Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 12 September 2013

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

I would like to ask a question about reliability of the sources used in the opinion polls section of the article on Iranian elections. The sources are all in Persian so I present them for non-Persian speakers.

• This source is Rasanehiran.com and the opinion polls cited here is conducted by IRIB, State TV -which is not independent. About section of the website is empty.
• cites a polls conducted by Tebyan.net. Tebyan is one of the website of the Islamic Ideology Dissemination Organization which is officially under the control of the Supreme Leader of Iran.
• ie92.ir an unknown website. Here the website claims that it supports "the interests of the Islamic Republic".
• this one: Nothing about the website. Who is behind this website?
• iranelect.ir is not an official website and again nothing in the about section. Online survey.
• Tebyan see above.
• a forum.
• alef.ir is the website of Ahmad Tavakoli, a deputy of the Parliament. The polls here is conducted by "a reliable organisation" as is presented in the news article. The name of this organisation is not mentioned.
• Fars News Agency is another source.

No editorial oversight has been presented in the "about" section of these websites. Noted that all of these polls were conducted online and their methods is unknown.

Here is the disputed section:

added section of Uttarakhand controversy in BLP of Narendra Modi

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) of BLP.

Apart from being poorly sourced, the section is an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it The sources linked to the article are

Acceptable self-published source?

Source:

Article: Human skin color, recently added to International migration, French Uruguayan and Immigration to Argentina as well

Content: File:Human_displacement_map_of_the_world.jpg

"In this map the average skin color of each country is used as way to highlight the effects of the migratory trends in the last century"

I have been involved with User:Czixhc over the last few weeks about whether this map meets the reliable sourcing requirements of WP:V. The only source provided is self-published and the discussion is whether the author meets the extra requirement of WP:V#Self-published_sources - "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". The discussion can be found at Talk:Human_skin_color#Discussion_about_the_Human_displacement_map_of_the_world

The source claims that "In this project the (von Luschan) scale is transposed on to the surface of the Earth, in accordance with data from the latest national census and includes an inset of Renatto Biasutti's infamous map showing the skin colour of "native populations". On the surface this sounds reasonable but there are same seriously major issues here:

• Census data doesn't report skin colour, it reports self-identified ancestry which often covers a range of skin colours. For example "African American" from the US census includes people with skin colour ranging from lighter than Halle Berry's to darker than Samuel L Jackson - which skin colour did Hagos assume for "African Americans"?
• Some census categories don't appear on Biasutti's map at all, eg "Hispanic/Latino" from the US census. This is a post-migration admixed population and so doesn't appear as a "native population" anywhere on Biasutti's map - what colour did Hagos decide to use for "Hispanic/Latinos"?
• Some censuses don't collect ancestry information at all, such as the Indian census. Biasutti's map has 4 different colours in India, so how did Hagos come up with an average for this country?
• The census categories aren't always represented by a single colour on Biasutti's map - like with "African Americans", where there are 5 different colours that Biasutti used for Africa. Even if all "African Americans" had the same skin colour (which is not true) how did Hagos decide which of the 5 "African" skin colours to use?
• Biasutti's map is not considered accurate for modern use - it was made using obselete methods and is known to contain inaccuracies (both Hagos and the description on File:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png acknowledge this)

It is quite simply impossible to accurately transpose the colours from Biasutti's map to the average skin colour of various countries today - the census categories and Biasutti's "native populations" aren't measuring the same thing and they just don't align in any meaningful way. This map is heavily based on the authors personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data.

The creator of the map is Jonathan Hagos of the Architecture faculty at Oxford Brookes university. Data from the author's personal webpage and his staff page at Oxford Brookes show his education, qualifications, employment and publications are all in the field of Architecture, and while he is a professional in that area, there's probably not enough evidence to qualify him as an "established expert" in that field. In addition he has made a number of artistic design works including other maps (eg , ). These works are clearly interpretive and not scientific documents, and are described on the site thus: "Jonathan's work focuses on the ‘re-illustration’ of post-colonial themes such as freedom, identity and migration executed through diverse media such as cartography through to film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions."

Czixhc initially claimed that Hagos was an expert in human skin colour, but has acknowledged this is not the case (or at least given up on it) and is now claiming Hagos is an expert in migration instead. Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. Secondly, I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture).

Czixhc arguments for Hagos being an expert in migration are basically: 1. The sentence "Research Interest and consultancy expertise: My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." on the Oxford Brookes page, which he insists proves that Hagos has worked as an expert consultant in migration, and 2. "Examples of recent projects: Production Designer on the feature film 'Simshar', exploring recent trends of illegal immigration in the Mediterranean and the impact on local communities on the islands of Malta and Lampedusa." which he insists means Hagos has been published in the field.

The problems with his arguments are: 1. "Research interests and consultancy expertise" allows for listing of one or both of his interests/expertise and doesn't mean that everything under it is "consultancy expertise". The text used is almost identical to the text use by Hagos to describe his artistic works on his personal site so it's clear that he's talking about this design work, not work in the sense of employment. 2. A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any).

To me this is a straightforward example of an unacceptable self-published source - it is clearly a creative work by a non-expert not a scientific document by an expert. Czixhc disagrees and has starting adding the map to any page with "Migration" in the title so I'm asking here to help end the discussion - is Hagos's map a reliable source as per WP:V?

Tobus2 (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and thanks for your well-detailed case here. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've noticed that an administrator said that the file of the human displacement map of the world isn't reliable, however, that might have been decided based only on tobus2 claims without having considered my point of view in this discussion, so i will present my side of the case and will adress every complaint made by tobus2 (because better later than never) before starting i have to say that all the points and concerns that tobus2 wrote where already adressed in the talk page of the article where we've been discussing all this time, however regardless of that tobus2 came and wrote all that he wrote in this section pretending that nothing of that happened. With no more delays here I go: the image is reliable because it is done by an stablished expert on the field: Jonatahan Hagos, you can verify it here on the website if the Oxford Brookes University:

• Research Interest and consultancy expertise:

My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions.

The first thing i notice is that tobus2 uses a reasoning similar to the one he used in the talk page before: That it can't be valid because the site allows to mention both things "consultancy expertise and research interest" so it can be only one because the site doesn't specify on a implicit way which is which, however, that's false, because at the beginning of the quote the phrase "My work and research" is used, leaving clear that it's both, the only thing he does in that part of his post is to make assumptions based only on the bio found on his site, however the sections don't match at all, they aren't identical. what tobus does is to put in doubt the credibility of an institution such as the Oxford Brookes University without any real back up. He also ignores that researchers backed up by prestigiousuniversities are well reliable.

In another part of his post he mentions that Hagos isn't reliable despite being working as a production designer on a film called Simshar, whose main topic is migration, it's causes and it's impacts (he conveniently didn't mentioned this), with he quoting this from the production designer article: (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" however he didn't mention that accord to the same article, the production designer isn't considered an art director anymore (he conveniently only says that is another name for art director) and that has multiple responsabilities on different fields in the production of a film. Another con on this part of his argument is that accord to ] "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, (hagos is backe up on this part by the Oxford Brookes University) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The second criteria is meet for him directly designing a film whose main topic is migration (thing that again, tobus conveniently left out of his post in the reliale sources noticeboard) with that film actually receiving coverage from another third parties ), Again the assumptions he is doing aren't supported by any source, and he have admited to not be able to found sources or cite policies that agreed with the assumptions he is using in our discussion before .

Another of his arguments is that the map isn't situable because census data does not collect skin color information, however that's false because the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map it's at the left side, in the bottom), he also says that biasuttis map is obsolete However it is used on multiple articles (see file usage section) and have an article dedicated to it's methodology, and in fact, Hagos uses that map as a source and attemps at modernize it. He finally says that is impossible to get an exact representation of what skin color would be for each country, however the map doesn't attemp to be exact, the map strictly works with averages, and by the logic he is using the "completely accuracy" thing would be an issue on dozens of maps being used on wikipedia, icluding the ones already up on the human skin color article, isn't sensate neither objetive to ask so much to a particular map but let the other ones pass without any problem. He complains about the map being heavily based on personal interpretations and previous assumptions, not on accurate scientific data when the map bases itself only on scientific and governamental information, there is nothing that he is making up by himself, unlike tobus who uses oly baseless assumptions and intentionally half writes my arguments. And he have accepted his assumptions to be baseless before

Now, besides tobus2 writing incomplete information and intentionally misinterpreting my posture another problem that i've found while discussing with him is that he bases his postures almost totally on assumptions, his own post on the reliable sources noticeboard contains various examples of this, like the second part of this one: A Production Designer (another name for "Art Director") "supervises set designers, model artists, computer designers, graphic designers, set and storyboard illustrators, and assistant art directors" (from Production_designer#Responsibilities) meaning it's Hagos's artistic, design and creative work that has been published, not his knowledge in migration (if indeed he even has any). - There is no policy that states that what he is saying about "only artistic knoledge being published" is correct, what the policy on verifiable sources say is that the expert in question must have work on the relevant field, and the movie's topic on which he is the production designer is on the relevant field on this case (migration and issues related to it). Here is another blatant example: Firstly, there is no evidence that Hagos is in fact an expert in migration - he has zero education in migration, zero qualifications in migration, zero experience in migration, zero reputation among other experts in migration and zero publications in migration. - This makes clear that he deliberately ignored my source (the Oxford Brookes University) that actually considers him a researcher and a consultancy expertise on the topic , another blatant lie: I'm not sure that migration is a field "in the subject matter" for this case - while migration might be related, the map is clearly saying "country X has an average skin color of "Y" not that it has Y amount of migration. - Apparently he forgot that the name of the map is Human displacement map of the world" and that on it's description is stated that it wants to highlight the effects of migratory trends , finally, here is another one: I would expect the maker of such claims to be an expert in Anthropology or Genetics, not in Migration (and certainly not in Architecture) - The main topic of the map is migration and it's effects, and for the other factors included he uses information that is already accepted and included on wikipedia (like Biasutti's map and national census data) he is not "making up everything by himself" as tobus claims. In fact Hagos isn't doing anything for which he isn't qualified for. What tobus is doing is the old technique of "saying a lie as much times as possible, enough to make it pass as a truth" Here in the talk page are more examples of him making baseless assumptions again and again if anybody is interested on seeing more of his ways .

In short while his post above in the reliable sources noticeboard might have looked convincing, he only wrote half of the discussion (the elements that were on it's side) while leaving out, half-writing and misinterpreting all my arguments (he also wrote the section at an hour he already knows i'm not up on wikipedia, so i couldn't defend myself, he also used the same technique yesterday to attemp to get me blocked but failed, this makes very clear that he is in no way a fair player). I understand that people here might have though that he was right for how he write it and what he write, but he intentionally ommited and misinterpreted all the things on which i'm basing my posture of this map being reliable and i have to ask to the administrator in question, and other people reding this to reconsider the decision after reading the full problematique, not only what tobus conveniently wrote to make me and my map look bad. Thank you all for your time. Czixhc (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

In his university profile, Brookes writes that "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." He isn't claiming to be an expert on any of these and he clearly isn't (if you think he is you'll have to provide citations to his work in publications written by people who are obviously experts). This map is being used to illustrate skin color, and he isn't an expert on that either. He's using what he says is a problematic and obsolete method. And you say "the census do consider ancestry and country of origin (whit that information you can determinate what would by the approximate color based on a map that states which are the distributions of color for native popullations, and Hagos happens to cite exactly that map" but the map isn't reliable and it is certainly true that you can't determine skin color from a census. What you've written further convinces me that it isn't reliable - and I'm speaking not as an Administrator but as an editor with over 100,000 edits and a lot of experience in dealing with sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• He indeed isn't calling himself an expert, the university site is the one that is doing it. While in his own site he calls biasutti's map troublish (and it is called that in other sources on wiki) that doesn't prevent it's use on wikipedia, wouldn't it have to be taken down too? or to be used only on the article about the "von luschan method" rather than on articles regarding skin color?. Finally (and i believe the most important issue) does he working as a production designer on a film whose main topic is migration give him credibility for wikipedia standards? because the policy says that a person is reliable if has published work on the respective field. Czixhc (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

What university site? I presume you aren't referring to . And working as a production designer might just give him credibility for production design, but definitely not for migration. You're right about the von luschen map, it's probably only useful for an article on skin color to exemplify an obsolete method. For issues such as migration and skin color, we'd expect an expert to have published in peer reviewed sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that production design is a wide field though. And then here is the detail of the movie that he is producing being about migration (illegal inmigration to be specific) it's effects and causes. I believe that this is a credit for him for migration-related issues, because a film is a "published work on the relevant field". However, I agree that a remark on the Biassutti's map must be done to make clear that it's a troublish method. Czixhc (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would think he might well be considered an expert on techniques for making maps to illustrate skin colour, and suchlike subjects (e.g. see his October 2012 exhibition), but that doesn't make him an expert on the underlying issue of the actual distribution of skin colours. Barnabypage (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• What about using the map on migration or cartography related articles? Czixhc (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 Exhibition was this one and there is a gallery of the posters submitted here (scroll down a bit). I think you can see this exhibition isn't showing maps or cartography in a literal, scientific or expert sense, it's a art exhibition where the artists have used interpretative maps as the medium for their subjective political expression. I can't see how being in this exhibition would qualify the participants to be considered experts on map making techniques. Tobus2 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• I already know which your posture towards this map is, i'm interested on hearing what other people believe, there seem to be some progress on this. Hagos seem is be acknowledged as an expert at ilustrating maps for skin color and other topics, and he working as a production designer in a film whose topic is migration seems to be a credit for him on migration fields. We stil have to decide where to use it though. Czixhc (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly not! This is an art project by an artist, not a scientific source of any kind. It's of no more probative value than an ordinary blog posting by a novelist who is interested in these themes. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Orangemike. This is not RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the two who replied above me: Certainly not, he is not an artist, he is a researcher and a consultancy expertise on migration recognized up by the Oxford Brookes University , please examine the full case before coming to conclusions. Czixhc (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not RS. And am I missing something here? The author of the map is stated to be Czixhc, not Hagos - Czixhc appears to have copied the colour shading from Hagos's map onto a new one, creating a derivative work that to my mind might well be a breach of copyright... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the text accompanying Hagos's map ( top left) it appears that Hagos himself is not claiming that the data is accurate anyway - he makes it clear that the 'von Luschan scale' is problematic, and has been superseded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Andy, if you don't even know how wikipedia's copyright policies work why are you even comenting here? seriously, also note that he is calling the old Von luschan scale imprecise, not his map, and there are works based on that same scale that are already being used on wikipedia. Any other doubt? Czixhc (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Given your evident lack of understanding of WP:RS policy, I see no reason to assume your understanding of copyright is any better. Any more questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Given that you are the one who was unaware of the copyright policy until now i don't think that you are on position of assuming things about me. Czixhc (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Neither the original map nor your copy are WP:RS for what is being claimed. As for whether your copy violates Hagos's copyright, I'm not entirely sure - I should probably raise this on commons, and let them decide. Meanwhile, I suggest that you stop wasting people's time with nonsense like this, and read up on WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• The map was already featured on the copyright questions noticeboard and was found valid , as for "RS", i will cite it here as it is written in the respective section : "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, (This is coverded by the Oxford Brookes University ) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" The second criteria is meet for him directly designing a film whose main topic is migration (thing that again, tobus conveniently left out of his post in the reliale sources noticeboard) with that film actually receiving coverage from another third parties . see? all the issues you are bringing up were already cleared up, the question here is where on wikipedia the use of this map would be more appropiate. Czixhc (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked about the copyright status on Commons - they tend to be more familiar with such issues. As for the question of WP:RS, repeating the same arguments isn't going to alter the fact that you have entirely failed to show that Hagos has any expertise in the subject matter under discussion. To do this, you would need to show that he had published recognised academic works on the subject of skin colouration. Which he hasn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue here is migration, and he have worked on that topic before. Czixhc (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The only issue here is whether Hagos is WP:RS for the map being an accurate portrayal of skin colouration. Which he wouldn't be, if that was what he claimed. Given that he apparently isn't claiming that the map represents anything beyond "a way of highlighting (when compared to maps utilizing population data from earlier centuries) the effects of colonisation as well as migratory trends in the last century" rather than anything based on objective data, this debate is actually rather pointless - the map isn't 'RS' for 'skin colour' because the creator doesn't claim that it is - and accordingly, it cannot be used on Misplaced Pages to supposedly show skin colour, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't you saw my reply where i satated exactly that the issue here is migration? Czixhc (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hagos doesn't claim that the map is an accurate portrayal of migration either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• So a source must only be used on wikipedia if the maker explicitly states that is "accurate"? because that throws off the board 90% of the sources currently used on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop this Czixhc, you don't seem to be listening. And I simply can't understand why you think his university is calling him an expert (not that that would matter if clearly recognised experts in the field ignored him(. His profile page at is his page. He says "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." He's written that, and such pages can only be used to what an academic does, not whether they are an expert. And note it is 're-illustration', not 'My work and research focuses on subjects such as migration.." Please drop this. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't get it, why do you focus so much on what his personal page says?, nonetheless what the site of the University says is "research interest and consultancy expertise" how could it be possible that Hagos fools an entire university? it doesn't make sense, i also don't know from where you get that he has been ignored, neither i see the difference from he saying that his work focuses on the "re-ilustration of themse such as migration" of he saying "my work is migration", and above all this he is working as a production designer on a work inside the relevant field. Czixhc (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

Discussion is continuing below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stuck – No substantive problem has been presented for uninvolved editors' review or comment. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Commment: I don't think highly involved editors are supposed to "Close" discussions, are they? User:Carolmooredc 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC) The "Stuck" tag does not mean the discussion is "Closed", but it may serve to divert attention. As mentioned below, I do not think adding it serves resolution. I suggest you remove the tag, in which case I will hat my comments below. – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I am hatting hatted this "Stuck" tag and comments. Questions regarding the substantive problem have been presented, but not answered. The "Stuck" tag only serves to deflect attention from the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Hat was reverted by User:SPECIFICO. This comment has been restored and revised.21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Callahan, Gene (January 2, 2012). "Murphy on LvMI"
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#The Institute as a cult
3. Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology."
4. Article talk page thread: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as .22cult.22

– S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the only assertion I am arguing Gene Callahan's blog should be used to source is: in the opinion of Gene Callahan, a former Mises Institute Scholar, the Institute is a cult. This assertion is presented specifically as the opinion of Professor Callahan in the article; the opinion is notable because Callahan is a notable academic who for years worked closely with the Institute. I submit that his blog is a reliable source for presenting his view of the Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. We aren't a gossip rag, and his expertise does not relate to the sociological study of cults. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Steeltrap; what you need is a RS that identifies the fact that Callahan's opinion on this is notable. --Errant 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI, Callahan did not inititate the "cult" label. He is commenting on statment by Mises employee Robert Murphy, who wrote a blog post which denies that Mises Institute is a cult. I have no idea why Murphy denied it, presumably others uncited by Murphy asserted it. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • (By OP): Thus we have a blog by Callahan commenting on another blog, by Murphy, who is SPS and an expert commenting about third parties (the Mises Institute and the members of the Mises Institute "cult") in a subject outside of his area of expertise. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the "non-expert" bit is a straw man. These are ordinary English language opinions. Neither blogger presents an academic theory as to the sociological structure and functioning of a cult. Please drop it and concentrate on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply by OP: Non-expert goes to the heart of the matter. If Murphy or Callahan are experts, they can comment as experts in their field of expertise. Either way their blogs are subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS. In this regard they are commenting about third parties and their opinions are not acceptable RS. (Are you defending the use of the Callahan (or Murphy) blog in this context? If so, say so. If not, please render an opinion and say the Callahan blog is not acceptable RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unreliable. The assertion should be picked up in a more reliable source to be repeated by Misplaced Pages. Let's see if it appears in a magazine or newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Time Magazine and National Review. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By OP: So?? Are you saying Time & National Review somehow justify usage of the Callahan blog as RS? Or perhaps the Callahan blog is no longer needed? Please clarify. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Misplaced Pages:SPS#Self-published_sources. User:Carolmooredc 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by OP: It is quite extraordinary that User:SPECIFICO should tag this RSN as "stuck". Specifico has been asked to render an opinion, and not done so. Specifico has been asked to clarify the issue as to added references, and has not done so. If there is "No substantive problem", why do we have editors/admins commenting, and opining that the Callahan blog is not RS in this context? Editors are encouraged to take another look at the article talk page (linked above). If I was not the OP, I'd remove this ersatz "stuck" tag. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich Please comment on content and not your feelings about me or other editors. I am an involved editor in this matter, having stated my comfort with the Callahan reference on the article talk page.

The purpose of this RSN thread is to hear from uninvolved editors so as to broaden the discussion. If you still believe, in light of all the additional material that's recently been added, that it's problematic for PhD economist and former senior Mises faculty member Callahan to question Murphy's statement that Mises Institute's pursuit of its "economic theories" couldn't possibly be cultish, you need to present a well-formed theory as to why the reference should be impeached. I've already responded above to your straw-man "non-expert" denial, which fails on its face because the question is the manner in which the Institute purports to discuss the area of Callahan's academic and professional expertise. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSPS says 'no' to Callahan's blog used to demean the easily identifiable individuals of an institute. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That fails the "judge judy" test. No person has been impugned by Callahan's rejection of Murphy. Murphy states that to no group which solicits dissent can be a cult. GC disagrees. So what? No statement about any individual behavior. Misesians know that such a statement does not entail any implication about any individual. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by OP. SPS says we cannot use blogs that talk about third parties. This restriction is not limited to individuals. – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich That is a direct misrepresentation of the SPS policy. The policy says SPS should not be used "as third-party sources about living people." Please be familiar with policy and take care to cite it fully and accurately. The policy you claim to cite has nothing to do with "talk about third parties" who are not living people. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason this thread remains stuck is that there is no identified policy violation related to the disputed content. When a series of inapplicable policies are raised, whack-a-mole style it doesn't lead to a convergence of interpretation one way or the other. Callahan states that just because an organization solicits dissent does not mean that it's not a cult. He's responding to his colleague Murphy. No party person or any other entity has been disparaged. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The disputed content is stated above – #3 Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology." (The new mole appeared when this sentence was modified, without any notification in this RSN. A note was added to the effect that Time and National Review had been added, and I asked for clarification – but no clarification was posted here.) In any event, the basic issue is whether or not the Callahan blog is acceptable as SPS. Since Callahan seems to be addressing (according to this new rationale) the question of cultishness raised by Murphy, perhaps both the Murphy and Callahan blogs should be removed. (Moreover, this assertion by Callahan is the first sentence of the "cult" section and is not put into context as "refuting" anything other than (now) alluding to Murphy (who is mentioned in the earlier section – without using the term cult). Whether or not the language is disparaging is not the issue. Any SPS which references third parties/persons/entities -- praising them or burying them -- is not acceptable. There is no misrepresentation of policy. See: WP:SELFPUB #2 "it does not involve claims about third parties;" – S. Rich (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are claiming that it's acceptable for you to mis-state WP policy on this board, as I demonstrated that you have just done, you are mistaken. This thread remains pointless and stuck. If you believe that the content is inappropriate as sourced, you need to relate the content to the policy which it violates and to state the basis upon which you assert that the text violates policy. In doing so, you need to be sure that you are accurately citing and applying the policy. Going from one inapt citation to another to another is not constructive and cannot lead to any resolution here. Clearly you have editors engaged and eager to hear you out but there is no grist for the mill. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that the Callahan piece is a blog, and thereby comes under the guidance of SPS. At the same time SPECIFICO says "He's responding to his colleague Murphy." But in so doing SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that by "responding to his colleague Murphy" Callahan is making a claim that involves a living third party – Murphy and whatever Murphy said elsewhere. (In other words, SPECIFICO does not seem to understand that the SPS claim does not have to be about a third party in particular. The policy applies if the blog seeks to refute or confirm something that the third party said or did.) SPECIFICO argues that the nature or issue of this RSN discussion was changed because he made a change in the article text – but SPECIFICO did not inform this notice board of the change, much less ask if a proposed change could resolve this discussion. (E.g., it would have been so simple, so open, so forthright to say "I propose that we change the content to read 'blah-blah-blah.'" And then ask the opinion of those who are following this thread.) Nor did SPECIFICO bring up the idea of a change on the article talk page. In the very line above SPECIFICO's latest notation I cite the policy about using blogs when making claims which involve third parties, but SPECIFICO says I am "mis-stating" policy. Just what policy am I mis-stating? Please state it correctly. Enlighten us. – S. Rich (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable in general and for the proposed use. A representative survey of the relevant literature shows that the issue of whether the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a cult does not exist, so the subsection cannot be said to place the Ludwig von Mises Institute subject in context. In addition, the extraordinary claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult needs to be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources, which Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not produced by a reliable third party. Also, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. See Identifying reliable sources - context matters. Only one person, Gene Callahan, could be considered to have engaged in checking facts, there is no indication of whether Callahan did or is capable of analyzing legal issues related to the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult, or that anyone but Callahan scrutinized the writing. There is no evidence that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com has received peer-review, has been vetted by the scholarly community, or has received any scholarly citations. Callahan's blog exist mainly to promote Callahan's particular point of view. The source fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gene Callahan is an American economist, not an expert on cults or scientology. Callahan has no work regarding cults that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Callahan is not an established expert on Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. The blog makes an exceptional claim about third parties and is unduly self-serving since it does not express a viewpoint but instead uses unsupported conclusions regarding Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF. The source is unreliable for use within Misplaced Pages. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "A representative survey of the relevant literature" - Please be specific and describe what survey and what literature? Remember the text only presents Callahan's view, it does not state in WP's voice that any group is a cult. There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement. You are mistaken as to WP policy with respect to peer review and the use of a blog only for the author's opinion, because Callahan is a noted academician and expert on Misesian thought. Please provide the information about your survey. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The survey is my search and review of a database of print media that I have access to. The survey was to determine the wider issue of whether the cult subsection belongs in the article. It does not, which, among other reasons, makes 'The Institute as a cult' claim an extraordinary claim, requiring that the claim be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. We both agree that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not a Misplaced Pages high-quality reliable source. The text presents Callahan's view on cult and Scientology, and we both agree that Callahan is not an expert on either one. You state that I am mistaken as to WP policy. However, that is just a conclusion not supported by an analysis whereas my post uses WP policy/guideline to review whether Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is an unreliable source in general and for the proposed use in Misplaced Pages. While we may come to different conclusions on that, what matters is the strength of argument and policy/guidelines, not posting opinion conclusion. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to place the subject in context through a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, fairly and without bias. The use of Gene-callahan.blogspot.com in the article does not do that. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Time and National Review pieces by Justin Fox and Jonah Goldberg do not use the term/phrase "to a cult" or "cult". That material, lacking verification, has been removed from the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those references are the subject of this thread. Did you mean to post this comment elsewhere? SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement." Why not specify which RS supports the notion that LvMI is a cult? The two items were citations supposedly supporting a description of LvMI as a cult. If there is non-blog RS that describes LvMI as a cult, we might be able to use it without using the Callahan blog. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for sourcing Callahan's opinions Respectfully, I must say I think a lot of my peers are misunderstanding what the source is being used to say. The sourced statement does not say LvMI is, as a matter of fact, a cult; it simply says that this is in the opinion of Gene Callahan. I believe Callahan's blog is a reliable source of what he believes. I also believe the opinion of a former prominent scholar at an institution (who is currently a notable and credible academic at Cardiff University) regarding the nature and work of that institution is relevant. Steeletrap (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee's excellent point that Callahan is not an expert in cults applies here. Even if he were an expert, the Callahan opinion is not accompanied by a description of what characteristics he is talking about, what made him come to the conclusion. The bit you wish to include is not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So would your concern be addressed by including article text which specifies the issue to which Murphy and Callahan refer? The specific characteristics are in the cited sources but not in the current article text. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Titsingh's Annals of the Emperors of Japan

I've noticed User:Enkyo2 adding a source from 200 years ago by Isaac Titsingh (translated from a 17th-century work) in countless places around the articles on the Japanese imperial family. Sometimes the source is being used for statements about what happened decades after Titsingh died. Titsingh is mentioned 100 times in List of Emperors of Japan. In many cases Titsingh is being lumped together with a couple of other sources that appear to say different things. I'm wondering if I can be forgiven for requesting a more modern source written in either Japanese or English? Enkyo2 also appears not to understand that most of his uses of this (and other sources) appear to be woefully inadequate ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretext for continuing a pattern which was difficult to parse neatly here and here. The fact that this is a pretext is made explicit in hopes that the mere act of naming it may diminish its power to cause harm.

According to John Whitney Hall, who was the general editor of The Cambridge History of Japan, "Titsingh's Illustrations of Japan shows the result of careful translation from Japanese sources, as does also the posthumous Annales des Empereurs du Japon, which is a translation of the Ōdai-ichiran." This sentence comes from Hall's 1955 book, Tanuma Okitsugu, 1719-1788, at pp. 94-95.

Articles about Japanese emperors and Japanese era names -- and many other articles about Japanese events, places, government, history and historical figures -- are congruent in the similar foundation of research and cited sources which supports them. The array of articles is based on classic sources which are put in context by the Misplaced Pages article on Historiography of Japan. For example, when the reliable sources below are cited here, the reader is presented with links to other Misplaced Pages articles, including articles about the cited text itself, about its original author and about the translator:

• 1834 -- date that Annales des empereurs du japon was published by Isaac Titsingh was published in Paris by the Royal Asiatic Society, Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. OCLC 5850691

• Nihon odai ichiran (日本王代一覧) written circa 1650 by Hayashi Gahō, also known as Siyun-sai Rin-siyo

• 1979 -- date that Gukanshō: The Future and the Past by Delmer Brown was published by the University of California Press. 10-ISBN 0-520-03460-0; 13-ISBN 978-0-520-03460-0; OCLC 251325323

• Gukanshō (愚管抄) written circa 1220 by Jien

• 1980 -- date that Jinnō Shōtōki: A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns. by H. Paul Varley was published in New York by Columbia University Press. 10-ISBN 0-231-04940-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-231-04940-5; OCLC 59145842

• Jinnō Shōtōki (神皇正統記) written circa 1343 by Kitabatake Chikafusa

In this thread and elsewhere, Hijiri88's broad brush complaints and pretext are not justified. The analysis is not consistent with the cumulative edit histories of articles I have helped to improve. In these related articles, time and thought are invested in the structure of complementary, mutually reinforcing reliable sources. In contrast, for example, see

A>' diff 02:46, 31 August 2013‎ Hijiri88 . . (46,587 bytes) (-133)‎ . . (Not in source. Enkyo, can you stop piling sources that say different things on top of each other like this??)

B> diff 00:53, 1 September 2013‎ Enkyo2 (46,720 bytes) (+133)‎ . . (Undid revision 570891967 by Hijiri88restore cite with embedded link; see WP:Citing sources#Bundling citations)

C> diff 03:46, 1 September 2013‎ Hijiri88 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,587 bytes) (-133)‎ . . (Revert revenge edit by Enkyo2. It's not in the source.) (bold emphasis added)

The striking use of the term "revenge" in the edit summary above is worrisome.

Another unrelated use of the term "revenge" here was not encouraged by acknowledgment or response; but Hijiri88 continues "framing" a personal attack strategy. This needs to stop. The pretext needs to be rejected in order for this targeting to begin to stop. For example, in an article about any emperor of Japan, adding cite support from the Imperial Household Agency website is not in itself provocative; but Hijiri88's edit summary responds to a perceived "pointy" provocation.

A> diff 18:25, 28 August 2013‎ Enkyo2 ‎ . . (18,592 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (cite Kunaicho in infobox?)

B> diff 04:50, 1 September 2013‎ Hijiri88 ‎ . . (18,481 bytes) (-111)‎ . . (Enkyo, if you don't like the traditional dates, bring it up on the talk page. Also, revert WP:POINTY citation of the ONLY IHA page that happens to spells it "Jimmu".)

Can we not agree that Misplaced Pages needs more light, less heat. -Enkyo2 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This thread has been linked at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan#Reliable sources. --Enkyo2 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo, your 600+ word rant above doesn't address why you have been using a primary source from before 1868 as your source for the statement that "Until 1868 Empress Jingu was considered to be ...". I have not said that any of the three sources you list are not notable or that their opinions should not be included in articles where they are relevant. But they don't meet the standards of modern historiography and so cannot be used the way you have been using them. Please address the issue with a coherent argument, rather than inadvertently proving me right. On to your individual points:

1. Your initial assertion that this is personal is ironic, since you are the one who is making it personal.
2. Yes, you quote a source that proves that your source is essentially a 400-year-old primary source that says nothing about the modern scholarly consensus and can only be used as a source on its own opinions (which, as I have stated, are notable and should be included).
3. I don't know what "congruent in the similar foundation of research and cited sources which supports them" means. Can you rephrase it in an intelligible manner? Anyway, you are just piling up sources on top of each other, when they don't say the same thing and don't match the text of the article. A good example is where the article mentions "120 -- 1817–1846 -- Emperor Ninkō -- Ayahito -- Traditional dates" -- how can Titsingh be a source for the statement that this emperor's reign's dates are traditional, when said reign ended 34 years after Titsingh died an 12 years after his book was published??????
4. Your citations of notable, interesting primary sources from the 13th, 14th and 17th centuries are irrelevant, as none of them can possibly be used as sources for 2013 academic consensus. Of the three translations, one is a translation into another European language, which seems pretty useless in articles about Japan for an English-speaking audience, and is itself 200 years old. The other two are reliable sources, but you can't cite a single instance when I have removed these sources inappropriately. Additionally, since they are translations I would question whether they give any significant coverage to any topic other than their own source texts. In at least one case, you have cited a source that appeared to directly contradict your statement.
5. What does "the analysis is not consistent with the cumulative edit histories of articles I have helped to improve" mean? Please stop dismissing all my edits. You have misrepresented the content of your sources, and when I point out specifically in my edit summaries that this isn't in the source you revert me again, apparently just because you don't like me and dismiss my reasoning, forcing me to revert you again and directly state that you are making revenge edits.
6. You refer to this thread, but carefully neglect to point out how with one exception every single participant in that discussion agreed that your edits were problematic and should be dealt with. But again, why are you bringing up unrelated ANI threads here on RSN?? Please stop complaining about user contact.
7. User:Oda Mari mistakenly opposed an RM I had started. Apart from one unrelated user who had no history of editing in the area, you were the only other user opposing that RM, and you had clearly done it as revenge against me. OM's reasoning for opposing was that they had misinterpreted what the IHA's website said (they officially prefer my proposed spelling, but in one document accidentally used your preferred spelling, and they had inadvertently come across the latter document first). You then removed some relevant information from the infobox of the page, so that you could include a link to that one document and call it a "source" (it didn't back up the relevant information you removed).

Can we please focus on the subject at hand rather than bring in Enkyo's personal grudge against me? I have specified numerous times that I like most of Enkyo's edits and consider them to be constructive, but that some are problematic. Enkyo has consistently refused to engage me on this in any coherent manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A primary source can be cited as a primary source, which Enkyo appears to do in some contexts. The primary sources Enkyo is using, including Annales, are not outside of the mainstream, as evidenced by the high-quality and reliable translations available. If Enkyo desires to use these to make sources other than "the traditional dates", etc., he should justify that with other sources. The rest of this discussion appears to be a personal spat. Shii (tock) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the places where I removed the primary sources. Enkyo2 had used them as sources for statements about what happened after they were written. Admittedly, these references had mostly been added years ago, but he reverted me in at least one case, and my removals seem to have been what prompted Enkyo2 to dismiss all of my edits as "pretexts". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is a list that is occasionally updated good evidence that everything on the list up to date?

Background: The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) declared their independence in 1976. Morocco objected to this and claims the territory as their own. Since then, numerous other states have recognized the SADR's independence, but many of the states that did so have since withdrawn their recognition. In dispute is whether Vietnam still recognizes the SADR's independence, and how they should be listed on International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

We have several Moroccan sources which claim that Vietnam has withdrawn their recognition: , , , , . The most recent source is from June 2013 and states (from google translate): "The chairman of the delegation of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) visiting Morocco from 2 to 5 June at the invitation of the Party of Progress and Socialism (PPS) reaffirmed Monday, June 3, 2013 in Rabat, the position support of his country and his party to the territorial integrity of the Kingdom." This seems to pretty clearly state that Vietnam considers the SADR to be part of Morocco.

Contradicting this claim is a list available from Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs () of states with which they claim to have diplomatic relations. This list has been around since 2007 and has since occasionally been updated (to add new states to the list). The list claims to be accurate as of May 2/2013 (or one month prior to the most recent Moroccan source.) The list claims that they have diplomatic relations with the SADR.

So, the question is, is the fact that SADR hasn't been removed from this list sufficient evidence that Vietnam hasn't withdrawn recognition? To me, this is implicit evidence, and given that it is contradicted by explicit evidence (and the list has not been updated since the most recent Moroccan source) needs to be given due weight. A similar example, if we found a source which said Vietnam and Prussia established diplomatic relations on 1 January 2013, but Prussia was not listed on Vietnam's MFA list, I don't feel that this would be good evidence that they hadn't established diplomatic relations. As such, I think that Vietnam should be listed as having withdrawn recognition. Another user (Jan) argues that because the only sources claiming that recognition has been withdrawn are Moroccan, they aren't reliable and hence Vietnam should be listed as still recognizing. What are others thoughts on this? TDL (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Both views should be presented: "Moroccan sources state that ..., but the Vietnamese ministry still lists ... ". Your suggestion that a statement "seems to pretty clearly state that Vietnam considers the SADR to be part of Morocco" is just your opinion. It may of course be quite correct. But it may also be typical politician-speak, allowing them to say to Morocco "yes, of course Western Sahara is yours really" while at the same time denying anything of the sort to the Sahrawis, "but of course we weren't talking about your country". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course we can't rule out the possibility that they are saying different things to differ people, but that's true of any statement ever made, regardless of how clear it is. My point was that in the absence of contradicting information, the statement seemed to be clear enough to justify moving them from the "recognizers" to the "non-recognizers" category. Unfortunately, the situation is confused by the MFA list...

I completely agree that both views should be presented in the text, and I have no doubt that me and Jan can come to a compromise on that. However, due to the current structure of the list Vietnam needs to be classified either as a "recognizer" or a "non-recognizer". The key question is: do we colour and count them as recognizing or not? How do we depict them on the map? How do we give due weight to the sources presented above? Unfortunately there isn't a lot of room for a middle ground compromise on this issue without a complete restructuring of the list, it is one way or the other. Perhaps the only viable solution is to create a third category of states who's status is "unclear". TDL (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution until and unless the status of Vietnam becomes unambiguously clear. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Seconded! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an important debate for me. Soon I'll add a comment here, please be patient, I don't have free time. Jan CZ (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Son of the Bronx" site

Is this site considered reliable? It is a blogspot, but it is operated by Douglas Pucci, who works for TV Media Insights, which is owned by Cross MediaWorks Inc.. All of the information that he posts that can be cross-referenced is factually accurate. He also cites Nielsen as his source. I'd like to use his site to reference ratings numbers for cable shows whose ratings haven't been posted by other sites like Futon Critic or TV by the Numbers.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no. There would be a stronger claim for being a reliable source if the blog were directly hosted by TV Media Insights instead of just being the personal blog of one of its employees contributors. Nothing on the blog itself identifies who the blogger is so this is an anonymous blog. See WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS. I don't see how this blog meets the standard of "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication". Are there by-lined articles somewhere showing expertise? TV Media Insights itself looks to be marginal as a reliable source based on "Marc Berman mines dozens of media resources, researches and gathers the information and metrics and delivers to our readers" from http://www.tvmediainsights.com/. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I was guessing it wasn't, but I thought I'd ask just in case. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversies in Abu Dhabi sourced to The National

Many of the "Controversies" in the Zayed University article are sourced to The National (Abu Dhabi). After reading through the article for the latter I'm wondering if the experts here have a sense for the reliability of this news outlet. §FreeRangeFrog 16:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's a source of negative comments. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I used it as a source recently without hesitation. It apparently meets the requisites to be regarded as a reliable source here. But as Doug points out, the possibility of non-neutral reporting should probably be kept in mind, especially on contentious issues. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you both. §FreeRangeFrog 20:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing for "argument from intelligent design" only ever being used in the context of creation science

• Source: Sweetman, B, Religion and Science: An Introduction, Continuum, 2010, pp. 12, 147
• Article: Teleological argument, but the edits involve clearly also link to debates on Intelligent design
• Content: In the first paragraph, the term "Argument from Intelligent Design" was removed from the list of common names for the subject of the article (not such a big issue, there are lots of names) and then a sentence was adapted further down to say that:

  The is central to creation science , which was relabeled intelligent design in 1988 , and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design .

Looking at the source, the concern is that it does not appear to say what it is being used to say. It is apparently simply one example of a book which uses the term "argument from intelligent design" to the refer to "the contemporary argument from intelligent design" on page 147 and does not mention the term anywhere else as far I can make out. Can one example be used to make Misplaced Pages make an absolute statement as seems to be the case here? P.S. Just as some off-article OR to test how likely this apparent synthesis is to be correct I can find the following in a very quick google books search, and just as a few quick examples (trying to pick respectable looking authors and publishers):--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here it is used to discuss Giambattista Vico (18th century).
• Here it is used to refer to Socrates (quite some time back).
• Francisco Ayala, who I believe to have some expertise in this area, talking about William Paley (1802), and saying "the argument from intelligent design" has never been made so forcefully and extensively.
• Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Volume 28, Issue 2, talking about Plato
• Oxford Encyclopedia of Christianity using this exact term to translate the name of the fifth proof of the existence of God (see quinque viae) used by Thomas Aquinas (14th century).
• Used to name a subject handled within David Hume's Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (late 18th century)
• Again being used to refer to Paley.

I have occasionally dipped into the time-sink at Talk:Intelligent Design, but I still cannot understand what this report is about. Please clarify: Is anyone suggesting that "in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design" is not correct? What is the issue? Is it that two editors agree the text is correct but disagree on whether the source verifies it? Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to explain. In isolation it is true that "in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design" and any source like this does indeed show it. But in the context of the lead, the intention of this change to wording is to say that it is ONLY in this context and never in other contexts. Actually this appears to be untrue. So this is why I say that my question is concerning whether this one source which is ONE EXAMPLE of such a context, is enough for Misplaced Pages to tell readers that ALL EXAMPLES are in this context? Please note: Wording change proposals to avoid any ambiguity should normally be easy in a case like this, but that idea has been rejected on the talk page. So it is clear that the discussion is about drawing an ALL out of ONE example. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS Johnuniq, I know you were looking at this subject more broadly today so just to remark what I think you misunderstood on another talkpage: There is a similar concern with absolute (or at least ambiguous and apparently absolute) conclusions being drawn from non-absolute evidence on intelligent design. It is likely to be posted here soon. Generally on WP very strong statements (or implied statements) need very strong and clear sources, which pretty much say "this word is ONLY ever used in this context". See my comparison on the intelligent design talk page between the way creationism handles such things, and how intelligent design and teleological argument do. Creationism seems compliant to WP:UCN and WP:NOTDICT to me, and yet it does not insist on using the chosen article title term in a way which recognizes no potential confusion. This is better for readers and editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved with this since I first (I think) used this source and another to say that "argument from INTELLIGENT design, as a phrase meaning the same as the Teleological argument, is a contemporary concept. (While "argument from design" began with Paley in 1802.) My edits were deleted by the reporting editor as being OR. It might be worth taking a squint at the relevant talk page - which is becoming much like the ID one, though with fewer people involved. In this case two concerned editors think the citations should stay and one other thinks they should go. You will also see that I asked for a Third Opinion who said my edits should stay and were not OR. I think that the phrase with 'intelligent' has only become widespread since the ID movement. I have said on the talk page that using post-1988 sources that use the 'intelligent' phrase does not provide evidence for the view that the exact phrase is old. People after 1988 would know the ID term and use it to seem modern. I don't think any of the sources above actually say that eg. Vico (in Italian presumably) used "argument from intelligent design". They say things like "For contemporaries , the argument from intelligent design presumed ..."' but the book was published in 2011. I have checked most of the mentioned sources, and they are all post-1988. I could dig out the other source of mine and post it here. Myrvin (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The other words of mine deleted as OR said: "The exact phrase, "argument from intelligent design" refers to a more contemporary version of the teleological argument. Ariew writes: The contemporary concept of the argument from intelligent design varies little from William Paley’s argument written in 1802. Both argue that nature exhibits too much complexity to be explained by ‘‘mindless’’ natural forces alone. Both conclude the need to postulate the existence of an intelligent designer, a creator with forethought and purpose. But there are differences between Paley’s argument and the modern argument from ID . Paley concluded that the Christian God exists, while modern ID supporters claim to be silent about the features of the creator." It's a bit big, and I was going to cut it down, but it was deleted. Myrvin (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin, a reason for using this noticeboard is to isolate out specific questions related to sourcing, one at a time. You have swamped this with a whole bunch of points that would need extensive discussion. Can't you stick to the one above? I feel compelled to give some comment because you are clearly trying to give an impression:

• The 3o was writing about another section. He gave a VERY brief reply including the words "is directly quoting the source, so it can't all be OR". Say no more.
• "I have said on the talk page that using post-1988 sources that use the 'intelligent' phrase does not provide evidence for the view that the exact phrase is old." I have doubts about that but anyway why do you want WP to be doing OR about when the term was first used in the first place? If no good sources are writing about this, why should WP? Let's avoid making any statement about things we can not source?
• "People after 1988 would know the ID term and use it to seem modern. I have checked most of the mentioned sources, and they are all post-1988." So what? They are the experts even if they are just trying to seem modern. Terminology changes, and different experts use different terms. What I understand that you are in fact arguing for is to use OR to "prove" that the term "intelligent design" is uniquely used to refer to things associated with the intelligent design movement. We can use OR on a talkpage to show something should NOT be used, but we should never use OR in order to create a strong statement in WP's name.
• You final paragraph about how to use an Ariew passage, is similar to the case here. I think you are stretching the source far beyond what it says.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you are right; the term "argument from intelligent design" or, presumably, its equivalent in other languages, is not limited to modern crypto-creationist thought. Others are also right, in that that specific English phrase has been used to label a specific modern approach (trying to get creationism into US school programmes, using newer discoveries about living things as examples). However, the modern argument is very little different from the longstanding one, and without reliable sources we should not state that the term is limited to modern times or to a specific political programme. Perhaps "the modern Intelligent Design movement" or some variant might be useful somewhere. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I at least agree with all of that. (Including what the "others" also think.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard, could I draw your attention to the words "But there are differences between Paley’s argument and the modern argument from ID . Paley concluded that the Christian God exists, while modern ID supporters claim to be silent about the features of the creator." Ariew may be wrong, but he is another source, like Sweetman, who uses the ID term to talk about only the modern view. Ariew also refers to: "the traditional argument from design for the existence of God.", as well as saying: "Some of the recent advocates of ‘‘intelligent design’’ creationism have tried to use the special and mysterious properties of information to mount anti-Darwinian arguments ... These arguments have no real force. Indeed, the resulting views tend to be less plausible than earlier versions of the argument from design", he also says: "organic features that were at the heart of the traditional argument from design for the existence of God." Myrvin (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin you are highjacking this thread! If you want to raise other questions for this noticeboard or others, please post them separately!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying that I am "clearly trying to give an impression" is another insult to add to the many you have made to me on the Talk page. I have asked you to stop doing this. Why can't you just be polite for once? I am pointing to the problem at hand and giving a citation that supports my view. You gave 7 sources above to support yours. The Third opinion User:Jackmcbarn wrote: "At least some of is directly quoting the source, so it can't all be OR, and at least some of it should be on the page." Myrvin (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not an insult Myrvin and you keep using that word the wrong way. It was an accusation relevant to editing WP, and you have yourself made lots of accusations about me. Is anyone keeping count? Thing is though, if I make an accusation I try to make sure I can back it up, and show the relevance to editing, should anyone say I was being unfair. When you accuse me falsely of insulting you, you are making quite false accusations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask for more un-involved remarks specifically about the Sweetman source and how it has currently been used in order to imply that the term "argument from intelligent design" is only ever used in the context of the intelligent design movement please? (Does anyone think it appropriate to move some of the above discussion to a new thread, or to hat it?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• This seems to be a fuss about nothing: on 27 August Andrew changed the first sentence to add "intelllgent", giving "also called an argument from design". At some stage this was moved to become a third alternative, Sweetman (2010) was added as a source, then in recognition of the date it was shown as "more recently, the argument from intelligent design". On 1 September Andrew removed "more recently" with the edit summary no source given for this chronology. There has been discussion at intelligent design (ID) about how all sources for "argument from intelligent design" seemed to follow after the wide publicity given to neo-creationist ID. When looking for examples of this phrase applied to the wider teleological argument, I looked at the online views of Sweetman, and found that the phrase is used in the book to refer to ID, not to the earlier argument, so could not support its general use. On 5 September I moved the source to follow on from mention of ID, saying "and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design". Later that day Andrew objected on the talk page, proposing additional sources, and I replied "The wording accurately reflected the source, as Sweetman specifically placed the phrase in relation to ID: it's unlikely that Paley ever commented on microbiology. Provide a new source, and adjust the wording accordingly, though note that the phrase "argument from intelligent design" still seems to only appear after 1990." Rather than doing that, Andrew decided to take the issue here.
  To recap, Sweetman only supports usage in the context of ID, other sources can be used to show that the wording has been used in a wider context. Andrew is welcome to add a different source and change the wording accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being called a highjacker again, have we all noticed that the report heading says "Sourcing for "argument from intelligent design" only ever being used in the context of creation science", while the sentence in question says, "The argument is central to creation science, which was relabeled intelligent design in 1988, and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design."? Now, that does not say that the term is ONLY used in connection with ID. It says it "has been" used in this context - oh, and BTW, here is Sweetman to say so. Therefore, this is a non-question. As Dave says, it can be broader. A writer can use the exact phrase and not know what the ID movement is (unlikely), or not mean "argument from that-thing-the-IDM-goes-on-about". I would like my "more recently" to come back too. Myrvin (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Although it extends the lead, might I suggest that we add something like:"However, this phrase can be used, even in modern texts, simply as being synonymous with "argument from design." - with some citation? Myrvin (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is, of course, what is that citation? It has to be post-IDM and yet not be talking about IDM. Otherwise, the phrase will look like "argument from that-thing-the-IDM-goes-on-about". Myrvin (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Myrvin. Maybe I misunderstand your point but I've given sources above which all use the terminology "post-IDM and yet not be talking about IDM". I think as far as this noticeboard is concerned Dave has recognized the problem, and so unless you see an error in his WP:RS reasoning (or mine or Richard Keatinga's) then we should probably move back to the talkpage. Please note: concerning your other RS-related questions inserted above, these can also be discussed here of course but then please open a new section for each one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca

I would like opinions on the reliability of globalresearch.ca (). To my eye it meets the definition of WP:QUESTIONABLE for the following reasons:

1. The website is a frequent publisher of fringe material. The website has a long history of publishing 9/11 and other conspiracy theory material. To see that, on any given issue, this website will take a fringe position, one has only to look at today's homepage, which includes items such as:
   1. Saudi Arabia’s “Chemical Bandar” behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria?
   2. Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?
   3. US and Allied Warships off the Syrian Coastline: Naval Deployment Was Decided “Before” the August 21 Chemical Weapons Attack
   4. Turkish Official: “Chemical Weapons Sent From Turkey to Syria”
   5. The US Government Stands Revealed to the World as a Collection of War Criminals and Liars
   6. The Murder of Dr. David Kelly. “A Symbol of the Blackness of the Tony Blair Cabal”
2. User-submitted content and a weak editorial policy. The website accepts submissions from authors and appears to have minimal editorial oversight. The about us page states: "The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be held responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in Global Research articles." If they decline to stand behind the work that they publish, why should we consider them reliable?
3. While the person who runs the website, Michel Chossudovsky, is a retired academic, there is no reason to believe that the website practices any form of peer review. or holds itself to any academic standards

globalresearch.ca was discussed on this forum back in 2007. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#globalresearch.ca. At this point User:DGG argued that the website was not reliable while User:Piotrus and User:Blueboar argued that use of globalresearch.ca required attribution. GabrielF (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually all DGG argued was that they were bias, but that is immaterial as all sources are. The reason for this RSN is this edit, that Gabriel and friends, socks, keep on cutting out a source written by the article's subject because they dislike the organization hosting the source. As for the source for other cases, the author of the specific article being sourced to is of high importance, and any statement attributed to the website itself must be attributed, and also not refuted by other sources. Sepsis II (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a highly questionable source, which does not appear to meet the requirements of reliable sources. There is no indication of any editorial oversight - the "about" page of the website does not even name any of the individuals associated with it, and has a disclaimer, as you note above, that dissociates itself from the articles it publishes. GoGoTob2 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: you misrepresent what DGG said back in 2007. He said " I do not consider it quotable as factual news unless otherwise supported".

This account is an obvious sock, engaged in blockable offenses. Sepsis II (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Globalresearch.ca appears to be devoted to WP:FRINGE editorials and its content clearly contradicts what reliable sources say. HAARP is a secret weapon, Big Pharma conspires with the WHO to cause pandemics, Kosovo was stolen from Serbia by NATO, Gaddafi was a philanthropist (and the USA committed genoicide in Libya), global warming is a myth, Srebrenica is a hoax to make Serbs look bad, the twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions, and so on. Globalresearch.ca should not be used as a source, and any attempt to use globalresearch.ca to support an editor's opinions should be considered a red flag. bobrayner (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles on Globalresearch.ca are certainly not a reliable source for factual unattributed claims, but that does not forbid us from adding:

• Faruqi, Shad Saleem (Nov. 5, 2009). Bush and Blair accused of War Crimes, Globalresearch.ca.

to, say, a bibliography section of the Shad Saleem Faruqi page (whether that meets WP:DUE will depend upon how may such articles Faruqi has authored etc). As an analogy, a self-published book, is (with some exceptions) not regraded as a reliable source, but it is still ok to mention on the author's page that he wrote such a book. The relevant policy for such use of questionable and SPS sources is WP:ABOUTSELF. Just be sure not to repeat claims made in that globalresearch article as facts. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Abecedare. The fact that they're a fringe publication means we shouldn't treat what they wrote as facts. It doesn't mean we can't mention that the article subject wrote for them - if that were the case, then we couldn't write that Alex Jones had a radio show, that David Icke ever wrote books, etc! --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have certainly consistently said that no source is absolutely reliable for all purposes or unreliable for all purposes, and that every source is intrinsically subject to a greater or less degree of bias, being composed or compiled by humans. Not all sources, however are equally biased. In the earlier discussion,I did not say that they were only biased in the way other sources are, but that they were a frankly and openly politically motivated source, attempting to promote their cause, rather than attempting to be neutral. Sometimes they reprint outside material, but the true source is then the outside material which must stand on its own--that they quote it doesn't say anything about it being trustworthy or otherwise. The immediate source for this essay is http://www.criminalisewar.org/blog/, which published Faruqi's essay as Reflecting on the Law, and that is what should be quoted. Faroqui did not use the sensational headline: "Bush and Blair accused of War Crimes:" that wording is globalresearch's own wording, and is not a correct reprint of the original--indeed, the original does not even mention Blair. We can not say that Faroqui wrote for them, because he didn't. he wrote elsewhere, and they reprinted it. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell such "reprints" (reposts) are clearly signalled on globalresearch.ca, with the original post clearly linked. I can't see why the repost should ever be cited instead of the original. Podiaebba (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca doesn't claim editorial oversight, so as far as I can see it has no status beyond that of the author. It is worth pointing out that Project Censored has repeatedly highlighted stories published on globalresearch.ca (6 of the 10 in Michel_Chossudovsky#Project_Censored_highlights were published there; and there are other cases from other authors, eg this). I conclude that for authors with significant reputations, the fact that a piece is published on globalresearch.ca shouldn't immediately and entirely disqualify it from being mentioned, with appropriate "Author X said" attribution. Podiaebba (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• If Project Censored lauds Chossudovsky for his insistence that "the WTO is actually an illegal institution" &c, that counts against Project Censored rather than counting in Chossudovsky's favour. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The "illegal" phrasing sounds odd given the WTO's undisputed status in practice, and Project Censored's summary loses a bit of the wording that makes it clear why Chossudovsky used it - the way the WTO agreement contradicted and/or overrode existing international law. copy of the original Try not to be so quick to judge. Podiaebba (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study

1. Source: Barma, Sukhbilas Bhāwāiyā (2004) Ethnomusicological Study by Sukhbilas Barma, Global Vision Publishing Ho
2. Article: Kamrupi dialect
3. Content: diff
4. Issues:
   • Barma uses the name "Kamrupi" to denote the Rajbanshi dialect (p97). This is non-standard because Kamrupi is already used for the dialect of the Kamrup region, much further to the east of the region Barma defines for Rajbanshi. Is Barma (2007) a reliable source for the definition of "Kamrupi"?
   • Barma further claims that Chatterji and Sen (in the next paragraph) calls the a language "Kamrupi", which is not true. Chatterji defines a dialect of Middle_Indo-Aryan Magadhi Prakrit "Kamarupa dialect", where Kamarupa denotes a much larger area that includes Kamrup region. Chatterji's use is given here: (https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/45743/33/08chapter7.pdf, Figure 7-3, page=302). Is Barma a reliable source for the usage of "Kamrupi" for the Magadhan dialect that Chatterji calls "Kamarupa Dialect", and imply it is the same dialect as modern Kamrupi?

Chaipau (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems this is too arcane an issue for general interest. So let me ask a general question instead. If author-one claims author-two said something, but if on scrutiny I find that author-two did not say such a thing, then how should I address this issue without WP:OR on my part? Chaipau (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

caic.org.au

Source: caic.org.au

Article: Landmark Worldwide, and others:

• culthelp.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• caic.org.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• (other domain redirects may exist as well)

Content:

• In the article Landmark Worldwide:

  ...with former members reporting manipulative and coercive techniques such as sleep deprivation.

  and (in the lede):

  In some quarters, it has been classed as a cult, with some participants alleging the use of manipulative and coercive techniques.

• On the Talk:Landmark Worldwide, it is being used by editors to forward claims that the company is a cult.
• These claims (among others) are then being used to support the company's inclusion at List of new religious movements.

Commentary:

• As near as I can tell, CAIC is now a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere. (A Whois search shows that the site is registered to an individual, not an organization.)
• The site is clear that it has an agenda.
• It (CAIC) has a statement on most pages that it is not saying anything in their voice.
• The site does not have clear ownership (the site copyright actually includes the phrase "Yada yada yada").
• Our own article on the only "source" for CAIC's voice says that she passed away nearly 13 years ago (over six years before the domain was registered).
• In the example of Landmark Worldwide, it is being used as a source to support a rather exceptional claim.

Is the source (caic.org.au and other redirected domains) a reliable source? Does it support the statements made at Landmark Worldwide quoted above?

• Not reliable - As proposer of commentary above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As I suggested on the Article Talk page given CAIC is a clearinghouse of links to other articles (which are not being disputed individually) then one option would be to source each article directly. However, the opposite holds, if each CAIC linked article is not being disputed individually then why is CAIC being disputed as an aggregate of links? AnonNep (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable From looking around the site it appears to be mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course, I can write one of those, inclusion on that site wouldn't make it authoritative. Indeed on this page http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=12 the site maintainer "Jan Groenveld" says "Most of the articles regarding Landmark/Forum/EST are anecdotal - subjective experiences of others who have been through the Landmark/Forum/EST experience. They are provided to give an alternate viewpoint to that found on their own website." in other words articles on the site about Landmark are selected because they disagree with Landmark's own website, not because they necessarily have merit. Jasonfward (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The specific page on CAIC that mentions Landmark lists its sources (including publishing a Landmark rebuttal to its own content for balance) and does include a few 'subjective experiences' but is more of 'a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere' than 'mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course'. But, as said, the 'subjective experiences' could be ignored & other sources directly linked to the same effect:
    • 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns - Mother Jones, Volume 34/August 2009
    • ABC Radio National "Background Briefing" documentary on Landmark Education - ABC Radio National (Australian National Broadcaster)
    • 60 Minutes: Werner Erhard (March 3, 1991) - US CBS '60 Minutes' with link to transcript
    • "The Fuhrer Over est" by Jesse Kornbluth - New Times, New York, March 19, 1976. Pp. 29-52.
    • Marriage licence for Jack Rosenberg / Curt Wilhelm VonSavage / Werner and Ellen Erhard etc - Book excerpt 'Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile', Steve Pressman, 1993
    • AUDIO: Werner Erhard interview with Barbara Walters (1976) - as per description
    • Inside Landmark Forum (transcript) - English language transcript of French documentary "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous"
    • Inside Landmark Forum (video) - video of above with English subtitles
    • Landmark Education reply to France 3 documentary - Right of reply offered by CAIC to Landmark
    • The Forum Begins: The Curriculum and Pedagogy - Ph.D Dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • The Structure: First Sights Of The Forum - Excerpt from dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • "Not interested in people - but only money" - Personal experience copyrighted to Rick Ross
    • Soul Training (another Landmark experince) - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999.
    • There's no meeting of the Minds - Westword, April 18-24, 1996
    • Mind game courses aimed at public sector workers - The Times, July 22, 1992
    • "Landmark Forum is a very aggressive and selfish program" - 'By an attendee of Landmark Education', 1988
    • The Con-Forumists - Swing Generation, November 1998
    • The Forum: Cult or comfort? - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999
    • Mellow Out Or You Will Pay - Argus Magazine, December 1980
    • Landmark Education - by Andy Testa
    • Cults & Psychological Abuse (my experience in the forum) - 'taken from remarks -- considerably expanded -- that I delivered as a panel member at a discussion called "Cults and Psychological Abuse" on 30 October 1992 at Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh'.
    • Part 1 Of a Discussion on AOL - as titled
    • Part 2 of a discussion on AOL - as titled.

AnonNep (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this gaggle of links appear to either be to unreliable sources (the AOL chat might be my favorite) or to sources that don't actually discuss the claims that this source is being used to report. In any case, these links are irrelevant to whether the CAIC itself is a reliable source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable if used with care. Despite the statement by Tgeairn, CAIC is not cited as a reference for the "cult" label at all in the Landmark article (for which other sources are cited), but rather only for the statement that there have been reports of "manipulative and coercive techniques". Nor has this source ever been discussed on the Talk:List of new religious movements page. Although I agree that there are other sources that can and should be used to support this brief statement, that is no reason to deem the existing reference unreliable. CAIC, and its website, are cited in academic literature, and a very quick search turns up several:
  • Jeffry Kaplan: "Doomsday Religious Movements" in 2002. Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future. London: Routledge/Frank Cass Publishers.(references)
  • George Chryssides: "Heavenly Deception" in James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer, eds. 2007. The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press (references)
  • George Chryssides: 2011. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press (bibliography)
  • Margaret Thaler Singer, ‎Janja Lalich: 1994. Cults in Our Midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers (acknowledgements as an important resource)
  • Nancy K. Grant Ph. D., Diana J. Mansell R. N.: "Eckankar (co-worker with God) The Religion of Light and Sound" in 2008. A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People. New York: iUniverse (references)
  • Thomas J. Badey, ed. August 2004. Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism 05/06. edition: 8. Dubuque: McGraw Hill Contemporary Learning Series (references)
  • Sharon Brehm, Saul Kassin, Steven Fein, et. al.: Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (recommended resource)

Moreover, according to CAIC's Wiki article, it has had notable run-ins with Landmark in the past, and CAIC would also be a relaiable source for its side of that story, again, if used carefully. • Astynax 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that CAIC is cited in academic literature, please review your references:

• In Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future, it is listed in a list of Internet Addresses in the "References and suggested reading" section. CAIC is never cited in the book.
• In "Heavenly Deception", the actual reference is to "Hassan, Steve, "The Truth about Sun Myung Moon" and includes a url for a copy of that article on CAIC's site. CAIC isn't the source in that reference, and does not provide any content other than hosting a copy of someone else's web page.
• In Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, CAIC is listed in a list of Critical, Countercult, and Cult Monitoring Sites. Being listed in a list of websites does not mean it is being used as a source. There is a reference to caic.org regarding MSIA, which takes the reader to an unattributed copy of an excerpt of someone thoughts on the subject. Again, there is not material here from CAIC, only an unattributed copy of someone else's work.
• I cannot find any reference to CAIC in Cults in Our Midst. Can you verify that one?
• Following the pattern, A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People uses CAIC as a repository for other people's material (and is not exactly "academic literature").
• Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism, included on a list of websites - the exact same list as the others.
• Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology, the name of the website is listed in a list of websites that are accessible from a personal website. Again, no material from CAIC is being used as a source.

In none of the "academic literature" you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all. At best, it is included in a list of websites; and at worst it is being used as a webhost for someone else's material. Neither of these make it a reliable source. --Tgeairn (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: You are again mischaracterizing the issue at hand. A great many reliable sources are collections of information from multiple authors/sources. For each book/journal listed, I already provided in which way the site was listed. Academic authors do not include items in their references unless they have used them as sources and/or regard them as reliable for their readers/students. They do not tend to put unreliable sources in their recommended reading lists or bibliographies unless they have either used the source or think it will be valuable for their readers/students. The sole exception for that would be if the article criticized the source as unreliable, which none of the above do in regard to CAIC. Even were we to dismiss reference, bibliography and recommended reading lists (and we should not), your contention that "In none of the 'academic literature' you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all" is patently false. Chryssides certainly cites them, and authors do not thank sources in their acknowledgements for the contributions made by the sources toward completion of the work unless they have made use of the source. • Astynax 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable As above, the CAIC website is clearly a self-published website that appears to have no scholarly or academic credentials. Moreover, the site itself doesn't even appear to make the claims that the source is being used to support. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable per WP:SPS. Of course if some of the links on that site point to sources that are WP:RS, there is no reason why those references could not be cited directly. It does seem however that, of the links that point to to newspaper and magazine articles, many are Op-ed pieces rather than news reports, or quotations by the reporter of the opinions of non-notable or unnamed individuals. DaveApter (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, it is not reliable in the sense that it can't be used to say Landmark Worldwide is a "cult" and therefore a "new religious movement". When you go to the CAIC site the first thing you see is a big disclaimer saying "Just because a group is mentioned on this site does not mean we regard it as a destructive cult. Both Cults and Isms are listed to provide information for those seeking the downside of many of these movements." So in their words, they're not saying it's a cult; also I don't think the self-published reviews there are reliable sources either. I'm not saying that Landmark doesn't have problems, but I don't think this is the way to deal with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live (season 39)

Over the past few days, multiple users (myself excluded) have been removing and re-adding sourced information about cast additions, hosts, etc, while debating over whether said sources are reliable. I'm on the fence on the reliability; would anyone else like to look at this? Erpert 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources for that 969 Movement is anti-Muslim/Islamophobic

Are these sources

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333858/Right-wing-Buddhist-leading-campaign-force-Muslims-Burma-says-wants-group-like-English-Defence-League.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312807/Burma-riots-Horrifying-moment-Buddhists-set-Muslim-man.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22023830
• http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/saydaw-wirathu-myanmar-969-burma-450375.html
• http://www.vice.com/read/is-burmas-anti-muslim-violence-led-by-buddhist-neo-nazis
• http://www.dvb.no/news/features-news/the-monks-behind-burma%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9C969%E2%80%9Dmovement-2/28079
• http://www.smh.com.au/world/antimuslim-movement-grows-in-myanmar-20130415-2huze.html
• http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/10-Apr-2013/myanmar-s-extremist-buddhists-get-free-rein
• http://m.ibtimes.co.uk/saydaw-wirathu-myanmar-969-burma-450375.html

enough to be able to call the 969 Movement anti-Muslim and/or islamophobic without using weasel words like "critics charge that"? // Liftarn (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WGmaps article sources

not sure any of the external refs have any real relevance besides a passing mention that the site exists, nothing to do with notability. Thoughts on this madnesss?

Louis-Frédéric Nussbaum (trans. Käthe Roth), Japan Encyclopedia

This book is currently cited in around 1,000 articles. It's a nice, colourful book, and a good read. It's also fairly accurate when it comes general, superficial overviews of Japan-related topics. But it also has a large number of errors. It translates Hyakunin Isshu as "Simple Poems by One Hundred Poets", even though the "simple" is not in Japanese and has never appeared in any of the 12+ translations of the work into English. It misspells the name "Ariwara no Narihira" in its article on him, despite spelling it correctly in the article on his brother immediate below. It's article on the Kujiki claims the latter to be a 1644 forgery, when an extensive debate between myself and User:Shii on Talk:Kujiki showed no reliable sources that indicate the work was written later than the 10th century. Japanese encyclopedias all say so.

I'd tend to attribute these errors to the fact that Nussbaum, apparently an art historian by training, was not expert in everything Japanese, and so a book written solely by him is inherently not the best possible source on everything to do with Japan. I don't know of any reputable general reference "encyclopedia" in which all of the articles are written by a single person. In fact, his original work in French didn't include the word "encyclopédie" in the title. This word was added by the translator, Roth, a I'm not even the first to notice these errors on Misplaced Pages: User:Stone-turner pointed out some other errors in January.

I know the book claims to be written by a well-known historian of Japanese and Asian art, and is published by a reputable university press. But it's just got too many misprints and places where we can't tell if certain claims originate with the author (who appears to only be a reliable source on certain parts of Japanese culture) or with the translator (who is not a reliable source on anything to do with Japan). Therefore, I'd like to settle here once and for all whether the book can be used as a source for potentially controversial material when no other sources can be found.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like WP:TERTIARY applies here, but the test of that would be whether the author uses primary sources or relies on intermediate secondary sources. Tertiary sources often have the type of errors you mention. Good secondary sources would normally be taken as more definitive, but in general you would need to find such secondary sources in order to eliminate this source in each particular case. I don't think you can can just eliminate it as a source altogether on account of your own judgment. Perhaps some strongly negative reviews from acknowledged experts would suffice, though. Zero 07:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding statement because I know of one situation where this source is actually more reliable for terminological issues than most other sources. Louis Frederic's Japan Encyclopedia correctly spells the name of a battle taking place in 587 AD as the Battle of Shigisan. A search on Google Books seems to indicate that a slight majority of published sources spell the word as "Shigisen" or "Shigi-sen", which anyone with knowledge of the Japanese language would know to be incorrect. Evidently, either Louis Frederic or his translator made some typos, but here is one place where they accurately fixed a common mistake. As was said above, care should be taken in using such tertiary sources, but if someone is proposing to "eliminate this source", that would not seem to be a good course of action.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Zero: So does that mean that if there's a reliable secondary source that contradicts it, we can just remove the Nussbaum citation and the text based on it, and replace it with the better source? I've tried this before with sources that were arguably much worse than Nussbaum, and been accused of "removing referenced text" and violating NPOV ...

Curtis: That's just an unfortunate coincidence. But we don't need English (or French) sources to tell us how to correctly pronounce or romanize the names of Japanese mountains. Reliable sources place the battle at Mount Shigi, and so if Misplaced Pages calls Mount Shigi "Shigisan" or "Shigisen" or "Shigi-san" or "Mount Shigi" or whatever, we can spell it that way. Plus, I looked into it and apparently -san is the kan'on and so likely dates to the Nara or Heian Period, whereas -sen is the go'on and so was more likely used during the period in question. Therefore, it's likely that both are technically correct, and since no one in modern Japan calls it "the Battle of Shigisan" anyway, there's not much point splitting hairs over whether the "English name" of the battle should be using the modern Japanese pronunciation. My source for the readings of 山 is Gakken's 2006 Kanji-gen. Therefore, Sansom is still a better source and isn't even technically wrong on this minor detail. Anyway, I'm not proposing "eliminating this source" -- that would be far too much work. What I'm saying is that if an editor finds a particular statement questionable, and Nussbaum is the only source that can be found for the statement, then a reliable secondary source should be required: a translation of a tertiary source that is known to contain many errors should not be good enough by itself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: User:Enkyo2 is probably the book's main advocate, but even he recognized that it contains errors. In response, User:Bamse said that Nussbaum "does not work ". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Every book contains errors but they are often minors and concerns details. This is comes more often in 3rd sources than in 2nd sources.

Given the descrption that you give of this book (well-recognised as well as his author), it should be given credit and each time there is a doubt, some secondary sources should be found to confirm the doubt.

If this happens too often (I would say between 5 and 10 times), then other sources should be prefered in the redaction of the articles.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

whether the book can be used as a source for potentially controversial material when no other sources can be found

The short answer is, with attribution, if the matter is obscure and otherwise unattested. However, since he wrote basically a derivative compilation, I very much doubt whether no other source could be found even for the obscurer matters he might mention. Only one example is given 'Shigisan'.

The Hyakunin isshu translation is certainly a blooper; the Ariwara no Narihira mispelling just editorial oversight on a lapsus calami; on a thing like Kujiki, a generic source like Frédéric cannot be used because it is subject to academic dispute, and in these instances, one must always have recourse to secondary specialist sources, never tertirary sources that push on opinion; 'The battle of Shigisen' is English usage, yet 信貴山 is read 'Shigisan' in modern Japan. I don't think he should be used here either, and I don't think indeed that that English wiki article bears a proper title: its only justification is that none of the other current Japanese terms have stabilized to allow one to be ascendent. A cursory glance at this obscure episode (the Nihonshoki doesn't appear to name it, by the way (Sakamoto Tarō, Ienaga Saburō, Inoue Mitsusada, Ōno Susumu (eds.)Nihon Shoki, Iwanami Koten Bungaku Taikei 68, vol.2 pp154-171, unless my quick glance through it missed something, doesn't appear to mention any name for the battle. When was the term coined? One thing I do know is that this was undoubtedly the traditional reading of an ancient text source, because

• George Sansom,A History of Japan to 1334, (1958)1974 p.49
• Edmond Papinot, Historial and Geographical Dictionary of Japan, (1899,1906,1910) Tuttle reprint 1972 sub. Soga no Umako, p.597
• James Murdoch,History of Japan, 1903, p.137
• Charles William Hepner, The Kurozumi Sect of Shinto, 1935 p.9

Now all of those extremely erudite Meiji (or close to Meiji) Japanologues write 'Shigisen', and it is not a slip but reflects, undoubtedly, their transcription of original sources, as edited by Japanese scholars. It can't be coincidental that it is also retained in some modern scholarly monographs by period specialists, e.g.Gary L. Ebersole, Ritual Poetry and the Politics of Death in Early Japan, Princeton University Press, ‎1992 p.148.

Hijiri's call is therefore probably correct on the original historical (go'on) pronunciation (and also because of the fact that it is the lectio difficilior), against Curtis. Most Japanese would now read Shigisan (信貴山), because it looks standard. If you pronounced that shigisen they’d probably hear that as a reference to the Kintetsu branch line from Kawachi-Yamamoto station (信貴線)! Some might recall also that the Shigisan engi emaki is pronounced that way, reflecting Heian pronunciation.

So (a) it's pointless to have a blanket dismissal of a fairly good general encyclopedia (b) but on tricky issues, they should not be used, unless there is no other source. In this case, one uses attribution. Shigisan should really be, in my view, Shigisen, on the basis of the evidence above.

p.s. Hijiri. (it's = its) as of course you know. Rapid internet reading tends to make us pick up even the illiterate confusions of youth. I have to stay on guard myself against stuff like this. It doesn't matter (but it does!) By the way 'Shigisen, sounds to me like it might have meant 'Snipe-Hill' (鷸)? Well, no matter. Just an idle thought. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"It's article on the Kujiki claims the latter to be a 1644 forgery" Belated, but in my research on the use of the Kujiki in the 17th century I've never seen anyone claim this. If the claim isn't an outright fabrication, the author of this "encyclopedia" was working from remarkably old and poor sources. As Hijiri and I discussed on the Kujiki page, since the Meiji period the debate has been between the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries as the date of authorship.

I clicked on one of the links above and saw that the article on Arita-yaki is similarly confused: it describes it as consisting of Kakiemon and Nabeshima styles, when in fact these are just the most famous and refined styles among a large variety of Arita-yaki. That is just the error I noticed on the page linked to. I didn't look at the pages before or after. Shii (tock) 22:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A description of this one-volume work is at the website of the Japan Society of the UK here. The reviewer suggests that Japan Encyclopedia would ideally be used in conjunction with other referential sources so as to aid in cross checking the information presented. This work is a useful part of the ordinary cross-checking process which is conventional in our wiki-project.--Enkyo2 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo2, as I have painstakingly pointed out several times now both here and on ANI, has a tendency to "cross-check" Nussbaum with 12th-17th century primary sources that don't actually say what he says they do... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what is done or not by Enkyo2 but cross-checking must be done with secondary reliable sources. It is not forbidden but it is very delicate to use primary sources to discuss/criticize how secondary reliable sources analyse them. Rejecting secondary sources analyses on the base of the primary sources content requires high expertise on a topic, which wikipedians are not supposed to have.
• "Japan Encyclopedia would ideally be used in conjunction with other referential sources so as to aid in cross checking the information presented, and this is facilitated by a fairly extensive bibliography, which is included." -> This comment makes think that there are several (or even many) factual errors in the the Japan encyclopedia but that doens't reject this. If case of controversy, a secondary sources should be brought to prove the information of the Encyclopaedia may not be correct ; in case of sensitive information, the Encyclopedia should be rejected and a secondary source immediately prefered. For contexts, the Encyclopedia seems perfect.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose one can find a lot of good things to say about this book, but it is simply not reliable, that is, one cannot count on it to being right. It doesn't matter what his sources were. Facts that went in often come out mangled. In I pointed out several problems with the calendar article where things were wrong or backwards. Some others: In Ansei no Taigoku (purge), that Ii Naosuke carried out the purge becomes "the first to be purged was II Naosuke." In Yamato, Yamato-chôtei, "court of Japan" is translated as "heart of Japan."

Though daimyo had to have a revenue of 10,000 koku or more, the article on Fudai-daimyo says that fudai daimyo "generally had revenues of 10,000 koku or less." In the article Hitojichi, the fact that Tokugakwa Ieyasu was held as a hostage for twelve years becomes he took hostages for twelve years. For Mathematics, "Algebraic rules...arrived in Japan during Hideyoshi's time and were published in 1299." Hideyoshi wasn't yet around in 1299. In Ethnologywe read that "student-aged individuals today may reach a height of more than 170 for men (with the exception of sumotori)…." How many short sumotori are there? In Aso-san, the three people to die in the 1979 eruption of Aso-san become hundreds.

In the Chronology, the death (assassination) of Sanetomo, the last Minamoto shogun, in 1219, is listed as a cultural event of 1215. And Oda Nobunaga did not become shogun in 1573. How do you go about disproving his statement under G" "They are partnered with the syllables…ye to give gye." Do you have to find a reputable source that says "Japanese does not have the sylable gye"? If you want more strange statements, I am confident I can come up with some.

By the way, on the pronunciation of 山, there is a Mt. Daisen 大山 in Tottori.

Is the question "whether the book can be used as a source for potentially controversial material when no other sources can be found"? If this book can have so many mistakes with well-known facts, how can it be trusted for things that only it says? --Stone-turner (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. We should move a motion to the effect that that where L-F-N has been used, he must be cross-checked with another independent source. He should not, on the strength of the now many examples cited above, be used in future. Take citations from him as flags demanding that the point be checked when they are not obvious (well-known) or deal with historical details.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "heart of Japan": That clearly was either a misprint on Nussbaum's part that Roth accidentally made much worse based her not speaking any Japanese, or a misreading of Nussbaum's French by Roth. The French words for "court" and "heart" are spelled almost the same, and I think are nearly homophonic. This indicates that this mistake was Roth's, not Nussbaum's, which means that at the very least if we are not going to take this source off the table completely, we must always check the French (my copy is in the mail from Amazon now).

Regarding the death of Sanetomo: The date is a serious blooper, but that's all it is: a blooper. The book's actual articles give the correct date. More likely, "Sanetomo" is a misprint for his regent Tokimasa, who actually did die, apparently of natural causes, in 1215. Unfortunately, I think having accidental internal contradictions is just as bad as getting the facts wrong. Also, until I checked and found it more likely that the 1215 date was meant for Tokimasa, I was going to point out that calling the assassination of Sanetomo a "cultural event" is not problematic when one considers that Sanetomo is better-known as a poet than as either a warrior or a statesman. But I know nothing about Tokimasa's contributions to culture, so I can't say whether these theories gel with each other. Google search indicates that Sanetomo's relationship to waka was an indirect consequence of his association with Sanetomo. Either way, you're right that this is a bad error.

Regarding the pronunciation of 山: I searched my electronic dictionary for all words ending with the character and pronounced as either sen or zen, which is how I limited my search to the names of specific mountains. I found 10 such words (out of several hundred). These were 氷ノ山 (hyō-no-sen), 七金山 (shichi-kon-sen), 佉羅陀山 (kya-ra-da-sen or ka-ra-da-sen), the aforementioned 大山 (dai-sen), 象頭山 (zō-zu-sen), 弥山 (mi-sen), 須弥山 (shu-mi-sen or su-mi-sen), 霊山 (ryō-zen), 鷲山 (ju-sen) and 霊鷲山 (ryō-ju-sen). Among these 10 results, I found some interesting facts. 象頭山 is a mountain not in Japan but in India, and the middle character is pronounced zu (which is the go-on) rather than the much more common reading tō, which fits with the fact that the following sen is also a go-on; the mountain being in India and connected with Shakyamuni indicates that the word's "correct Buddhist pronunciation" has likely been preserved since Buddhism first entered Japan -- at the time of the Battle of Shigisan, when go-on readings were more prominent than they are now; there is also a mountain in Kagawa Prefecture with the same kanji, read as zō-zu-san. 須弥山 is the Japanese name for Sumeru, a mountain in Buddhist mythology. 霊山 can also be read as rei-zan; like with 象頭山 rei is the kan-on and ryō being the go-on. The 金 in 七金山 not being pronounced kin is for the same reason; 七金山 and 佉羅陀山 are both associated with 須弥山. 霊山 and 鷲山 are both abbreviations of 霊鷲山, a place where Shakyamuni preached. The dictionary entries for both 大山 and 弥山 indicate them as pilgrimage-sites and/or the sites of temple complexes. Of the the 10, the only one with no specific connection to Buddhism is 氷ノ山.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

At a guess about half of the problems are due to the translation, probably including the problems I mention for Ansei no Taigoku, Hitojichi, and Ethnology. That still leaves a lot due to the original, such as the calendar problems. That he gets something right in one place doesn't mean he understands it or gets it right in another; he often seems to copy and paste without understanding. But, however they came about, the problems make the book under discussion unreliable. And I don't think using the French original will help much with problems as he does not cite sources in articles, so you cannot check him. --Stone-turner (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Flags of the World"

I have noticed a number of flags for US towns uploaded to Commons and put on various pages here by User:Illegitimate Barrister that are sourced exclusively to "Flags of the World. The site's homepage explicitly says "Pages are edited by volunteer editors — qualifications include a keen interest in flags and a willingness to learn html editing"—it's essentially a wiki, and those are generally not treated as reliable. The site even comes with a disclaimer stating: "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." I suspect that many flags uploaded to that website are nothing more than inventive fabrications made by overeager editors.

For instance, take File:Flag of Smith Island, Maryland.png. Running a Google search on it excluding Misplaced Pages and FOTW reveals nothing much, and a search-by-image very little in the way of similar images—only flags derived from the FOTW source—and no webpage on Smith Island (e.g. , ) shows any similar sort of flag. Moreover, I spent several days on the island this past August, and did not see it or anything resembling it even once. Either I've missed something major both on the web and in real life, or this isn't a real flag. IB seems to have uploaded dozens of similar files, and I am suspicious that a number of them are similarly fabricated.

Now, I realise that Commons has its own set of rules and what happens here often has little effect there. However, I would like for these questionable flags to be removed from our pages until they can be properly vetted (I have already done so for Smith Island), and perhaps a decision here could hasten action on Commons to have these flags, which are currently marked as "official", marked as unofficial/fanciful. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problematic source. It's part of a broader problem - editors want there to be a flag for some geographical entity, so they go out and find the best "flag" they can, but... that isn't necessarily the most encyclopædic solution. We also have a lot of historical articles which use fanciful "flags" from the less reliable parts of the Catalan Atlas &c. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Newsday article as a source for Denise Crosby

Article: Denise Crosby Source: link Content: Can the link be used to reference why Crosby left Star Trek: The Next Generation?

A couple editors and I are having a discussion on the talk page of the article about whether we can find a reliable source that says that Crosby was let go by the producers of the show due to her posing for Playboy magazine. The above source was suggested as a possible source for the claim that she was fired but there's some hesitation when it comes to the idea of whether the source itself is reliable. Another editor has said that it reads like a "rant" and I tend to agree but would like another opinion. Thanks, Dismas| 09:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like the author is just guessing to be honest rather than reporting a fact. As a Trekkie I don't think it is true she was fired, at least not over Playboy: the Playboy pics were just reprinted from a spread she had done several years earlier, so it's likely that the Trek producers already knew about the photos so why hire her in the first place? It's not as if she did them after getting the part. Also, she returned as a special guest star in a later episode set in an alternate reality, and I don't think they would have asked her back if they had fired her. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

koreanindie.com / wpshower.com

Does anyone know if Koreanindie.com is an acceptable source? It includes a blog section, but I'm not sure whether the entire website would count as a blog or not. It does include a staff , though I don't know whether the website is their full time job or just something they volunteer for. The bottom of the page includes the text "Designed by WPSHOWER". I'm not familiar with WPSHOWER, but its website says that it creates "Wordpress themes". I know that Wordpress is more or less a blog, so I assume that this would make anything designed by WPSHOWER unreliable, but wanted to check to see if anyone knows more about this first. --Jpcase (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Figshare - a reliable source?

Is Figshare a reliable source for wikipedia entries?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c:4d80:30d:3d2a:62ba:fefb:233c (talk • contribs)

Everything on figshare would be considered a self-published source. So whether figshare is reliable would depend on who authored that particular piece and what it is being used as a source for. Even in the best case scenario, where the piece on figshare was published by a recognized expert in the field, the work would only be a reliable source for uncontroversial content. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

While I like the intent of figshare, I don't see anything that prevents me from creating an account and uploading anything I want, including my own original research or crackpot fringe science theories. I see no evidence of editorial oversight. I agree with Someguy1221, if the author is someone notable and respected in a field who is publishing material related to that field, it could be cited, although the reliability would be no different than the author's own personal blog. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is FoxNews not on Misplaced Pages:Current science and technology sources

I'm just wondering why FoxNews is not considered an accurate source for science and technology when similarly "opinionated" sources such as CNN, NYT, and CBS are. Since there isn't a used Talk page on that subject page, I thought I'd post the question here. Obviously FoxNews is RS in general, but I've seen editors argue through edits/reverts and on Talk pages against even this (which is simply biased silliness). Any honest, nuetral observer can see that CNN, NYT, CBS, and FoxNews all have the same issues with opinions turned into facts and vice versa and having to recant "mistakes" so why is FoxNews singled out as not reliable? Really not trying to make some conservative/liberal point or start a political discussion - just honestly asking the question. Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Are there subpages of FoxNews that focus on S&T? If so, why not WP:BB and simply add them. The page has not been edited for some time. If there is any dispute about this the issue can be brought up on the (empty) project talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Protoculture Addicts magazine

The reliability of the anime/manga publication Protoculture Addicts has been questioned at BLPN, but I think this is a more appropriate board for the issue.

To sum it up, for an edit, I used the editorial (officially reprinted online) of Protoculture Addicts issue 41. It's a North-American paper publication about anime and manga that has been going on since 1988, first as a fanzine, then as commercial publication. It was later absorbed (with publication still going on) by Anime News Network.

Protoculture Addicts has been referred to as "the oldest American anime professional specialty magazine" in Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews by Fred Pattern, published by Stone Bridge Press, 2004, p.108. The magazine has also received coverage in Cartoon Cultures: The Globalization of Japanese Popular Media by Anne Cooper-Chen, published by Peter Lang Publishing in 2010, p.134-135. It has also been mentioned in a various other publications as can be seen in a Google Book search.

The PA#41 editorial I mention was written by Claude J Pelletier, editor-in-chief of the magazine, who has also been mentioned in various publications (Google Book search).

So is Protoculture Addicts a reliable source, and particularly its #41 editorial which provides a translation/summarization in English of an interview with an anime director (Hideaki Anno) originally published in the Japanese magazine Newtype ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't forum shop. The editorial is an opinion piece that is not even faithfully taken from the original document because it was translated via a friend/colleague and than loosely reported on. Secondly, the translation is being paraphrased, citing this as Anno's words in quotes is misleading (owing to BLP concerns). Third, you are taking that source and arriving at a further conjecture that runs into BLP issues that are outside the purpose of this board. The magazine may be a good source, but it has had dozens of inaccuracies and errors like many other publications. This editorial is flawed because it lacks context and has errors and ambiguity that is not in dispute in the original document. I say the brief editorial cannot compare to the original or even the faithful full translation and given the errors should not be used in any capacity, including those separate from the BLP concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You have been told by two users this wasn't a matter for BLPN. I'm merely moving the discussion to the relevant board. Had you read the editorial, you'd have seen it contains direct quotes/translations and not just paraphrasing. The source doesn't need context to provide an accurate translation/summarization of the original Japanese interview, and I have seen no full-translation except in a self-published, unreliable fan-website. Per all the published content I've found, I'd say Protoculture Addicts is perfectly reliable to provide the translation/summarization of a Japanese interview. I know your POV on the question, but now I'm trying to have outside opinions on the question.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm done here. Folken's polemic arguments here are toothless; the original source should be used over some paraphrased translation and Folken's insertion is not backed by the original. If his response to criticism is really relevant than we take from a secondary source and not a tertiary interpretation that is at odds with the original. Anno's response, in English, to criticism was summed up as "I have no problem with them. If there's a problem, it's all with you guys. Too bad." And that "Too Bad" was in English and is held in numerous accounts. Sorry, but this is a moot matter in my eyes, because Misplaced Pages should never advocate using a third-party account of what a source says over what the original source actually says.
      • As neither you nor I are Japanese-speaking users, we have to rely on the most reliable source providing translation/summarization. That source is Protoculture Addicts, not your self-published fansite. But there is nothing at odds with the fan translation anyway. They say the same things. This isn't about Anno's response to criticism, this is about Anno's reponse to anonymous fan backlash on the internet. The source you mention isn't about fan backlash, but about "Evangelion's last two episodes", that is what Anno has no problem with, not the fact that they upset many fans.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not read Japanese, but don't tell me what I can and cannot read. The original source is what we go by. Just because I don't have it on hand to show you doesn't change its contents or reliability. For interviews, the interview as reported is more reliable than some paraphrased comment done by the translators friend. This is not about the sources' reliability as a whole. You made the matter into something of a BLP concern. The source is Newtype Magazine for June 1996. And that is the only citation I need and that is the reliable source for that interview. PA's error is their own, but in cases like this, go with the original. Plain and simple. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't have access to the original source so we go with what reliable source tell us about it. What is the BLP concern exactly ? And what is PA's error exactly ? The original, you don't have it, and you have no idea what is says, so why are you making such a fuss ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The original source is fine - I do not need to show it to you. The translation on Gwern's is good enough. I doubt scans are still out there on the net. I've got all you need to verify it yourself if you wish to do so including page counts; the text has been quoted and re-quoted in various places. You are saying something that is simply not held by the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with Protoculture Addicts being considered a reliable source in general, but there is some concern that the translation may not be accurate, and is introducing errors (some of which could count as breachs of the BLP policy). There is no evidence the translation has been confirmed with the subject as being accurate, we don't know how the translation was carried out or what level of skill the translator had. We should err on the side of caution and discount the Protoculture Addicts article and any content referenced to it in this case. Hope that helps everybody. Nick (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

hellokpop

Would hellokpop.com be considered a reliable source? While it isn't a blog or a simple fan-forum, and has a staff , the staff is comprised of volunteers, which is why felt that I should ask about it here. The website does have an application process, so it doesn't seem that just anyone can work for it, and they claim to have been referenced by several esteemed publications, such as The New York Times and Wired. --Jpcase (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

1. "Elections polls" (in Persian). rasanehiran. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
2. "Results of the presidential poll". Akharin News (in Persian). 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
3. "2013 Elections polls" (in Persian). alborz news. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
4. ^ "2013 elections poll". ie92 (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "ie92" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
5. "vote online to your candidate!". Arna News (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
6. "Iranelect, first question: Who's the most popular between conservatives?" (in Persian). iranelect. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
7. "Final polls" (in Persian). kashanjc. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
8. "Polls" (in Persian). iranamerica. 18 May 2013. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
9. ^ "Polls" (in Persian). Alef. 20 May 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "alef" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
10. "Choise your candidate". fararu (in Persian). 23 May 2013. Retrieved 23 May 2013.
11. نظرسنجی انتخابات ریاست جمهوری
12. نظرسنجی
13. انتخابات

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution