Dutt Hospital Act, 1958 (Act 14 of 1958) was enforced with effect from the 1st March 1959, vide notification No. Medl./852/14-84/58, dated 30/01/1959, published in the Calcutta Gazette of 1959, Part 1, page 662. The Act provided for the taking over of Sagore Dutt Hospital at Kamarhati in the district of 24 Parganas together with the charitable dispensary attached thereto, by the State Government with a view to the promotion of public health.

Guru-45 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be the official Government of West Bengal's Health & Family Welfare Department website. If the language is the same, most likely we (Misplaced Pages) ripped off the wording from them, not the other way around, but anything is possible. If you think this is a case of WP:CIRCULAR, you can try to figure out which was published first. But taking a quick look at the article history, it appears that the offending text was added very recently, about a month ago on September 29, 2013 with this diff. That would make most likely our article a copyright violation. You can contact someone at the WP:HELPDESK for assistance on how to fix copyright problems. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted, Guru-45! There were copyvios from a number of sources. I think I got them all, but if you think I missed any, please say so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Peter Sellers article regarding the use of word "Jewish" of a character

There is a RfC regarding the use of the word "Jewish" to describe a conman character in several 1980 Barclay's Bank commercials. There is a heated discussion regarding the sources to support the content.

Discussion at Talk:Peter Sellers#Request for Comment: Use of term "Jewish" to describe conman character. --Oakshade (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Worldsfinestonline.com

I cannot tell if this is an actual media arm of Toonzone or is a wikia. I am trying to determine whether the site is RS or not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This request for WP:RS assessment is a spin-off-question, from a discussion of whether or not fansite-wiki-URLs are permissible in the external links section (not as sources per se, but as Unique Resources that might be of further interest to wikipedians). See the exception about 'one major fansite' under WP:LINKFARM. All of which, obviously, has nothing to do with the specific question here on RS/N, which is whether or not WorldsFinestOnline is an official slash reliable source about the various shows/characters/etc it covers, in the sense of being useful for inline-citations of statements in wikipedia articles. But although my comment is off-topic, I figured I'd give the context here, in case people follow the backtrail, and wonder what the heck we're talking about on EL/N and the article-talkpage. HTH. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

74Anon is correct; I wasn't asking about the use of fansites as external sources. As I understand it, so long as it isn't a banned site and doesn't create a landing strip for all sorts of fansites, the major one is usually allowed.

The question here pertains to the use of WF as a reliable source, as some users were seeking to use it as such to add material to the article. I am almost certain that YoungJustice Wikia isn't a RS, so I dodn't even bother to ask. WF could do with some extra eyes, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The policy is very clear guys:" most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority" are unacceptable. For example...all fan run sites are excluded, but the official fansite, owned, operated or approved by the studio of the film or series etc. is acceptable. Wikis are not that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark, nice to see you again. So, right, and when you look at WorldsFinestOnline, the creator/maintainer has a toonZone.net email address, and at the bottom of the contact-page it says 'hosted by toonZone' ... yet it also seems to permit at least *some* kind of fan-edited-content, though not much. So I guess the question is, if the fansite is "hosted-and-partially-written" by a recognized authority (ToonZone in this case), does that make it acceptable for use-as-a-reference, since we *presume* that ToonZone personnel are exercising some editorial oversight? Or, on the other hand, does that make it unacceptable for use-as-a-reference, since we alternatively *presume* anything goes? We can try emailing the maintainer, and asking them what the oversight policy is, I suppose, and whether they are a 'fan' with a courtesy webmail account, or an official employee. But maybe the "fansite... operated... by " part applies here. Thanks 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going? First, I don't see that the sites that Toonzone represent have any official status from the actual copyright holders and, in fact, their "About us" content states: "Toonzone is an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans." This is not a news agency or publishing company that appears to be RS to our standards. It does actually appear to be a very elaborate and popular fan run site. Then, when I search for the founder, it appears they are using a username: Brian Cruz Tag (comics) which seems to be a fictitious character. I may be incorrect about the founder, but it does appear they are not using their real name.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Further looking finds this: "Staff - Over the site's almost seven years of history, the editorial, news, and moderator staff have changed significantly, but all are unpaid volunteers. Most take nicknames, often based on the names of cartoon characters."--Mark Miller (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat suspected as much. Thanks for a definitive answer on the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have added a source ( a newspaper) to other existing sources. It was deleted. am I wrong?

• Source. --ref name="ahram1">"The road to Naksa". Cairo , AL-AHRAM. 7 - 13 June 2007. Retrieved 7 - 13 June 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)</ref>
• Article. Six-Day War
• Content."Mohamed Fawzi (general) left for Syria for one day tour, verified that the Soviet report is false and reported that there are no Israeli armed forces near the Syrian border". The Diff page]

I have added a source ( an Egyptian newspaper on line) to other existing sources. (The article was not modified). The reason is that some Pro Arab readers do not believe that Israel did not planned the war in advance, and would suspect the bias of Israeli / Western history books who claim otherwise. Hence it is better to add a well known Egyptian newspaper (on line, English). Unfortunately, it was deleted since "nor al-Ahram ... are WP:RS sources for history articles" Am I wrong? Ykantor (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify which passage from the source is being cited to support the text in our article? Unless I've missed something, the only mention of Fawzi in the article you cite concerns him ordering a book to be withdrawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevant source sentences are:"In April 1967, Russia told Egypt that Israel was amassing troops on the Syrian borders. Israel had no strategic or tactical motive to do such a thing. And an emissary sent by Nasser to Syria reported back that the information was false. Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria.". According to other sources, the emissary was Fawzi. In my opinion the important aspect is the last quote words:"reported back that the information was false. Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria." (In retrospect, the article words should have been slightly modified.) Ykantor (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a WP:OR from your side.

And al-Ahram is a newspaper. This articles is an historcial event more than 40 years old. Scholarly sources exist for this matter. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a ignorence from your side. The article stay the same, which means that there is no WP:OR. Ykantor (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot cite a source for something it doesn't say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

AuthorHouse

I'm currently rewriting the Etchmiadzin Cathedral article. Quite a few sources call it the oldest church in the world and that claim is obviously debatable, so I added "often called the oldest church in the world."

Two of the six sources are published by AuthorHouse, which is "a self-publishing company." Since self-published sources are not considered reliable should I keep them? Also, please consider that I used a wording (i.e. "often called") which makes it clear that it is not a fact, but the opinion of some authors anyway, so does it really matter if its self-published or not?

--Երևանցի 01:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not usually considered reliable. There is an exception that might apply in your case: If the author of one these books is an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, then it would be acceptable. If not, then no, you should not keep them. If you have four books from reliable publishing houses, then you're off to a good start. I hope this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Four sources are enough to get the point across. And these authors don't seem to be authoritative. --Երևանցի 02:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Are the four sources reliable sources also using weasel words, like the two you show here? 'said to be' / 'thought to be' / 'often called' ... not very inspiring in terms of reliability.  :-)     As for the two sources mentioned here, yes, they should be left out of mainspace -- suggest you leave a copy of the refs on the article talkpage, in a section called 'mine these for research-pointers', since even selfpub sources sometimes have bibliographies or pointers that can later be tracked down in reliable sources for verifiable mainspace facts. There are only a couple big WP:SELFPUB exceptions: one pointed out by Yerevanci, which is if the person is a Notable expert, e.g. the official blog of some Stanford professor of economics *can* be WP:RS. The second exception is opinions about themselves, WP:ABOUTSELF. This does not stretch like taffy: we cannot say that "Charles Greer has stated the fact that he holds the opinion that Echmiadzin monastery is said to be the oldest Christian monastery"... too much indirection! We can only go one step deep, and say something very straightforward involving no other objects-of-discussion, and no controversy, such as "Charles Greer states he is a Christian" (example sentence only -- no clue about the real Greer). HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

1) "generally regarded as the oldest in the world" 2) "is thus the oldest Christian monastery" 3) "the oldest cathedral in Christendom" 4) "the world's oldest cathedral"

As you can see, only one of the four sources uses a weasel word. But my point is that it is always going to be disputed whether Etchmiadzin is the oldest church in the world or not, because there are several criteria that can be taken into considered, so we have to use vague-ish words here. --Երևանցի 04:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution