Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:56, 14 September 2012

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

A question of identifying primary sources

Several users insist on removing the {Primary sources} tag from Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons). I am not really sure what the basis of their position is. All of the TSR/Wizards of the Coast publications are from the company that produces and owns the trademark for D&D and are therefore obviously primary sources. The other sources listed are:

1) something by Paizo Publishing, the owner of the Pathfinder game trademark - this source is used to verify that in a Pathfinder game sourcebook there is a critter called the "brownie". Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

2) something by Necromancer Games which is used to verify that a critter called a brownie appears in the book published by Necromancer games. Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

3) something by Avalanche Press which is used as proof that the Avalanche press book contains a critter called the brownie. Hence the document is being used to verify that the document has the word "brownie" on it.

The only potentially non-primary source is the White Dwarf magazine appearance. The publisher of White Dwarf had been the licensed publisher of D&D materials in the UK up until the year before this article appeared and so it is potentially a third party source. However, it would be a farsical claim to suggest that the two sentences cited to that source counter suggest in any way that the content of the article does not meet the criteria flagged as problematic with the tag: "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If the topic is limited to the Dungeons and Dragons game, then all three of the sourcebooks are non-primary, since they're not published by TSR or Wizards of the Coast. Is that the question you were actually asking? Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is: whether the tag describing the article as relying on primary sources is appropriately placed. Is the content of the article relying on 1) books being used in a primary source manner ie simply to verify their own content/existance of certain words on their pages 2) sources closely affiliated with of the creator and owner of the D&D franchise /associated licenses. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, that they are published by someone other than TSR/WotC says that they are independent, not secondary. Both are required for sources satisfying WP:GNG, but they are different things. Whether a source is secondary or primary is something that is going to vary from source to source, and I will remind you that WP:PSTS acknowledges that a given source can fill multiple roles.
I don't agree that Paizo or other parties using the OGL are necessarily "closely affiliated" with WotC/TSR, but as discussed elsewhere, some companies like Kenzer had relationships with WotC that would compromise editorial independence per WP:IS. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand how sources that have specific licencing agreements with WotC and bear the mention "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®" could be "independent" of the D&D franchise and of WotC. Independence does not only mean "editorial independence", but also "no conflict of interest". Avalanche Press and Necromancer games both having direct financial interest and direct participation in the D&D franchise itself, there's no way they can be independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone the least bit familiar with OGL would have to conclude that they're independent of TSR/WotC. The entire point is "We won't sue you for writing compatible materials provided you require people to buy our book. Beyond that, we have no editorial control, and don't care that you exist." WotC only wrote up the licensing agreement, but never actually talks with, meets with, or interacts with OGL licensees in any way. My uncle (who has never even seen a D&D book, much less talked with a WotC employee) could publish an OGL product right now. The OGL license is not a discussed business deal with individual companies but a promise by WotC to not sue people who write or sell fan creations as long as WotC products are advertised. OGL products are not even "independent," but fan creations, and should be treated as nothing more than fan faction unless they are notable on other grounds (see Pathfinder). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that "unless they are reliable sources on other grounds"; reliable sources are not required to meet wikipedia notability requirements; they are two separate issues. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter if they're independent. "Independent" is not an alternative spelling for "secondary". I'd recommend that editors look at WP:USEPRIMARY. And yes, all three of those would be primary sources. No matter what the document is, if you're using it as proof that the document contains the word ___, then you are using it as a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dungeons and Dragons rulebooks and manuals

We've had several discussions and AfD on Dungeons & Dragons that have been going nowhere. The main point of disagreement is the nature of sources used on articles about fictional D&D creatures like Adherer, are they primary/secondary, affiliated/independent ? I've come here to have the matter evaluated by fresh and uninvolved eyes.

To contextualize: Dungeons & Dragons is a tabletop Role-playing game, played using core rulebooks which are official manuals detailing storyline and gameplay mecanics, published by TSR/Wizards of the Coast the creators and copyright holders of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. These manuals or "sourcebooks"/"handbooks" , as they represent the game itself, are primary sources, I think we can all agree on that.

Now, there is disagreement whether other manuals used in D&D are primary/secondary, affilated/independent. There are two different types of manuals:

• Manuals which are commercially published supplements/extensions to the D&D game, providing original fiction and game mecanics intented for use in a D&D gaming session. Though not from the official D&D publishers, these books are published under certain licencing agreements that allow them to use material (story and gameplay) from the official D&D game, and to be sold as part of the D&D franchise (they bear the mention "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®"). An example would be Tome of Horrors published by Necromancer Games (see an official preview in pdf).
  • My view is that as these books provide original fiction and rules for D&D, and as such don't provide "analytic or evaltive claim" (as secondary sources do), they fully participate, at primary level, in the building of D&D as a game and so I see them as primary sources not "independent of the subject" (per WP:GNG). Other users have expressed the view that since they are not from the official D&D publishers these manuals are secondary and independent.
• The second example is official core rulebooks, thus primary sources, from other tabletop role-playing games which are not D&D. Some can develop their own gaming mecanism, some others can reuse story and mecanics from D&D (again through specific licencing agreements) while still being completely different intellectual properties from different creators. See for example Pathfinder Roleplaying Game from Paizo.
  • Some contributors use these official manuals to argue that when these feature a fictional creature that also appears in D&D, then the manuals from other games are secondary independent sources, because there is no official affiliation with the D&D franchise. They also say that the appearance of the creatures in other games is a proof of notability. Again they argue that merely not being from D&D makes it a secondary source, despite not providing any analysis. My view, however, is that since these manuals are primary sources for their own games, they use the fictional creature to build their own fiction and their own mecanics, and don't provide any analytic or evaluative comments on the creature as it appeared in D&D, since they are not commentary books but primary sources for games (which I think is not "significant coverage" either per WP:GNG). I think being a secondary sources requires more than just "not being D&D". As such, they are not independent from the fictional creatures they feature, and since they are not D&D they just don't deal with the creature from the D&D franchise (thus don't deal "directly with the subject" per WP:GNG).

Thanks for helping us on this. We've had AfDs on D&D fictional creatures in the past and some on-going, including one last month Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons) which outcome was the redirection of all articles nominated per consensus that the various manuals (both D&D extensions and other games), the only sources found, were primary/affiliated. Now that other AfDs have started, a user disatisfied with this outcome claims it was "not policy-based" and that "a lot of editors disagree", I think this is a good opportinuity to see which interpretation on sources is policy-compliant, and maybe to reach a wider consensus that won't be easily dismissed (note that the previous AfD had 21 participants, yet that didn't seem to be enough for some).Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• This has also been brought up here before. - SudoGhost 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I feel that a rigid black-and-white distinction between "primary" and "secondary" can sometimes be unhelpful - there are grey areas - but these sources are very much on the primary side of the spectrum as far as I'm concerned. Now, it's often reasonable to use primary sources for uncontroversial claims, but I don't see how these articles pass the GNG if none of the sources are independent. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 08:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the issue of independence requires careful attention to the actual publishing situation. I do not think that most OGL publishers lack "editorial independence" per WP:IS, though some companies like Kenzer had licensing arrangements that gave WotC an editorial approval role that would compromise "editorial independence".

The contention here regarding Primary or Secondary is that it assumed that these books only contain in-universe text that provides little significant coverage apart from the creature stats. In reality, many products go beyond this, discussing perceptions and uses of various game items from a game-play (vice in-universe) perspective. So I think saying all these sources are necessarily primary (or strictly primary) fails to give them adequate attention.

The problem I have with many of the articles and why I frequently vote for merging or deletion is that despite having sources I consider credible, many of the articles lack any semblance of significant coverage from those sources. Simply saying that a creature appeared in a certain book isn't worthy of a stand alone article; at best, it's a line entry in a list article. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue of independence does not only reside in "editorial independence", per WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations." Per WP:IS: "a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).

Can anyone demonstrate that sources that state "This product requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®" have "no strong connexion" and "no affiliation" to the subject, which is D&D ? That they describe D&D in a disinterested perspective and no potential from financial gain by being tied to the D&D franchise ? I agree with all that you said, except I don't see how these sources could be seen as independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see use of the D20 STL as constituting a "strong connection" to Wizards. These folks are not on Wizards' payroll and their works don't go to Wizards for approval. I'll assume we agree that editorial independence is met, so I'll move on to the discussion of disinterested perspective. WP:IS says "no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication"; that's referring to the original work, not the source (reviews that are very typically uses as WP:RS are usually published with financial gain of the publisher in mind!) The way OGL (which are sometimes STL) products are done is to take an existing product that has already been published and use/expand on material therein. Indeed, they may be citing a product that is out of print! It's not like they are promoting the product that is about to come out, and in some cases the OGL product may be intended to replace or supplant the given product or correct its perceived deficiencies. I don't think use of the D20 STL implicitly constitutes a conflict of interest.
Even if the consensus were to judge the presence of this text to constitute a conflict of interest, many products (especially newer ones, and the D20 STL is not available any more) use the OGL but not the STL. For example, the much debated Tome of Horrors has a new print that lacks the logo and D&D text entirely. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Publishing something under a particular product licensing agreement automatically makes that content "closely associated" and non-independent from the material under that particular product licensing agreement about that product. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." As per my response to jclemens on the D&D project page the fact that the publishers in the gaming world are "incestuous and tightly integrated corporate coverage designed to maximize profitability while retaining intellectual property rights" or ITICCDMPRIPR indicates that we must be even more vigilant than usual.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As I state above, the OGL/STL is not so much an agreement by WotC with individual businesses, but a blanket promise to not sue compatible fan creations provided they do not infringe on WotC's rights or income. It's no different than Stephanie Meyer not suing people who write Twilight fan fiction: we don't discuss the fan fiction unless it becomes notable on its own. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how Tome of Horrors could have editorial independence since they state in introduction that they "worked closely with WotC". And the fact that they "require the use" of official D&D products shouldn't be brushed away as just "not infringing on WotC's right" because these are the implications of such a mention:

• If someone new to RPGs buys Tome of Horrors and sees the mention "this product requires...", isn't the buyer effectively going to buy D&D products out of concern he wouldn't be able to use ToH on its own, hereby making it promotional ?
• Doesn't that mean that the product is directly marketed to players as a product affiliated to D&D, and thus effectively relying on D&D and its customers to exist, and so having direct financial gain in being identified as a full part of the D&D experience ? D&D reviews aren't part of the D&D experience and aren't essencial components of a D&D session, ToH is, so please no more irrelevant comparisons.

There is also the issue of independence excluding "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". The subject is a creature in D&D. ToH provides the creature for D&D (ie it provides original fiction and gaming mecanism for D&D that didn't exist before). How would ToH not be affiliated with the creature it effectively makes available to D&D ? ToH are effectively the original authors/makers of the 3rd Ed. version of the creatures they deal with in the book. Independence with the subject ? How so ?? Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• The financial reward which TSR received for publishing these works was the same as any publisher. The concept of editorial independence which is being promoted here is absurd because it would tend to exclude all commercial publishers which would include most publishers of textbooks and journals. An author who writes a maths text book has a financial interest in the work and the publisher of that textbook does too so this state of affairs is quite normal. What we seek to exclude for this purpose is two special cases:

1. Vanity presses, in which the author pays to have the work published rather than expecting an income
2. Self-promotion, such as an autobiography in which the author is writing about himself

Neither of these cases apply to the main D&D works such as the Monster Manual which were written by paid authors and published in an ordinary commercial way. The fact that the content formed part of a larger body of work is little different from a textbook about calculus being part of a series of works about mathematics. Warden (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• The complainants here obviously have no idea what licensing really is. Licensing like the OGL is a way for everyone to feel secure about their intellectual property rights. It's just like the CC-BY-SA or GFDL licenses that govern our contributions to Misplaced Pages. The OGL essentially says "We agree not to sue you, you agree that this intellectual property remains ours, and we all happily make games compatible with each other" If anything, it's more akin to a standards document than anything else. Again, the complainants have no idea what a license really is if they are asserting that the OGL creates a financial entanglement between a publisher of D&D compatible products and WotC. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is about the relationship between one publisher and the other; that is a completely different topic than the relationship between a publisher and the content they publish. If I write a D&D rulebook, that's not an independent source for D&D, it doesn't matter if you gave me permission or not. If I wrote a book or article about D&D, that would be different, but these are not books about D&D, they are D&D. Rulebooks created for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game are not independent of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, otherwise what would be a non-independent source? - SudoGhost 07:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with SudoGhost's comment, wikilawyering on OGL doesn't explain away the fact that D&D rulebooks still "require the use of" official D&D rulebooks, and legal explanations aside, that's because such books contain material for a specific gaming system without including the necessary core rules and mecanics to this system that would make the material work on its own. That makes it fully dependent on D&D.
      Also, everyone is reminded that WP:GNG requires sources to be "secondary", and a secondary source make "evaluative or analytic claims about primary sources". I may not agree on everything Sangrolu wrote, but he was spot-on on one thing: however people may claim sourcebooks like ToH to be secondary independent, no one has been able to extract a single analytical or evaluative comment from these books, for use in articles. There's not a single line in the creature sections of ToH that would explicitely refer to "D&D" as an external/seperate instance, and that could be taken as comentary on D&D without the use of original reseearch. That's because these sourcebooks either integral reproduction of D&D material without comment, or original content for D&D that doesn't provide any commentary. Sangrolu was a bit reluctant to acknowledge it (yet he is fully aware of it), but that makes them primary and affiliated sources. Please forget OGL and answer the real questions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The OGL is seriously only WotC promising not to sue people who write stuff for D&D. There are a lot of shitty products on RPGnow and other websites published under the OGL that no one in their right mind would begin to think that WotC would have encouraged. This is not wikilawyering, this is assessing things as they are.

Here is the original text for the OGL. Point 5 affirms that the material contributed is the author's and that WotC has nothing to do with it. Point 7 tells authors to keep their hands off of WotC's current property because the author is not connected to WotC. In other words, OGL products are, as far as WotC is concerned, completely independent of their product D&D, ergo it is independent of D&D, even if it is compatible with it and requires the use of WotC's rule books. To enter into an OGL deal, all you have to do is just distribute (usually self-publish) material that complies with that license.

The intro to ToH says that Necromancer games checked with WotC to make sure they were not using any monsters that WotC was ever planning on using. This is not work by, an endorsement from, or approval from WotC; this is not WotC entering into a deal for Necromancer games to work for them, this is simply Necromancer games making absolutely sure that they were complying with the OGL. 'Publish whatever you want, as long as it doesn't steal from us and still makes people buy our books' (the OGL in as few words as possible) is not a direct business deal. To imply that WotC was involved beyond confirming "we're not using that" is either a complete misrepresentation or misunderstanding. ToH never say that WotC gave Necromancer games any input into how to design the monsters, or that they condoned, agreed with, or approved of Necromancer game's results beyond saying "we're not planning on using that, so you can use it in an OGL product." No evidence that Necromancer games is an authority on the subject has been provided, either.

The Sathar has d8 racial HD and starts with two racial levels. It's class skills are jump, swim, knowledge (arcana), and craft (baskets). They have 4 + Int mod skill points per level. They have great cleave as a racial bonus feat, even if they do not meet the prerequisites. They are gargantuan-sized creatures. Their only attack is a psionic blast with a range of 50,000 feet dealing 36d4 damage, will save (DC 10) for double damage. -- There, I just distributed material completely compatible with the OGL (WotC decided to not include the Sathar in D20 Future). Do we get to include this complete misrepresentation of the Sathar in the Star Frontiers article once I shoot an email to a WotC employee saying 'y'all aren't using the Sathar, right?' It's later OGL material discussing prior TSR material. This is the problem with including OGL material in articles, and why OGL creations should be treated as fan-works and nothing more. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So in any case we agree they are primary sources (they're not independent of their version of the creatures they're dealing with) which don't providing "analytic or evaluative claims" on another source ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "we" you are referring to here, but I'll say that analytic or evaluative claims are a function of the particular source in question, not the source's status as an OGL sourcebook. Some sources may be usable, some won't. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

...and that's the difference between third-party publisher and third-party source. What WotC considers a "third-party product" has absolutely nothing to do with what Misplaced Pages considers a third-party source. Those terms aren't interchangeable, and have completely different meanings. WotC's involvement (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it; if the sourcebook is written for Dungeons and Dragons then it's not independent of Dungeons and Dragons, it doesn't matter what level of "official" status the book has, the book is no different than the other sourcebooks in terms of content. Independence from a publisher doesn't mean independence from a game. Sourcebooks are not independent sources for the game they're written for any more than a video game's code is an independent source for a creature in that video game. - SudoGhost 09:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but to me the entire discussion here appears to assume that any primary source can never be a reliable source? That is not really true. For simple information, "the horse's mouth" is often the best source. There is no absolute ban upon using secondary sources on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, what's being discussed is whether these primary sources can be used to show notability, if they are the only sources in an article, such as with Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons). - SudoGhost 13:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I can see how a self promoting publication such as a book effectively selling a game and part of that game's industry can be worth doubting as an RS, but it does not seem to be an automatic disqualification such that we can just leave the discussion there? And there are ways to try to cross check from other directions. For example a book of rules about a game might be highly cited and easily proven to be a standard reference amongst people interested in that game. RSN discussions which are too purely about the definition of primary or secondary or tertiary are destined to go in circles because they become arguments about arguments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, its quite simple, either we follow WP:GNG or we don't. And, from that, either we conform to the definitions of primary/secondary/terciary found in WP:PSTS or we don't.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, you're still trying to answer an RSN question, in which you take an individual statement and see whether the source is strong enough to support it. This appears to be better suited for the WP:Notability/Noticeboard, in which you take a handful of sources and see whether they're strong enough to support an entire article. This kind of question really shouldn't be brought here. They could go to NN or they could go to AFD and fight it out, but there's no question here about reliability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly but I am not sure of that. Anyway, we should be careful not to bounce a question between different noticeboards.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

InsideScanlations.com

The original discussion for this website I started is located here, but did not receive much discussion. The content I want to use it for is for the Scanlation article on potentially for related articles. I want to use the website's history of scanlation, information on the process, and interviews with scanlation groups and industry publishers and want to know if the website would be a qualify as a reliable source for that purpose. Thanks for the help. AngelFire3423 (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you already provided enough information that the site can be used for routine information about its community. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the intended use. It seems AngelFire wants to use this apparently self-published website as a source for claims of fact relating to scanlation in general. Goodraise 23:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, nearly all websites are self-published. If you mean something like "a fansite", then say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean something like "a fansite". I meant what I said. Goodraise 12:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Domestic violence in Pakistan

Is this source Gosselin, Denise Kindschi (2009). Heavy Hands: An Introduction to the Crime of Intimate and Family Violence (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. p. 13. ISBN 978-0136139034. which cites a Human Rights Watch study RS for this content "According to a study carried out by Human Rights Watch it is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of women in Pakistan have suffered some form of abuse" Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This editor should be banned from writing about Pakistan, per the standing ARbCom sanctions on Pakistan--India. Look at his history, e.g. at Rape in Pakistan and at DYK. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that is the way to comment on the source issue, I don't like what this guy wrote so topic ban him. get real. Facts, not fiction (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No. What is relevant is that you have recently returned from a block for tendentious editing regarding Pakistan ("which continued despite a stream of requests to stop") and you have violated your 1RR restriction. To treat you as a sweet-hearted editor who happened to mis-cite an article (and this happened to put a negative spin on Pakistan) would be denial. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: DarknessShines is not currently under a 1RR restriction. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

<- I assume the Gosselin's source is HRW's "Crime or Custom? Violence Against Women in Pakistan" report from 1999 although I can't tell from Google books. The HRW reports states "Estimates of the percentage of women who experience spousal abuse alone range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent" on page 1 (and again on page 35) of the report. The sources for those figures are given in footnote 42 on page 35 of the report. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sean The book "Heavy Hands: An Introduction to the Crime of Family Violence" mentions its source being "Human Rights Watch, 2006" for the statement cited in this article. I am unable (up till now) to find such a report by HRW in 2006 which says so. --SMS 16:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• @DS It seems that you haven't seen the cited HRW report yourself, if you have kindly share with others too so we can assess this source in a better way. Besides in this type of cases you need to say where you got it (in the reference). --SMS 16:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SMS, what does it say about the source exactly ? I can't see enough in snippet view although on page 27 I can see something about an HRW 2006 report starting "Forms of violence...". It might be a section from a world report. I think the article can report what Human Rights Watch said in 1999 about the various estimates by other organizations without using Gosselin as long as it's attributed to HRW and made clear that it's a 1999 report. More recent data may be available and preferable I guess and editors who aren't too busy with a propaganda war against Pakistan and Pakistanis should probably go look for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems HRW had a campaign titled "Forms of Violence Against Women in Pakistan" but the link seems to be unrecoverable (see ). There is an interesting article in the Pakistan Journal of Criminology, Volume 2, No. 2, April 2010, pp. 93 - 110, "Violence Against Women in Pakistan: Constraints in Data Collection" that might be a useful. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can see the relevant text of the book in two snippet views (see these: 1, 2). On page 27, the detail of the source "Human Rights Watch 2006" is given: "Human Rights Watch, 2006, "Forms of Violence against Women in Pakistan." Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/pakistan/forms.htm. "(again you can see it in two snippet views: 3, 4). May be you are right that this report of 2006 just reiterated findings of the 1999 report but I still suggest finding the new one. --SMS 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the 2006 campaign document "Forms of Violence Against Women in Pakistan" is online anywhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What I think needs to be cited for the statement is the publication in the report, online or not. It is relevant that another author has accepted it sufficiently to use it in a published textbook, so that can be cited also. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. The statement this source needs to support is an exceptional claim .i.e. about 70-90% (56-72 milion) women in Pakistan are abused. There was another statement in the article, that was also nominated as a hook for DYK: "that 97% of women interviewed in a study claim to have suffered some form of domestic violence in Pakistan" and that was also cited from a similar reliable source, which further cited it from a survey which revealed that it was done on convenient sampling. So my point is that we should at least know how this exceptional figure was found and what process was used to find it. --SMS 21:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

To add some context. Epidemiology_of_domestic_violence suggest some insight in the statitics of domestic violence. The numbers vary highly between surveys. Egypt has studies showing both 34% and 80% to take one example. Going through the sources provided in that article, an 70-90% sound exceptional high. Belorn (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Women in Pakistan face numerous problems but the most endemic one is domestic violence.Women in Pakistan encounter multiple forms of violence, most endemic form being domestic violence, which remains a pervasive phenomenon.the most endemic form of violence faced by Pakistani women is domestic violence Really? Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If the case is that Pakistan has *the* highest number of domestic violence in relation to population, then yes, that is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A junior lecturers research paper is an paper published by the university he was working at, and does not qualify as and exceptional source. The second source is 5 PhD (All non-professors) repor, who's study is only about the District Jacobabad with an sample size of 84 people. The narrow focus and small sample size is clearly an disqualification as an exceptional source for an claim about the whole of Pakistan. It's statistics also show that 40% of the women has been tortured, a number which is doubtful representative for 80 million people. The third source is a badly copied article form somewhere (it cuts off mid word). It also do not say anything about the statistics 70-90%. All it says is: "Within the nation of Pakistan, violence against women and domestic violence are commonly reported to occur". That alone is not enough to support a 70-90% claim. Belorn (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, this book written by an Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology & Criminal Justice Department from one of British Universities appear to be a reliable source per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  Anybody who made it through most of undergraduate statistics for psychologists or sociologists should know that a 70-90% confidence interval suggests a badly planned study. Anybody who is familiar with survey sampling would be skeptical of claims that the confidence interval resulted from a random sample of the Pakistani population. Nonrandomized survey sampling is useful for predicting that Dewey beat Roosevelt and other falsehoods. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, this is not a truly random sample, and this is not a confidence interval. However, this source is still academic and "reliable" as defined here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is very much a red herring. The 1999 report linked above seems to be the original source of the "70-90%" figure, and it makes it explicitly clear that it derives this from multiple studies - "Estimates of the percentage of women who experience domestic violence in Pakistan range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent" - and not from a single piece of research. The footnote indicates four studies; "at least 80 percent" from the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (1996) and the Women's Ministry (1985); "95 percent" from Amnesty International (1997); "70 percent" from Amnesty International reporting on Pakistani research (1998). Given that this source is freely available and clearly shows its working, why are we trying to conclude the figures can't be traced just because of the 2006 republication? Citing the 1999 HRW paper should solve the problems. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this answers the question. This is not a confidence interval, and not an improbable number for societies with arranged marriages and bride kidnapping traditions. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Tadeusz Sulimirski & Rahul Sankrityayan

Hi, I wish to know that whether Tadeusz Sulimirski & Rahul Sankrityayan meet the criteria of being recognized as WP:RS? Please give a conclusive answer! Articles for both of them are @ Misplaced Pages for scrutiny! — 117.212.46.55 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is relative to what the sources are going to be used for. So please define the proposed use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok! I would like to use Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), as a reliable source on a number of articles related to history, and Rahul Sankrityayan as a reliable source only for history of India — after confirming from here, to avoid WP:Edit War. The use would be limited to articles related to history (practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved) — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A quote from Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), "The evidence of both the ancient authors and the archaeological remains point to a massive migration of Sacian (Sakas)/Massagetan ("great" Jat) tribes from the Syr Daria Delta (Central Asia) by the middle of the second century B.C. Some of the Syr Darian tribes; they also invaded North India." I would be using the author's conclusion on articles related to history, as I am sure that he met WP:BIO & WP:Prof, but discussing it to avoid the possibility of WP:Edit War! — 117.200.50.151 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After a very quick first look the first person seems to be a regular academic working in the field you want to talk about. I am wondering if there is any controversy about his theories which explains your concern? The second person at least according to his WP article is a travel writer?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So, it's a 'YES for Tadeusz Sulimirski.

But, I request for a conclusive reply for Rahul Sankrityayan! I am not able to conclude your answer that whether he fits the criteria for WP:RS on articles related to history of India! 117.200.50.151 (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Though, the article @ Misplaced Pages clearly states that Rahul Sankrityayan has served as Professor of Indology in 1937-38 & 1947-48 @ University of Leningrad, but still I want to get the approval from here; so please give me a conclusive answer! — 117.200.59.19 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This forum is not like a court and can not give conclusive final answers, especially if only one person replies to you. It is a place to discuss what is best for WP. Anyway, you have not yet explained any real examples of edits that would use this source. Until now my questions are aimed at trying to get more information from you in order to help more forum participants comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, you query whether there is any controversy regarding Sulimirski's theories. Well, in the context of the Indo-Aryan migration theory, there most certainly is controversy and Sulimirski is firmly set in one camp. Worse, it is in the context of this theory that the IP appears to wish to use Sulimirski.

My take is that he can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers. It might have been helpful if the IP had made a note of this thread on related article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, in case you haven't read the above mentioned comments carefully, please note that I have quoted — "(practical use of WP:Balance is likely to be involved)"! — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess, that's exactly what your conclusion is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's research can well be used as a reference, but people should welcome WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity. — 117.200.50.104 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I had read them carefully, thanks. He is reliable for his opinion, and no more. My point was in relation to a comment by Andrew L, querying whether Sulimirski's opinion is controversial. It helps to be as explicit as possible regarding the background when forming queries here. As it seems that you are aware of the balance issue, I look forward to seeing your proposals for display of the alternative theories at Talk:Jat people etc. All entirely in the spirit of the policy to which you refer, of course. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, my intention to make that edit request to an article's talk page was definitely to provide the admins or reviewers a factual information, for the coverage of history of the Massagetaean invasion in India — I have actively participated in the discussion & now I would like to leave things upto the sincerity of the admins or reviewers working on that article, after a fair conclusion by Qwyrxian.

Sitush, I have been very explicit — even mentioned the book's name & even mentioned the quote from the book, that I have suggested @ edit request! But fella, can you be more specifically explicit about concerns over the reliability of Tadeusz Sulimirski?

Sitush, till there is a world wide consensus over the Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans,Scythians, etc. — it's fair to proceed by blend of WP:NPOV & WP:Balance?

The scope of the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski's books is not limited limited to a single ethnic group, but the coverage has been much wider — if the admins or reviewers of the articles pages are aware of WP:POV & WP:Balance & WP:OWN & the fact that @ Misplaced Pages people should attempt to avoid rendering judgement themselves, and for the most part defer to the judgement of reliable sources. Respecting this platform, I would like to make a general note to people that while making edits on hot topics like Origin-Antiquity-Migration of Aryans or Scythians or Massagetae etc. — please always be prepared to welcome WP:Balance, and not enforce any source as a compelling source, even after getting approval from here. Thanks! — 117.207.56.161 (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so there is some controversy. This does not mean we can not or should not mention an author. Could I ask editors above or anyone familiar with the debate to please give comments about if/how the authors are cited by the historical profession.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, Sitush's quoted above, "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers." — that's clearly a request for the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity, nothing more than that. And, that's fair enough!

As far as, Sitush's concern over the Indo-Aryan migration theory is — Tadeusz Sulimirski's views are shared world wide & are widely accepted. Tadeusz Sulimirski research far outweighs any other claims — he maintains that there is certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India. Still, I don't mind using WP:Balance, as this is still a debated issue — but the show must go on; with a blend of WP:NPOV + WP:Balance!

Guess, we need more participants here to nail the consensus over Tadeusz Sulimirski - welcome! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this debate now limited to the use of Tadeusz Sulimirski — as a compelling source or to welcome the use of WP:Balance, if in case it's a necessity? My take is that no source can be treated as a compelling source as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned — so can we conclude with a YES over Tadeusz Sulimirski research & look forward to Happy Editing  ! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this. From my investigatons, these two authors research is a little dated and has been surpased by more up to date research. Therefore the case maybe that they may fall into the case of WP:Reliable. Saying that, I am convinced that the Jatt and many other Punjabi people such as Rajput's, Kamboj's, Tarkhans etc are of Scythian origin. Thanks SH 09:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that 117.207.62.240 asked a number of people he considers authoritative to make some sort of determination. Do you mind if I call you James instead of a number?(I'm watching "Lost" right now). James, you have received replies in this discussion that you persistently ignore. You appear to be seeking what WP does not give, encyclopedia-wide approval of an author. Presumably, if I read between the lines correctly, you would then cite this approval against any editors questioning the reliability of the author in any article. WP does not do that, generally speaking. WP is like the Ottoman Empire. All authority is handed over to the administrators. There are so many of these that the company cannot possibly police them all. If one becomes notoriously unpopular or violates the policies in a more publicised way, the Sultan chops off his or her head; that is, his priviledges are revoked and he is blocked, sometimes forever. Meanwhile he has nearly unlimited power to decide what can go in the article. That is what is wrong with WP. It is not the people's encyclopedia and is not democratic unless by chance an editor or article escapes attention. That's right. Whether any of the policies you cite are implemented wholly, partially, or not at all is a matter of arbitrary decision by supposedly independent administrators (they are not). This totalitarianism is handled at the article level, not at the policy level. I can give you a further few hints. Articles of the east are dominated by the views of the German administrators. Articles that involve Britain are firmly in the control of the British administrators. Articles on the Balkans ... shall I go on? You aren't politically naive, I hope, James. As you were told above, what anyone will be allowed to say depends on the particular context. To you I would say, you expect too much from WP. What you are discovering here is your limitations on it. Don't believe everything you read, James. I'm going now. Why don't you get a login so I do not have to call you James? So, no need to yank my chain again. I'm very busy right now. Ciao.Branigan 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I received the following request from an anonymous person on my Talk Page: "Requesting your comments (conclusive, if possible) @ http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Tadeusz_Sulimirski_.26_Rahul_Sankrityayan — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)." My answer to this request is as follows: I had never heard of either of these two men until I received this request. For this reason I am not in a position to comment. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sikh, for the conclusive comments — WP:RS.

I too have observed that, Botteville.

Ok! John Hill, articles for both of them are @ Misplaced Pages for scrutiny anyways, in case you get some free time, please go through'em!

Tadeusz Sulimirski's firmly set in the camp that maintains — there are certainly & most definitely have been inward migrations towards India, that's a widely accepted view & far outweighs proposed Indigenous claims! I guess, I can safely say that the consensus has headed in favor of — Tadeusz Sulimirski as a source on Misplaced Pages! Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

SH concludes as YES to — Rahul Sankrityayan, as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history (ONLY — as asked). Comments from Wikipedians — welcome! — 117.207.59.62 (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone thinks otherwise on reliability of Rahul Sankrityayan as a source on articles specifically related to Indian history — please comment! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus (so far): it's a 'YES for both — Tadeusz Sulimirski (Tadeusz Sulimirski's book — The Sarmatians (1970), on articles specifically related to history) & Rahul Sankrityayan (article specifically related to history of India, only). — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is a lot of shouting and touting by a couple of IPs. Aside from anything else, you have misread what Sikh History said: SH is well aware of how Misplaced Pages works and their response both acknowledges the datedness of the author and also the element that is SH's personal opinion. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The response has clearly been more in favor of the use as a reference, then why it's not a YES Sitush? Have you changed your mind over Tadeusz Sulimirski (as you have commented only over him as follows — "My (Sitush's) take is that he (Tadeusz Sulimirski) can be used as a reference point but any such statement must be tempered with a clear note that his is an opinion and that it is one shared by some but by no means all of his peers.").

People can see that SH's personal opinion is WP:Reliable, if in case you haven't fully read his statement & saw only what you wanted to saw & concluding only what you are saying without any concrete stuff (that's WP:NPOV, one you're fully aware of theoratically), & he said a little dated (not even little dated or over dated or outdated, lol!). SH even further goes on to write some text in favor of the quote from the book (what more people expect a participant to do!).

I respect your rights here, but why don't you firmly declare any or both of them as unreliable with some rock solid stuff (that only you've discovered out of some where & rather than any of the guyz above), so that people can have a healthy debate with you, but if you're not even going to do that, then what's the point? Let it be a YES, or be bold to ask people to stop using Tadeusz Sulimirski as a ref on Misplaced Pages's articles related to history (subject's mentioned) & not to use Rahul Sankrityayan as ref on Indian history subject, fair enough fella, b'coz you're the only arguing, even after your request has been considered & it's been declared that even after getting a consensus-wise YES, the sources would not be used as a compelling source, to respect the authors of the pages as follows — WP:NPOV & WP:Balance, again firmly saying this, so please cooperate as dare to take a stand on the either side! — 202.131.116.162 (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone verify that this source exists?

In trying to find out if Joof, Alhaji Alieu Ebrima Cham. "Senegambia - The land of our heritage" is a reliable source, I discovered I can't even find it. It's used in several of our articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I found "Senegambia and the Atlantic Slave Trade," but not that. Googling "Senegambia - The land of our heritage" -wikipedia I'm only finding sites that took their stuff from us. Barring someone finding it on Amazon or Scribd (not that we tolerate such piracy, of course... >_> ), I'm convinced this source has somehow managed to be more fake than the Simon Necronomicon. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I found he wrote The root cause of the bread and butter demonstration in 59, the source you mention is citedhere but I do not have access. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The inability to find references in a Web search engine to a third world published book is hardly convincing evidence that the latter doesn't exist. Here is a non-Misplaced Pages reference to "Gambia: Land of our Heritage" by Cham Joof. (According to our article, he is not normally referred to as Joof, but Cham Joof. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would approve.) http://www.smcm.edu/gambia/documents/publications/gamble/Gamble%2044.pdf on page 9. It's listed as Banjul 1999. It also says "Many of the items listed are rarely to be found outside The Gambia." (surprise) and "In the present bibliography about 26% are items which I have not peronally seen, and are marked *" - this book is not marked*, so I would gather the author did, in fact, per(s)onally see it. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is just the tip of a larger iceberg, so get used to it. As I said before on this page, post in a few places that Isaac Newton's fave cheese was Cheddar and it will eventually appear in Misplaced Pages, then in a few books and eventually be declared RS. But that aside, this source is not a WP:RS item by any measure, whether the book exists or not. If you can not find evidence of where a doctor got his medical degree, will you take the pills he prescribes? This is not a WP:RS source in my view. History2007 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: Shall we try the Newton Cheese experiment to see if it works? History2007 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Our article says Cham Joof was a Gambian historian and journalist. Clearly he's a multiply published one. What is your view that he is not a reliable source based on? --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki is no source for Wiki, and in any case, he seems to have only gone as far as high school education and his claim to fame in his academic years there was being elected goalkeeper according to the Wiki article. I wonder if Niall Ferguson was a goalkeeper... In any case, Ferguson is what I see as a WP:RS source, not this one. History2007 (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The absence of university degrees doesn't necessarily make the source completely unreliable. Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) is a journalist without a university degree, and I doubt that anyone here would reject his history-related books on that ground.

The decision here needs to be whether this source is strong enough to support particular statements, not whether it's the best possible type of source for any and all history statements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Have we ever agreed on anything? No. Let this fellow break Watergate, then we will talk... by why do I bother... I will stop now. History2007 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Lower Assam" is derogatory

Recently User:Kurmaa claimed that "Lower Assam", coined by the Ahom people, is derogatory and should not be used on Misplaced Pages (diff). Do the accompanying links (, , ) show that the term "Lower Assam" is actually derogatory, or that it was coined by the Ahoms?

This argument was accepted by User:Bhaskarbhagawati and together they have gone on a mission moving "Lower Assam" to "Western Assam", and changing all "lower Assam" to "western Assam" in many Misplaced Pages pages. Before making large scale changes on Misplaced Pages, it is important to verify the claims.

A discussion on this topic is given here: Talk:Western_Assam#Move_proposal. The opposing view in summary:

• "Lower Assam" was coined by the British, and not by the Ahoms. " territory from Biswanath to Goalpara—was known as Western Assam; but another name—Lower Assam—gradually came into use." (Banerjee, A. C. (1992), "The New Regime, 1826-31", in Barpujari, H. K., The Comprehensive History of Assam, IV, Guwahati: Publication Board, Assam, pp. 1-43)
• "Lower Assam" has official status since Government of Assam has a Commissioner, Lower Assam Division (48 Shri Sabbir Hussain SCS-1996 Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Assam; )
• Lower Assam is more commonly used in the Internet
  • Here are the results of a count on scholar.google.com:
    • "lower assam" 1,020 results
    • "western assam" 410 results
  • And here are the results from a google search:
    • "lower assam" 878,000 results
    • "western assam" 54,100 results

These arguments have been ignored by both User:Kurmaa and User:Bhaskarbhagawati. I request WP:RSN to please check the sources and decide whether the claims made by User:Kurmaa is correct. Thanks.

Chaipau (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a point of detail. Concerning discussions on talk pages between editors, concerning how to word things nicely, of course RS rules do not have the same importance. If an editor believably knows that a geographical term is potentially offensive there is no reason to ignore this personal knowledge on the "verifiability not truth" principle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true, but we would want at least to verify reliably that some people beyond Misplaced Pages consider it offensive. This is part of an ethnic dispute that's being played out on various Misplaced Pages talk pages (we've seen it at RSN before). Do we know yet whether the dispute matters to anyone in the real world?

The term isn't derogatory in origin: it refers to the lower part (i.e. geographically lower, nearer sea level) of the Brahmaputra valley. It may still be seen as derogatory now: that certainly happens. However, where the term has official status as the name of an administrative division, I think it would be pushing our own POV to sideline it or cease to use it in referring to that administrative division. Andrew Dalby 10:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So Lower Saxony, Lower Canada, the Low Countries, Low Fell, should all go I guess. And I'd better move away from Bas-Bretagne and back to Grande-Bretagne to improve my self esteem. Paul B (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, Paul. You can't get any lower. Loire-Inférieure is no longer an option. Andrew Dalby 08:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How can we determine that a person "believably" knows something? One of Kurmaa's claims, that the Ahoms coined the term "lower Assam", is definitely false. None of the links he has provided shows a derogatory use of the term. Chaipau (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is the question. I suppose that an extreme counter argument might be that if one editor is offended by a term then at least we know that one person is offended, and that would usually mean there are more? But on WP, where a multitude have to work together despite not knowing each other, it is sometimes possible that a particular individual or very small group has convinced themselves of something unusual for the wrong reasons, for example a misunderstanding of an English term. Anyway, is there any obvious compromise which simply avoids the question?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

From the recent trends, Kurmaa and Bhaskarbhagawati have zero-tolerance for "lower Assam". So, no compromise seems possible. They seem to be driven by an acute antipathy toward the Ahom people (diff).

Nevertheless, with respect to the question, what should Misplaced Pages consider reliable source for derogatory use of a term? Should not the aggrieved party at least demonstrate a derogatory use in real life? When Bhaskarbhagawati (BB) created the page (), he did not consider it derogatory. In fact he created a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Lower_Assam, along with an extensive system of categories, templates etc. to go with it to project something of which is obviously fiercely proud. BB then was won over by Kurmaa. So, as far as the real world and the Misplaced Pages world is concerned, here is an instance where a person has been able to propagate his WP:FRINGE theories via Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages seems to be helping, in this case, to create a derogatory term where none existed. Chaipau (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my suspicion. Having seen such arguments from Bhaskarbhagawati before, I think our time is being wasted. There should be no question of taking this issue seriously unless we have good evidence that people in the real world take it seriously. Andrew Dalby 09:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let it be on record that the campaign to make "Lower Assam" a derogatory term began on Misplaced Pages. Kurmaa is now campaigning for support in an online forum: . In the link, Kurmaa is quoting himself (cut-and-paste), from a section that he wrote as User:130.65.109.101 diff. He had to write as an IP user because he is currently blocked for sock puppetry (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurmaa/Archive). Chaipau (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

John V. A. Fine on timeline of the Ottoman sieges of Shkodra, Lezha (Alessio), Drivast (Drisht), Zabljak Crnovica, Kruja

Re: Fine, John Van Antwerp (1994), in The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (University of Michigan Press, ISBN 978-0-472-08260-5). Page 600 of this work is quoted in Siege_of_Shkodra in a sequence that makes the timeline chaotic and confusing. Fine seems to be well-regarded as an RS, but even the best make errors. The quote in the article creating the problem is:

In 1477 the Ottomans captured most of the territory of Zeta together with Žabljak and defeated the main army of Ivan Crnojević late in 1477 or early 1478. Then they concentrated their forces at Shkodra.

This order of events or battle sieges disagrees with Franz Babinger (whose treatment of the events is in much more detail than Fine's tertiary work Aleks Buda), and also disagrees with Kenneth Setton, Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Kristaq Prifti, Selami Pulaha, Oliver Jens Schmitt, Marin Barleti, 15th and 16th century Ottoman chronicles, etc., etc.

Fine's timeline:

1. 1477—Zabljak falls
2. June 1478—Kruja falls
3. Sept 1478—Drivast falls
4. "Shortly thereafter"—Alessio falls
5. Then Shkodra is attacked (attack fails)

Franz Babinger's (and the others mentioned above) timeline:

1. June 1478—Kruja falls
2. June & July 1478—Shkodra attacked (attack fails)
3. August/Sept 1478—Zabjlak falls (AFTER Shkodra attacked)
4. Sept 1478—After Zabljak, Drivast attacked
5. ca. Sept 1478—After Drivast attacked, Alessio attacked

I can provide, if requested, all the works and page numbers for the above secondary sources.--Rereward (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, citations on the other side would be quite helpful - even if not all, at least several of the strongest/most detailed ones. In general, where we have a dispute between reliable sources, we list what both sides say, with citations. If it becomes clear that Fine's work is a summary in one paragraph, while the other side goes into greater detail, we can give more weight to the other side. --GRuban (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And, OK, here are several of many more sources to help guide analysis.

1. Babinger, Franz. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time." New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1978. pp. 359–369 contains "Book Five > The Sieges of Krujë and Shkodër." Pp. 364-365 contains Babinger's order listed above.
2. Schmitt, Oliver Jens (trans. from German by Ardian Klosi). Skënderbeu. Tirana: K&B, 2009. pp. 411-422 contains a chapter entitled "Më pas" (After ). Page 416 explains the order, translated into English as: "Finally in 1478 the exhausted defenders of Kruja opened the gates ... after this besieged the Rozafa Fortress at Shkodra. But the fortress held. Nevertheless, in a short time the Republic of Venice ended the 16-year war against the Ottomans. Shkodra was eventually ceded to the sultan ... previously (emphasis mine) Drishti had been taken in the attack ... the fortresses of the Crnojevics also fell."
3. Buda, Aleka, lengthy introduction in Barleti, Marin. Rrethimi i Shkodrës. Tirana: 1967. See treatment on pp. 3-22. Specifically p. 13 clarifies the order in agreement with Babinger ... translated into English: "The deep losses and failure of the Ottomans made it clear that Shkodra could not be taken with a direct attack. On the other hand the sultan's prestige demanded a swift success. To this goal were the actions taken against the castles of Zabljak, ... Drivast, and Alessio ..."
4. Barleti, Marin. De Obsidione Scodrensi (Venice: 1504) reprinted in Lonicer, Chronicorum Turcicorum (1578). Book Two describes the 1474 and 1478 sieges of Shkodra. Book Three (pp. 264-271) discusses its failure and the subsequent actions against more specifically pages 267-268 (actually 4 pages).
5. Ottoman chroniclers Tursun (1480s), Kivami (ca. 1500), Idris-i Bidlisi (ca. 1510), and K. Pashazade (ca. 1525) all give the exact same chronology—see Pulaha, Selami (ed.). Lufta shqiptaro-turke në shekullin XV: Burime osmane (in both the original languages and Albanian translations). Tiranë: Universiteti Shtetëror i Tiranës, Instituti i Historisë dhe Gjuhësisë, 1968. pp. 105-109, 114-124, 163-173, 206-231.

We do not have to use every source just because it is reliable, so this becomes a question of WP:NOTE (notability) and balance (WP:DUE weight). Of course if this generally good author is suspected of making a typo or something we can simply avoid using him. On the other hand, if the author is well known in this subject area, we possibly need to have a mention of alternative theories?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much.--Rereward (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Source for Beatles song analyses

Hello everyone,

What source

I am looking to your opinion on whether the following source is reliable: Soundscapes. It is an online magazine that calls itself "journal on media culture", published by one Hans Durrer under ISSN 1567-7745. In particular, I wish to use it as source for the Beatles song analyses by musicologist Alan W. Pollack, which are published there (here: Notes on ...).

Where is it used

The source is already being used, e.g., in the featured article "Hey Jude", section Critical reception:

Music analyst Alan Pollack praised "Hey Jude," saying, "it's such a good illustration of two compositional lessons—how to fill a large canvas with simple means, and how to use diverse elements such as harmony, bassline, and orchestration to articulate form and contrast." He also said it is unusual for a long song because it uses a "binary form that combines a fully developed, hymn-like song together with an extended, mantra-like jam on a simple chord progression." Pollack described the song's long coda and fadeout as "an astonishingly transcendental effect,"

(Reference is the source in question)

Where else do I want to use it

I want to use it in the "Paul McCartney" article, subsection Musicianship/Vocals, to add a new sentence:

Musicologist Alan W. Pollack calls McCartney's vocal performance on "Hey Jude" a "tour de force", crossing into "real soprano territory" at the end of a flourish of more than two octaves.

Why do I think the source is reliable

I would argue that Pollack's work in general, as published by the source in question, has been referenced by at least two good quality sources:

• Kenneth Womack's "Long and winding roads" for Continuum Publishing, see here for quote
• Russell Reising's "Speak to me" for Ashgate Publishing, see here for quote

According to WP:RS#Usage_by_other_sources, this would help corroborate Pollack's and the source's credibility, at least for the Pollack series. Since the claim is not very exceptional and I would present it as Pollack's opinion anyway, I suggest that the source is sufficiently reliable to support the claim. What do you think?

Very much looking forward to your thoughts, thanks for your answers! --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really do apologize for the editorial comment here, but I think Pollack's "Notes On" series is fantastic. 'Twould be a shame if it were not considered reliable. --Jprg1966  05:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jprg1966, thanks a lot for your enthusiastic answer! I'm curious myself to see whether this source with its superb content stands the test of Misplaced Pages's standards.--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you bothering to ask? Has someone objected, or are you just not feeling properly WP:BOLD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This site also archive's Pollacks "Notes on", and it may or may not be more reputable than Soundscapes. But I don't edit Beatles articles anymore, so do with that what you will. Evanh2008 04:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, there was indeed concern about the source, from GabeMc on the Paul McCartney Talk page, what with PMcC being a Featured Article and all. Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Evanh2008, the source you are linking to is precisely the Soundscapes page, if I see it correctly? Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. One of our links was a redirect to the other, but I was too lazy to click and notice that. Never mind! :) Evanh2008 03:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Evanh2008 :-) Besides that, what do you think of my argument above, that the source is reliable because reliable sources quote from it? Best, --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry section (Ahnentafel) at Marie, Duchess of Auvergne

This query arises because I'm trying to improve the page Marie, Duchess of Auvergne. Like many other biographies of nobility etc., it has a section headed "Ancestry" that consists of a collapsed table using the Ahnentafel templates. It has been tagged with the uncited-section template. I need to know how to raise it to the desired standard so that I can remove the uncited-section tag.

I feel sure (see Talk:Marie, Duchess of Auvergne#Ancestry section) that there must be some guideline or discussion about sourcing these tables, and there must be at least one Ahnentafel somewhere that has been sourced to the desired standard, but, if these resources exist, I can't find them and the editor who placed the uncited-section tag hasn't been able to help me. So is there, somewhere, a pattern I can follow? Is there a consensus somewhere about how detailed the sourcing has to be? For example, is it necessary to footnote directly every name in every table? That would require an additional 30 footnote references on any page that has a complete Ahnentafel -- so I hope this wasn't the consensus, but I can face it :) Or, as I hope, is the reader expected to click each name and find sourcing on the linked page?

I can't quite see where else I am to ask this question, so I started here. Please gently guide me if there's a better place. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ealdgyth on my talk page kindly suggested two examples of equine pedigrees with footnotes attached: this certainly gives me a clue about how to do it. I suspect there may never have been a discussion. Andrew Dalby 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, whenever I've seen this discussed before it's been in the context of "I've no idea how to do this, but..." - as you say, it's quite likely everyone's just avoided it. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What would be the best forum to discuss this at? I am not all that sure, but it might be better to go beyond this one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

PBS has now raised the question at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Persondata#Ancestor fields. Andrew Dalby 08:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Glass wool and Fiberglass

This edit was removed for having an unreliable source for it. Is this an unreliable source for the subject matter? Thanks ツ Jenova20 08:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite its name, Environmental Research Foundation appears to be a local NGO with rather extreme ideas about environmental preservation on it's "About Us" page. Its publications should not be used to cite facts on Misplaced Pages, except about the organization itself, assuming it would even be notable for an article. The title of the article in question "Donna Shalala, Secretary Of HHS, Bends The Rules For The Fiber Glass Industry" sounds squarely like activism to me. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clearing that up for me ツ Jenova20 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this a RS? It is used in over 50 articles

I am currently online searching for an album review of an article I am working on. I came across this review and wanted to know if it is a reliable source, I then search to see if there are other articles who used this website as a source and found over 50 articles that have. Best, Jona 13:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a blog or gossip-type opinion piece. For what kind of info is it cited? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The site does have an editorial team and they appear to have been quoted in other news outlets. To me they seem at least borderline reliable. For reviews though, it's more about selecting opinions that carry sufficient weight. For latino artists there may be weightier reviews in Spanish or Portuguese. Siawase (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotional quotes for Books

Should quotes from prominent people used to advertise or promote a book be taken as reliable? What about if they are on a promotional website for the book? (In this case Sex at Dawn) For example at :

I think quotes like this are somewhat suspect because they are stripped of context, or are being produced primarily as a favour to the author or the publishing company. On the other hand, the book is being promoted by a real publishing house, so presumably they haven't completely fabricated the quotes. Is there a standard policy with regard to context-less promotional quotations?

In this case, could the praise from the various academics on the list be taken to constitute a certain level of academic approval of the book on an equivalent level with published book reviews? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The individual reviews themselves should be cited, and not the promotional website for the book, and if these are included in the article there should also be a search for other reviews which the publisher didn't want to highlight. For obvious commercial reasons, publishers only ever highlight positive reviews, and then cherry-pick the most positive part of such reviews, so they should also be checked to make sure that the reviewers are being appropriately quoted. Pure blurbs (eg, praise from the book from someone who hasn't actually reviewed it) should not be repeated in articles as they're not a reliable source on the book - blurbs are generally either a favour to the author from their friends/colleagues or a favour to the publisher from its authors, and are not an independent assessment of the book (though most serious authors won't write a positive blurb about a bad book under any circumstances given that doing so damages their reputation). Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D is spot on here. We can't trust excerpts, editors need to have seen the actual review and it needs to be verifiable and we need to see if it really is a reliable source . Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. That is in line with my own thinking. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The best practice is to read the review. The minimum rule is that you WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which means that you would cite blurbs you read at the website as being from the book's website, e.g., "Alice Expert, as quoted on www.bookwebsite.com" or just plain "www.bookwebsite.com". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

dissertation

can this dissertation be used as RS?

It will be used on article Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi to state that the person may have been "harari" taken from page VII on dissertation. Baboon43 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The source itself appears to be reliable, as it was a dissertation which resulted in a PhD for the author. (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.) Dr. Avishai Ben-Dror was awarded his PhD in Middle East Studies for that dissertation from Tel Aviv University School of History in 2008. He is currently a History Professor at the Open University of Israel. However, I have to say that I am a bit surprised that an eight-page paper with no footnotes was accepted as a dissertation, but it's possible that it's only an abstract or an abridged version. I can't find anything else online, and I'm experiencing difficulty accessing academic journals through my university's library right now. Horologium (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's only an abstract, but as long as what it's sourcing is not controversial it's probably fine. a13ean (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources for the Book of Acts 18:1-18

Are biblical scholars who are professors generally reliable for discussion of biblical episodes in the Book of Acts, specifically for Paul the Apostle's trial in Corinth in Acts 18:1-18? Specific sources that date this to the years 50-51 (which is accepted as the majority view and can be used per WP:RS/AC in any case) are:

• Jerome Murphy-O'Connor "Paul and Gallio" Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 112, No. 2, 1993 also as "Paul : a critical life" ISBN 0192853422 Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Rainer Riesner in the The Blackwell Companion to Paul edited by Stephen Westerholm (May 16, 2011) ISBN 1405188448 Wiley-Blackwell, 2011
• Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology by Udo Schnelle 2005 ISBN 0801027969 Baker Academic Publishers
• The Language of Belonging by Mary Katherine Birge (Dec 1, 2002) ISBN 9042911026 Peeters Publishers, 2002
• The First Epistle to the Corinthians by Anthony Thiselton 2000 ISBN 0853645590 Eerdmans Publishers, 2000.
• The Book of Acts by F. F. Bruce (Jun 30, 1988) ISBN 0802825052 Eerdmans Publishers
• Apostle on the Edge: An Inductive Approach to Paul by Michael R. Cosby (Oct 20, 2009) ISBN 0664233082 Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

My view is that the subject of the Book of Acts is inherently a "biblical subject" and hence these professors of biblical studies published in these respectable sources would be WP:RS. And in fact hardly anyone else publishes on that - it is hard to find people outside the "field of biblical studies" who write about the Book of Acts and the trial of Paul.

Now, if the conclusions of these scholars about the dates 50-51 for the trial are accepted as WP:RS, are the methods they use for arriving at said conclusions presentable? I think so, for if the conclusion is considered acceptable (and the majority view supports it) the method each scholar uses to arrive there can be presented, and the reader informed of it, provided it is directly attributed to that scholar.

By the way, all of these 7 scholars by and large same type of things (with some variations, as expected of course) and support the same date range of 50-51 for the trial of Paul in Acts 18:1-18.

In any case, these professors who study and teach the subject of the trial of Apostle Paul in Acts 18:1-18 seem WP:RS to me on that subject. Ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that biblical scholars who are 'real' professors in notable institutions are reliable sources for this. I'd be wary of honorary professors, those without a clear affliation to a mainstream institution, etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I did check and they are all non-honorary professors and seem to be getting paid real money for being there - when alive. Most are alive now. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these are all likely to be usable sources. We don't have a "no religious scholars" rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's better to play with all the cards on the table. The sources cited above are not being used to discuss Acts 18:1-18 per se. They are a means of analyzing a snippet of Roman history concerning the term of office of the proconsul Gallio in Achaea. (See Suetonius on Christians#The health of Gallio.) Casting this as a discussion about Acts misrepresents the issue.

I have disagreed with a number of these sources here in a discussion on reliable sources (I haven't closely looked at them all). The question is: can a source that is factually unreliable be a reliable source for its opinions on the material that it is factually unreliable about? Here are some examples:

1. Birge makes the false claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome.

This is what Seneca actually said: "I kept saying the same thing my dominus Gallio said when he began to feel feverish in Achaia; straightway he went on board ship, insisting that the sickness lay in the place, not in his body." Does Seneca say that Gallio returned to Rome?

2. In a lovely little infobox Cosby makes the false claim that Gallio was the younger brother of Seneca!

This error is made clear here though I can supply numerous other examples.

3. Thiselton makes the false claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office.

Does Seneca say that Gallio did not complete his term of office? (Seneca's exact words are found in the first point.)

An editor can answer these factual questions.

Related to these "inaccuracies" there is a "potential inaccuracy" (as per WP:Inaccuracy) found in a comment by Murphy-O'Connor.

• Murphy-O'Connor claims "The impression of a fussy hypochondriac given by Seneca is confirmed by Pliny", also stated here, end of 3rd paragraph. In fact both Gallio and his brother Seneca suffered from the same complaint, ie consumption, and Pliny (see quote below) notes Gallio in the context of a discussion of phthisis, ie tuberculosis or consumption, saying that he spat or coughed up blood (Latin: sanguine egesto; translated as "suffering from hemoptysis"). Somehow Murphy O'Connor conjured up hypochondria.

Another writer who is used in the same section of the article, but not mentioned in the above list, is Craig Evans, who makes the false claim here that Pliny "describes and recommends the remedy of Gallio who, after drinking waters that caused illness." (Italics added) But this is what Pliny said:

Sea-water also is employed in a similar manner for the cure of diseases. It is used, made hot, for the cure of pains in the sinews, for reuniting fractured bones, and for its desiccative action upon the body: for which last purpose, it is also used cold. There are numerous other medicinal resources derived from the sea; the benefit of a sea-voyage, more particularly, in cases of phthisis, as already mentioned, and where patients are suffering from hæmoptosis, as lately experienced, in our own memory, by Annaeus Gallio, at the close of his consulship: for it is not for the purpose of visiting the country, that people so often travel to Egypt, but in order to secure the beneficial results arising from a long sea-voyage. (source) (Bolding added)

Any sign of Gallio drinking water that caused illness? Evans demonstrates that he doesn't understand his primary source, Pliny. Pliny is talking about coughing up blood. Evans is not in the ballpark. The above examples show the writers to be factually unreliable. And we, as editors, must interrogate sources to validate their reliability for the purposes they are being used for. Otherwise we are not doing our jobs. We cannot make judgment calls of our own.

Incidentally, History2007 misrepresents one of the writers in the above list, Schnelle, in this statement in the article: "a number of scholars such as R. Riesner, F. F. Bruce, Udo Schnelle, M. K. Birge, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, A. C. Thiselton and Michael R. Cosby state that it is likely that tenure of Gallio in Corinth lasted less than a full year". What Schnelle actually said is "it is possible that he did not serve out his full year in office". (My italics.) He certainly doesn't say it is likely. The inclusion of Schnelle in the list makes the Misplaced Pages article inaccurate.

An editor can decide yes or no as to the factual information of a source. (See WP:Accuracy. History2007 will deflect by saying the essay has "no application as policy", but it is attempting to be a guideline as to how editors approach the reliability of sources.) Whatever the outcome, the editor has the responsibility of interrogating sources for their reliability. It's done all the time. Is the source tendentious? Does the source have footnotes or checkable primary sources? Is the writer an expert in the field? Is the material scholarly and peer-reviewed? Are the sources factually reliable? It's part of the job. A number of the sources above have not proven to be factually reliable. -- spin 03:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that there is a really long discussion on this here with the material above presented and discussed on the WP:RS talk page, as well as the related project page. History2007 (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource as a source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Asked, answered, moving on to disruption. RS/N does not host disruption. Editors may proceed to either DR/N or AN/I where appropriate

Some time ago, after searching for sources, I deleted the section Zhang Xianzhong#The Seven Kill Stele which had an old fact tag (as of today, 3 years old). It was restored today with no sources and I removed it again. It's been restored again, with wikisource as one source and something which says it is sourced from the "CDC forum" as the other. In fact, if you look at the talk page there are general complaints about the sourcing of this article. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Two points:

• Wikisource is an amazing resource in general. There are so many useful things there.

• You can go and edit Wikisource yourself right now and change what Isaac Newton said (maybe add something about Cheese as well..).

So Wikisource is no more reliable than Misplaced Pages itself, and certainly not WP:RS. It is useful as a look-up resource but not WP:RS given that it may have changed in the last day... or whoever dowloaded material there may have obtained it from a less than reliable website. Who knows where the material came from. And the volume of the material is often so large that it is not at all clear if people check all of these ancient documents there line by line. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speaking generally, I think that wikisource should be viewed with extreme suspicion as a reliable source. Several years ago there was a user here who specialized in obscure Buddhist topics. He wrote in an overwrought and incomprehensible style. Eventually he was indeffed on original research and WP:COMPETENCE grounds. At the time he was also active at wikisource, where he produced similarly florid translations of Sanskrit and Classical Tibetan works. Essentially he was creating translations of dubious quality and faithfulness to the original - translations that few people are qualified to verify - and then using them to cite his original research on wikipedia. I've had a sour taste in my mouth for wikisource since then. This sort of circular loop makes it way too easy to game our content policies. Skinwalker (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be having a heated agreement on this one. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find this quite extraordinary. Why is someone questioning a source that is a well-known piece written in Qing Dynasty as a legitimate source? Hzh (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to use a WP:Secondary source. Then all the discussion goes away. History2007 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That account is not a primary source. It was written about a hundred years later about the event. Hzh (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Then by itself it is old, and is still necessary to use "modern scholarship". History2007 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I can understand what you said - you cannot quote in wiki something written by ancient historians like Herodotus or Sima Qian? Hzh (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can quote that Becher wrote on Phlogiston in a historical context, but many things may have happened since then. And if your only Becher source is Wikisource that is a no-no, because Wikisource content may have been downloaded from some web site of unknown quality. So just find a 2003 book by a well known publisher and use that as a summary. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what you said, you are now trying to shift the argument to reliability of wikisource. You claimed that only "modern scholarship" on old history is to be used. So let me try to get this right - the great majority of pages on Chinese history relies on ancient texts like Hanshu, Zizhi Tongjian or Shiji, you are saying that if you can't find sources with "modern scholarship" on those, they must be deleted? Hzh (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My objection was two fold: the lack of modern scholarship and the use of Wikisource. So as a start, forget Wikisource. Then add modern scholarship that cites the 1600 or 1700 source, and add a link to a book that includes the 1700 source. A 1753 source may have been shown to be a forgery in 1983 paper or a 1755 source saying something different may have been found in 1985. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I want you to state categorically if this is what you mean - ancient texts like Hanshu, Zizhi Tongjian or Shiji (or those by Roman, Greek historians, or old Muslim historians, etc.) cannot be used on wiki as a source, and that those without "modern scholarship" must be deleted? You can happily delete away thousands of pages on Chinese history if this is what you mean. The reliability of wikisource here is entirely a red herring. Show that this source used is actually incorrect.Hzh (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Step 1: Forget Wikisource. I will not discuss it any more.

Step 2: if you have no modern scholarship that supports a 1753 source you quote, I would tag it and if you find no modern scholarship then delete it. I would do that for physics as well as history if it is 2 pages or 200,000 pages makes no difference. You need modern scholarship that supports ancient sources, as well as a reference to the ancient sources. That is my view. Now I will stop and type no more on this. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the wiki guideline on this, the requirement for modern scholarship and all that? (You went from secondary source to modern scholarship without any explanation). If it is only your personal opinion, what validity does it actually have? If a person quote Herodotus with link to the quote, that is not allowable without "modern scholarship"? Do you actually think that there is "modern scholarship" on every bit of ancient history? Most of those are simply repeated verbatim without any analysis, why do you think that is somehow more valid that the actual source itself? Hzh (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

See here, then search for "Try to cite present scholarly consensus". Also WP:SCHOLARSHIP, etc. The whole page should be read. History2007 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are evading the issue. No modern scholarship stated, certainly nothing about not using ancient texts as a source. And it says "scholarly consensus WHEN AVAILABLE, recognizing that this is OFTEN ABSENT" (indicating that it isn't actually an absolute requirement). What consensus can there be anyway when a lot of modern writers simply repeat what's written in ancient texts? It looks like a lot of what you said actually aren't in the wiki guidelines, and they are just your personal opinions. Hzh (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why Hzh won't or can't provide a source, but I am not going to argue with him on my talk page which is what he is trying to do. As I said there, if it's well known, then it should be easy to find a source. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I did provide a source, but you chose to involve other people questioning wikisource's validity, without actually giving any reason why you think that source is false. Hzh (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let us forget Wikisource. Just find a few good source say from 1999 to 2012 and use those. That is all. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I see there are now three sources. (open-lit.com), (a Google book), and (sourced to something that translates as a forum). I don't read Chinese and web translators aren't enough for me to see what these are. We can use foreign language sources, but they need to give at least the same information we'd expect for English sources, eg full title of a book, author, date of publication, page number, etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is. Look at the reference - there is the title, the author, and year of publication, page number, everything you want is there. If your complaint is that the it isn't in English, then say so. I don't think it is right for me to translate a book title, but I will do it if this is what you want.

Going back to the deletion - you claimed that you have tried to find sources but can't, now you are actually admitting that you can't read Chinese, the fact is that there are plenty of sources in Chinese, so you complaint is, in essence, if it isn't in English, it doesn't exist? China has a very long history, a lot of Chinese historical material are rarely discussed by non-Chinese scholars, so as far as you are concerned, none of them exist? I find the sheer arrogance simply astounding. There are in fact sources in English, for example here something written by John Derbyshire - see page 180-181, but John Derbyshire is a political polemicist, and I don't really want to use him as a source on history. Hzh (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, foreign language sources are fine but they must be reliable and fully cited (so that a Wikipedian reading that language can verify them just as we can verify an English source).

On the main topic of discussion here, our practice is well established. We can of course cite primary sources, but we as Wikipedians do not evaluate them and interpret them in modern terms. That's why citing primary sources is never enough for us. We always need modern secondary sources, and we start from them. That's one big way in which Misplaced Pages pages differ from academic articles, which often start from primary source material. They are doing it for us, you might say! Andrew Dalby 08:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting tired of Hzh's attacks on me and claims that I am saying things I'm not saying or supporting. What I originally reverted had an old fact tag and one source which still doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. Hzh restored it saying it was well known, which is not a good reason to restore uncited material. And if it is well known, then there will be modern secondary sources, that's what 'well known' means. I agree we shouldn't use the material by white supremacist John Derbyshire. And yes, I'd like the book title, etc in English as well for both. We ask for translations to verify ("When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy") so translating a book title, etc seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked you specific questions about your rationale for deletion (like whether you doubt that the poem was strongly associated with Zhang), you refused to answer them. You made points which don't make sense (like complaining that the book doesn't have author or book title when it clearly does), saying that you tried to find references when it appears that you only look for English reference (yes, you can delete half the pages on Chinese history if that is your rationale). You claimed that the Chinese website is a forum when it isn't (it actually gave a fairly good account of the poem), so it would appear that you deleted something without any clear understanding on what the sources are. You questioned whether a well-known piece in wikisource is reliable, I have found you a separate source for that piece (and if the text of the book is available on different sites that should tell you that it is in fact legitimate, and your original point about whether wikisource is legitimate or not is a red herring.) You haven't been able to support your deletion with anything apart from not knowing Chinese and can't check the content of the links given in the page, and that isn't a good reason at all. Hzh (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying here that histories written by ancient historians are primary sources? Then that would lead to the problem of sourcing. A lot of Chinese histories aren't discussed by Western historians, and modern Chinese historians often simply quote the ancient historical records verbatim anyway, so the only information are in fact from those ancient historical texts. Since you are saying that those should not be accepted by themselves in wiki, you will have huge problem with wiki pages on Chinese history because a large number of them are simply translations of ancient texts, even greater number contain huge chunks of the translations. Hzh (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You were haranguing me on my talk page after I took this to RSN and expecting almost instance responses. I used Google books search to look for sources, don't blame me if it doesn't turn anything up. The translation at the bottom says "The source: CDC Forum " and you still have given no rationale as to why whose actual source seems to be the section that translates as forum and looks like a forum, . It doesn't appear to meet our criteria but I'm happy to listen to an argument saying it is. I'm not sure why you are saying that the source isn't a forum, have I misunderstood what it says at the bottom of the page? And again, my deletion was of unsourced material, you have added those sources since I deleted the original entry and yours, so please don't suggest that I've deleted the current version, I and others are discussing not my deletion but your sources. Our policy on primary sources of course applies no matter what the language, but that is a slightly different dispute and right now let's just try to clarify what the sources are before getting into that. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the result from Google books if you search for the Seven Kill Stele in Chinese - Seven Kill Stele, that is hardly no hits. Here I find in Google Books in English reference to the Kill Stele, again, that's not nothing. If you search for Zhang Xianzhong in English you get these hits Zhang Xianzhong, and one of these you'd find description of him cutting off feet here which presumably was what you wanted the citation for. So the claim that nothing can be found on Google book is patently false. I asked you which bit was the one you had problem with, the cutting off of feet or the Seven Kill Stele but you refused to answer. Since I can easily find references to both in Google Books, the issue is certainly not with the existence of sources, whether they be in Chinese or English. The point is that I asked you for explanations, but you either refused, or gave answers that don't actually explain anything, and are actually false. Hzh (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going out, but I found nothing, and please don't suggest I'm lying. A better search, or even a search from another country (odd as that might seem it seems to be the case) can turn up stuff. But I tried. If you asked me something on my talk page I might well have ignored it because it felt like you were haranguing me and I'd already told you I'd raised it here. I'll look at your searches sometime in the next 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a false narrative, I asked what the problem is in the very beginning, and if you haven't noticed, this discussion is titled "Wikisource as a source?", nothing about the questions I asked, and you never answered my questions here. Just in case that you might complain you can't see the links in Google Books, here are the only two in English on the Seven Kill Stele worth mentioning (the others are probably unrelated, but it doesn't mean that there are only two there since this is a translated term and the search result can be different if you use different translations) - 1) Civilizing Chengdu: Chinese urban reform, 1895-1937, 2) The journal of Asian studies, Volume 41 - this one doesn't display the relevant page, but this is the snippet given - "In a major research essay, Hu Shaoxi disputes the common view that Zhang Xianzhong depopulated Sichuan. Many accounts exaggerated the number killed, created a nonexistent massacre, doctored the famous stele of "seven kills," ignored ...". It's brief, but that the stele is described as "famous" in an academic article showed it is indeed something well-known. I hope this settles it, and I see no further point in continuing this discussion with you, I will just make some improvement to the page when I have the time. Hzh (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of being called a liar, however you pretty it up, 'false narrative' means lie. There has been no need for all this aggression, all you were asked for is sources that meet our criteria. It was a reasonable request and per policy, no matter what you think. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hzh, the concept of primary source is complicated in the real world, and Misplaced Pages uses it a bit strangely, which makes it twice as complicated. One of the reasons we use it strangely is because different academic fields have slightly different ideas about the concept, and we have to use the same rules for everything from archaeology to zoology. To answer your questions:

• All those old sources are primary sources as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned.
• You are permitted to use primary sources (carefully). Sometimes, in fact, the primary source is the best possible source.

You might find it useful to read WP:USEPRIMARY to get a summary of how we use these words and what the consequences are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it confuses more than it clarifies. In there its says that a book written 150 years after a 200 years old event is a secondary source, but the text referred to in this discussion was written about 100 years after the event, so it is not actually contemporary to something that happened. It also says historical reports are secondary sources. Unless I missed it, it doesn't say anything old are necessarily primary. For example, Sima Qian's Shiji is an account of the history of China from the thousands of years ago to his day, Sima Qian used old records and books and a variety of sources including interviews, some of these you might consider primary sources, but surely his accounts of older history are secondary? He checked his sources and assessed their accuracy and validity, analyzed, and commented on the subjects he wrote on, and that, according to the link you gave, is what is done in a secondary source, and not primary. If something old is considered primary, then the legitimate question would be - how old is old? Hzh (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:HISTRS works purporting to be "histories" before the Rankean methodological revolution are not acceptable sources for history in almost all circumstances, and works published after the Rankean methodological revolution faded out of date. In relation to history, almost all "old" works are primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to press on this point, but the link doesn't say what you said. I'm quite happy to accept if historians do think historical writings by ancient historians (pre-mid 19th century?) are primary sources, but it doesn't say that in the link. Hzh (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's already in WP:PRIMARY as well; "Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we have different understanding of what "historical documents" means there. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think we are getting somewhere, it's actually in the notes: "ancient works, even if they cite earlier lost writings;", so presumably that would include Herodotus or Sima Qian. Doesn't answer the question of how old is old though, and doesn't necessarily support the previous assertion that pre-Ranke would be considered primary. Hzh (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo has a good point actually. And as a side note, given that source language has been an issue, how about asking a few of these people: Misplaced Pages:Translators_available#Chinese-to-English to take a look at the sources - specially if modern sources are found. There are a few people on that list. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't treat Sima Qian any differently than we do Herodotus. We can (with attribution of course) report what they say appropriately, but we can't use them for a statement of historical fact... - oops, where is signbot when you want it? Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A few people have effectively said the same thing now about old sources. So unless Hzh is aiming for the Nobel prize in persistence or something like that here, should just accept that and move on. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that there are plenty of people who will assert something to be rules in wiki, but when challenged, can't produce the evidence, which appears to be the case here. In any case, there never was any attempt to present what's written by historians (ancient or modern) as solid fact, I normally say "according to..." "it was said that...", "XYZ claimed that..." etc. Hzh (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to explain how " whose actual source seems to be the section that translates as forum and looks like a forum, " meets our criteria as a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm still waiting for you to explain all the other things I raised, which you have steadfastly refused to answer, or make claims which turned out to be untrue, or make false narrative of what happened. If you are interested, I missed the part at the end of that article, it was published as an article by a news website, but apparently from a forum, but not the forum you claimed. Presumably they checked the content and thought it fine to be published. Now that's sorted, will you now come clean? (I thought the whole thing is settled, there are valid sources, you were mistaken, end of story, but if you want to take the discussion further, I am happy to obliged.) Hzh (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, on second thought, I think this is the end of discussion, given that as I already indicated a couple of times that there is nothing more to be discussed on the issue, and any further discussion will be about you or me which is neither appropriate nor worthwhile. Hzh (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a forum, I zapped it. As for Hzh's accusations against you Dougweller, there are 3 steps: 1. shrug shoulders, 2. shrug shoulders 3. forget about it. You can not take those seriously. I would not. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you still insist it is a primary source. No matter how many people said it, they (and you) still need to give a link that says what they (or you) claim to be true. So far I can only find something on ancient work, and an 18th century piece is not ancient. Hzh (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not just me who says that, it is all those other users, as you have noted yourself, and they have provided links. History2007 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We are going round in circles. As I already noted, the links don't say what they claimed they say. You have to provide evidence, there is no point in giving links that doesn't corroborate what they (or you) say. This is the end of the discussion because I don't see people providing actual evidence, just opinions. Hzh (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. This needs to end now. Here is the overview of this thread and some clarifications.

• Wikisource is an unacceptable source to use on Misplaced Pages for the same reason Misplaced Pages is an unacceptable source. Per WP:USERGENERATED which states:

"elf-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated"

• Foreign language sources Foreign language sources may only be used on the English Misplaced Pages when no other English source is available of equal quality per WP:NOENG which states:

"Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available

• When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.
• When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.

Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

• Primary Sources  ::Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

• Using older sources There is such a thing as community consensus when dealing with issues that may not be covered within Misplaced Pages policy. There is consesus on the use of older sources which states that newer sources are preferred and should be used if possible to augment the older source. , are some of the consensus discussions. A more recent discussion took place just last month, and if you do not wish to take my word, please do the search as I feel there has been enough guidence provided. We guide, we do not instruct.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The Scottish Sun

The citation to the article titled "So brave ... and so beautiful", The Scottish Sun, June 25 2008 was removed from the article Sophie Morgan with the simple edit summary "don't cite the sun". The source was used to support the non-contentious statement "She has also appeared in the reality TV show ‘Beyond Boundaries'." In understanding that tabloids are problematical, and should never be used for gossipy or contentious information, is the source okay in this instance for non-contentious facts, or not? Schmidt, 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a bad revert. For non-contentious factual claims which are not about science, The Sun, Scottish or otherwise, is reliable. Formerip (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is PopCrush a reliable source?

"Government Hooker" is currently a featured article candidate, and Wikipedian Penguin (talk · contribs) has brought up concerns with two ()() the sources used in the article. Both of these sources are from PopCrush. He has been unable to find any editorial qualifications or previous information for Amy Sciarretto, the individual responsible for writing the articles. I was originally reluctant to use a PopCrush source, as I am not fond of the website's format. It came to my attention that is was the only non-blogging site that directly verifies that the song was featured in a promotional video for the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards. In addition, her review can be seen in the "reception" section of the article. I used it because reviews for the song were very limited to begin with. It is also worth nothing that various good articles use PopCrush to verify some of its information.

I originally had a question about this, but no one voiced their opinion on the reliability of the website. Can I please get some feedback on the website? I don't mean to be snappy, but I'm getting a bit impatient. —DAP388 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this site has any sort of editorial oversight, fact checking or does corrections. From all I can see it doesn't quality as a reliable source, much less as a high quality source as required in FAs. Siawase (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Facebook entry on abortion issue

I'm quite sure that this diff using this Facebook entry by a nonexpert on the abortion topic is not a Reliable source. But the only other editor working on the article does not agree. (Note he has removed the other reference from an advocacy group website.) CarolMooreDC 01:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy. Cow. Lemme jump in and help if I can. Binksternet (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My position is based on: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The question is if Stephan Kinsella is an expert. I believe his is since he is published regarding libertarian legal issues. That said, I will attempt to rewrite the portion in question as discussed in the talk. If I can let Rothbard do his own talking, the expertise of Kinsella will be irrelevant. Dude6935 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Kinsella would more clearly be accepted as an expert on the plank of abortion in Libertarianism if someone had ever quoted him on it in a reliable source. Once he's quoted or his position described in such a source then that source can be introduced. The problem with Kinsella's own blog or his Facebook posts is the problem of one hand clapping or a tree falling in the forest. Kinsella must be noticed or his opinions are not useful to us. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will see if I can find a source referencing Kinsella on abortion. Dude6935 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Because of a basic axiom of libertarianism: non criminals are to be treated in the “gentlest manner possible.” In Block, Kinsella and Whitehead (2006) we state: “She may evict this interloper from her ‘premises.’ She must do so in the gentlest manner possible, for the trespasser in this case is certainly not guilty of mens rea.”6 The point is, the fetus is not purposefully committing a trespass." http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-32.pdf

After looking at the linked paper, it appears as if you will need to attribute the quote to all three contributors: Block, Kinsella and Whitehead, not Kinsella alone. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your last statement. Doesn't the link establish Kinsella's expertise on evictionism? Isn't that the sole point of contention? Dude6935 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This new ref is here. I haven't investigated content, but that's an issue for the article talk page. Unfortunate it takes a WP:RSN to get people to take one seriously and beef up refs. CarolMooreDC 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The length of a Marathon

Over on Talk:Athletics_at_the_1908_Summer_Olympics_–_Men's_marathon#The_first_mile, there is a bit of uncertainty as to whether a certain blog could be allowed as a reference in the context of debate over the length of the 1908 Olympic Marathon in the associated article.

According to WP:RS, it is suggested that though general blogs are not considered reliable, under certain circumstances blogs run by (say) professional news outlets whose contributors are professional journalists could be considered. The blog in question is actually the blog of the U.S.A Track and Field Road-Running Technical Council. It is moderated, and I would therefore think that posts appearing on it which originate from the professionals in the field (such as Mike Sandford, Pete Reigel and others) should be OK as citations. Hell, if you can't cite professional course-measurers, whom can you cite? :-) Any comments please? Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a messageboard, not even a blog. Isn't there a book out there or something that talks about Marathons and the history of them? Arzel (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Several books. I have a copy of "The Marathon Makers" by John Bryant, one of the most often cited sources for such stuff. This is in addition to that. "The Marathon Makers" is more about the people behind the story (the athletes and the celebrities of the day who had a hand in how it turned out), less about the nuts and bolts of course planning and measurement. Unusually, in the case of the London 1908 Olympic Marathon, the nuts and bolts are more important than they normally would be just because the claimed length of that particular marathon became fossilised as the standard marathon distance to this day. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Steve, what is the statement that you wanted sourced by the blog/messageboard? Location (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Things like Sandford's comment "This 150 yards is in fact the "missing 150 yards" once mentioned by John Disley when he was researching the marathon start." from this item for instance. I might also add Sandford's other comment that in his (professional) opinion the first mile may be 30 m short, but certainly not Disley's suggested amount. So as you can see, it's nothing outrageous, but it's the sort of detail you're not going to get anywhere else quite frankly. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled Star Trek sequel

News reports are abound showing that the film will be called Star Trek into Darkness. However, as they all seem to be repeating what was reported on what is in essence a fan blog, can they be considered reliable sources? Discussion here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say TrekMovie is reliable enough for us to say in the article: "Well-known fan blog TrekMovie claims the title of the film will be Star Trek Into Darkness." I would not, however, say the source was reliable enough for us to warrant an actual page move (particularly as the article has repeatedly been involved in "page move wars"). Better to wait for an official confirmation from the studio for that (which is probably imminent). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A good fan blog is still a fan blog. I'm sure Paramount is capable of announcing the titles of its movies; even if the fan blog is correct at the current time it still amounts to speculation since Paramount could alter to the title at any point up to announcing it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just like Revenge of the Jedi was changed into Return of the Jedi!   — Jasonasosa 06:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

[Mother Jones and Rolling Stone articles as RS sources in a BLP for a contentious claim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Malformed request. Not enough information to help. RS/N should not be used to continue dispute.

multilevel marketing.<ref name=MJ2>{{cite news|last=Mencimer|first=Stephanie|title=Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them Back|url=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/mitt-romney-nu-skin-multilevel-marketing-schemes|accessdate=09/08/2012|newspaper=]|date=May/June 2012}}</ref><ref name=RS1>{{cite news|last=Dickinson|first=Tim|title=Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney|url=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/right-wing-billionaires-behind-mitt-romney-20120524|accessdate=09/08/2012|newspaper=]|date=May 24, 2012}}</ref><ref name=motherjones/><ref name=Forbes/>

Are the first two sources "reliable sources" in the context of a BLP? My belief is that opinion articles named Get-Rich-Quick Profiteers Love Mitt Romney, and He Loves Them Back and Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney are opinion articles about the current political campaign and are not valid sources in a WP:BLP.

The first one is subtitled quite unsubtly Mormon country is rife with miracle-cure peddlers whose get-rich-quick schemes have boomed in the recession. One of the biggest beneficiaries of their campaign largesse? Mitt Romney. and Utahns have a joke about multilevel-marketing companies: MLM really stands for "Mormons Losing Money." which I suggest indicates that it is not an "investigative article" as one editor has claimed.

The second is subtitled They're trying to buy a presidency - and they expect a big payoff on their investment and has But now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that upended decades of limits on campaign donations, financing a presidential race is the exclusive domain of the kind of megadonor whose portfolios make Mitt Romney look middle-class. which also looks a teensy bit like an opinion article and not one which presents "facts".

Forbes is the only WP:RS source for that edit that I find -- it does call the firm a "pyramid selloing organization" (not to be confused with "pyramid scheme, to be sure) and does not use the term "MLM" and then paints a picture of a person who shut down the original MLM, hired chemists, got 9 patents in the field, and does not load the people at the bottom with more than a $30 cost. Thus Forbes is a valid source for the claim - but I suggest the other two do not meet the RS and BLP policy requirements. And since the claim has been disputed in print by the company, it is clear that NPOV requires balancing claims even if SPS, which the other editor seems also to dispute. I am not connected in any way at all to VanderSloot, the company or anything else here, directly or indirectly -- but I do tend to take the use of opinion articles for statements of "fact" to be a serious problem. Thanks. Collect (talk) WP:FORUMSHOPPING.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Investigative journalism, over the years, has been notoriously the locus of writers cutting ethical corners for their causes. Mother Jones is not, by any standard whatsoever, a neutral source: when I went to the first article, I got a popup from the magazine asking me to make a donation to "elp us fact-check the right wing... before Election Day." I submit that they have to be treated as a hostile source, albeit one that as a rule does good work. Nonetheless I would never give them a pass as a presumed reliable source.

It would help a lot if we knew for whose biography this was intended as a source. If we're talking Romney, then I would say the few raw facts of who exactly made donations to his campaign are about all that I would accept this article to corroborate. Other than that, it's something of a smear job: MLM in general and Nu Skin in particular are several steps below ethically questionable, but the connection to Romney is tenuous.

I see some problems with the Rolling Stones article as well. For example, it makes a tie between Steven Webster and the Deepwater Horizon disaster that is true on one level but which is also plainly intended to imply a responsibility which I would have to question, Webster's company having been absorbed by Transocean long before the accident. RS isn't as overtly political as MJ but this does not strike me as an entirely neutral article. But again, I need a better picture of the context before I can give a more complete answer. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Individual sources do not have to be "neutral"; in fact there's a reasonable argument that no source is ever neutral. Neutrality is important at the level of Misplaced Pages articles, per NPOV -- our articles should reflect the presentation of a topic in existing sources, which have different points of view. Simply put, "reliable" does not equate to "neutral". As for your dismissal of investigative journalism (on the basis of "cutting ethical corners", no less), I'd be surprised to learn that this is a widely held view here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources which are not neutral, however, are limited as to the scope of how they can be used. As I think should be clear, I would tend to trust MJ and RS for raw factual reporting; the analysis is another matter. Also, my more abstract problem is that there is no clear line between investigative journalism and advocacy. MJ has always straddled that border, and therefore I find in necessary to be cautious with material published there. Why don't you tell us what the context of this is and then I can give a better answer, and leave off the exaggeration of my qualms. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Investigative journalism, over the years, has been notoriously the locus of writers cutting ethical corners for their causes."

Lamentable perhaps, but what does that have to do with Mother Jones? At best it's irrelevant and at worst it's a veiled accusation that Mother Jones' Washington Bureau correspondent Stephanie Mencimer (the author of the article in question) was guilty of cutting ethical corners. That's a big charge. It's also completely unsubstantiated as far as I can tell. Mother Jones has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WPs entry says: "Mother Jones has been nominated for 23 National Magazine Awards and has won six times, including for General Excellence in 2001, 2008, and 2010. In addition, Mother Jones also won the Online News Association Award for Online Topical Reporting in 2010 and the Utne Reader Independent Press Award for General Excellence in 2011. That said, the source may lean liberal, but that does not in any way preclude citing it. Many well-respected and widely cited journalistic sources lean to the right or left; Wall Street Journal comes to mind as a good example on the other side of the political spectrum, and there are many others.

Furthermore, Mencimer's article has been cited by several other reputable sources, for example the excellent investigative piece that appeared in Harper's Magazine, which is also highly respected. Not only that but she is cited in dozens of articles throughout Misplaced Pages.

Lastly, the only detail in question -- that Melaleuca is an MLM -- is common knowledge and the company has been referred to as such by numerous reliable sources across the spectrum, including the FTC, MLM experts, journalists, and even the company's own executives. Like Nome said above, all of this has been explained to Collect already by several editors in multiple venues (i.e., multiple talk page threads and the BLP noticeboard). and now he is simply forum shopping. The entire premise of Collect's thread title is flawed. The simple statement of fact that Melaleuca is an MLM is not contentious; it is more than amply supported, and Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones is clearly a WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) WP:RS or WP:NPOV in this case. Mencimer's article originally appeared in the print edition of the magazine, which doesn't contain pop up ads, and no pop-ad comes up with the direct link to the article in question. It's a red herring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Collect: "Forbes is the only WP:RS source for that edit that I find"

You know that's not true. I provided multiple sources already and you know it. Playing the game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT still? Rhode Island Red (talk)

Ugh. What article is this? What content is being cited to these two sources? And why do I get the feeling that everyone who's posted in this thread so far is involved in this dispute? Look, guys, the point of posting at RSN is to get outside advice, not to fill up this noticeboard with partisan bickering. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) Frank Vandersloot and Collect was initially challenging the notion that Vandersloot's company "Melaleuca" is a MLM company. After he raising the objection, he was presented with a long list of sources that confirm the fact. At least 4 other editors have looked into this since Collect raised his objection and all agree that the sources leave no room for doubt about the validity of using the MLM designation. For some reason though, Collect is still insisting that Forbe's magazine is the only source that refers to Melaleuca (indirectly) as an MLM. Seems to me that the challenge about the reliability of Mother Jones is a red herring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

O-Kay. I have to agree with RiR, and I would add that the concurrence of Forbes and MJ pretty well cinches this. I also see a lot of other sites which monitor MLM companies, and they come to the same conclusion. I don't see a reason to exclude the MJ article on that basis. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the horrible formatting of this notice (Which sould contain both the claim as written and the actual reference being used in a form that can be easily accessed) this request seems to simply ask, are sources "reliable sources" in the context of a BLP? Well, why wouldn't they be? How does a BLP article change RS of a source? No, what should be asked is simply "are the claims being made referenced with RS per BLP policy?" Since there is no claim that I can find in this discussion and it does appear to be a continued dispute I am closing this as malformed and a dispute to be settled on talk page or through DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) Genealogy databases

Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Are the following genealogy databases reliable sources: Genealogy Place, Rootsweb, Ancestry.com, Ancestry Archive? TFD (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Ancestry.com, it seems to have been reviewed in an academic work at least once () and I see it being used as a source in a number of other works (ex. , ). I think it is reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We need links to the wikipedia page where the question arises and to the database pages that would be cited. Andrew Dalby 15:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Links to the article are at the top of this discussion thread and it links out to various online databases. TFD (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right of course, and I intended to delete my comment. Andrew Dalby 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• These are public databases. According to the policy, such sources are considered self-published if the content was "user-generated", except materials "originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users". Hence, if there is moderation/verification of data by database staff, the content qualifies as RS. As a practical matter, the content of biological databases (for example) is widely used in scientific research, and it can be used here. Speaking about Richard Tylman, it seems that using genealogy databases involves cross-verification of data, i.e. the different records in genealogy trees must be mutually consistent. That makes data significantly more reliable. As a side note, reliability of data in certain databases, such as Protein Data Bank, originates from credentials of individual users because authorship of every record was clearly defined. Therefore, certain user-generated databases are RS, and the policy should be corrected. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• User-generated sites on genealogical trees would not be RS. The others, such as ancestry.com, probably are. The main issue is ensuring the person referred to in the source is indeed the subject of the citation. If this can be established beyond reasonable doubt, I think the site can be used if there is no other source with the information. All of the above sites are useful for researching people, even if they cannot be used as sources. Churn and change (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Ancestory.com is on the edge of being WP:RS. But as you said there is the identification issue: a big ticket item. In many mailing lists, the whole issue of "name and identity establishment" is a serious issue, and there are specific algorithms for that. I am not sure how well a Wikiuser can handle those when using that system. History2007 (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on what aspect of Ancestry.Com is being used as a source. Is it it the innumerable & often unreferenced family trees that often co-mingle different people's information from different generations?...Then no. Is it is any unreferenced content without reliable source/s to back it up?...Then no. If it is an authored piece, written by a recognized geneaology expert that comes complete with cited references?...Then maybe.

For instance, in the case of the Tylman article, Ref#3 has one line about 'The will of Thomas Cobb indicates he had a daughter, given nameunknown, who married one Richard Tylman of Faversham' but this section of rootsweb/Ancestry.Com is edited by a "M. Cobb" and provides few sources for the asserted facts. Ref#6, however, is an apparent link to published historical records...I say "apparent" simply because it is behind a subscription-only firewall. Ref#8 repeats verbatim much of the same information as Ref#3. Without footnotes or inline citations, I personally find much of the information posted on Ancestry.Com, while well-meaning and possibly also well-sourced, to not be all that useful as stand-alone research though it can indeed be a useful jumping-off point for further research. Shearonink (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Payment requirements do not effect RS, however, these sites are really tertiary sources, aggregating information from other places and do not own any of the documents but simply host them on their site for personal research purposes. The site itself does not appear to have editorial oversite or Fact checking and would fail for those reasons. Reliability of the author may be something that could be proven I suppose and even an article being hosted could be varified...I suppose.... in theory, but using these sites would be questionable without the needed oversite.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are those which aggregate and summarize secondary and primary sources; examples are obituaries and encyclopedias (WP:TERTIARY). Ancestry.com seems more a collection of primary sources (US Census records, immigration records etc) with search features. They have some sites where the search is just of these records, and other sites where the search includes user-generated content. The records themselves have been scanned and converted to ASCII/PDF text with OCR software. That introduces errors especially with old census records with close writing. The scanned image of the original source itself should be usable as a primary source, assuming it is not a search that includes user-generated content, wherever primary sources are acceptable. Churn and change (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets not get ahead of ourselves as "Seems to be" isn't enough clarity for use. The same is true of Google books, but we can't assume an error was made beforehand. We assume the documentation is accurate. The problem I see is that the documents are not from these sites, they arenot even hosting them in many cases but supply the search. When the documents are on the servers of these sites they are still not the actual primary source and we only use ONE source and I don't think it would be ancestry.com but the US census etc. So why use these sites as the reference? Again, eve if not user generated there seem to be some problems that cannot be justified for exclusive use when, even if the documents were found with these sites, they are not the actual source.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification regarding a primary source

The Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and Civil Monetary Penalties Under the Commodities Exchange Act, filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to the Illinois Eastern Division District Court. It is used for the BP article to state the fact the complaint was filed against BP Products North America, Inc., a subsidiary of BP plc, and its traders. The quote:

The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused BP Products North America (subsidiary of BP plc; former Amoco Oil Company) traders with conspiring the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004.

The company name was replaced with "BP" with edit summary: "reverted per WP:SECONDARY... we don't prefer court documents." This is true that secondary sources talking mainly (although not entirely) about BP. However, the question is if the complaint filed to court is reliable source about the defendant name in this context. The relevant policy says "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." By my understanding, the defendant's exact name is that kind of straightforward fact that could be verified by the court file. However, comments on this issue are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide a link to the edit. Without seeing that one cannot know whether your edit is correct. In general however, we are allowed to make limited use of primary sources and this seems to one of them - providing a more accurate description of the defendant. TFD (talk)

This is not a matter for RSN. The issue is one of tone, weight and balance, not the reliability of sources: should a US court case be primarily attributed to BP, the multinational corporation, or to BP's US-based subsidiary? My take on it is that the naming of the subsidiary should be, uh, subsidiary to the main company. Here's my suggested version:

The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused several BP traders and BP's US-based operations (BP subsidiary BP Products North America Inc., formerly Amoco) with conspiring to fix the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004.

As you can see it is a minor issue, one that is suitably covered at Talk:BP#Why this change from "BP traders" to "BP Products North America Inc. (former Amoco Oil Company)", (IMO a too-long header). All of the sources are being discussed; none are being thrown out entirely. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a matter of RSN. It may be a minor issue, but it is the principle issue as the edit summary "reverted per WP:SECONDARY... we don't prefer court documents." makes it clear that reliability of the court document was contested. So, it is the general question if the filed complaint is reliable source for defendant name or nor. My request has nothing to do with discussion about tone or weight and these issues should be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. Beagel (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

For an actual person, court documents are not ok. For a corporation, there is no set policy I can see. WP:BLPPRIMARY says: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." WP:BLPGROUP provides some guidance on whether BLP issues apply to groups; for a company like BP, I would think not. But the issues with primary sources still exist for court records. They have to be interpreted and summarized, something we are not supposed to do. They have also not been through a notability filter, unlike secondary tertiary sources. Churn and change (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It is clear about living persons. My question is about interpredation of WP:PRIMARY statement: "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." The question is if the defendant's (corporation) exact name is that kind of straightforward fact that could be verified by the complaint filed to the court. By my understanding it is, but any comment explaining implementation of this principle is welcome. Beagel (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods vs. Rolling Stone Magazine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Asked, answered. RS/N does not host dispute resolution

The article Smithfield Foods currently contains material and quotes from Jeff Tietz sourced to this article in Rolling Stone Magazine, including the specific line "Jeff Tietz writes that the waste, a mixture of excrement, urine, blood, afterbirths and stillborn pigs, drugs and other chemicals, overflows when it rains, and the liners can be punctured by rocks." I can find no indication that Tietz is a Reliable Source for this specific topic. Furthermore, the article Tietz penned reads like something between an Op-Ed column and a deliberate attack piece. While company articles are not considered as sensitive as BLPs, we still have standards for content that apply to all articles on Misplaced Pages. The question for this noticeboard is whether or not Tietz and his article can be considered RS for Smithfield Foods? Thanks for your time and attention, Doc Tropics 17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability normally relates to the publication, rather than the author. Usually signed articles in news publications will contain opinions. Essentially the problem with the article is neutrality not sourcing, and I will look at the talk page discussion. TFD (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Such wording in any article pushes it utterly into the "opinion" category, and opinions are not "facts." Use of opinions as "fact" is a major problem on many articles. Collect (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We can include opinion, provided it is attributed. In other words, the fact we are including is "XYZ says ABCD" not ABCD itself. Churn and change (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Social Media Manager for Smithfield Foods (User:Kkirkham) has arrived at Smithfield Foods, and has asked Doc Tropics to make edits for him. Kkirkham only recently acknowledged being the Social Media Manager; before that, he said he was an employee who had come here to learn about his employer. Kirkham tried to add two bulleted lists to the top of the article to move material the company doesn't like lower down, an old trick that PR people have acknowledged using. Doc Tropics is acting at Kirkham's request, has tried to remove criticism, and has added the POV tag, also at Kirkham's request.

The source Doc Tropics wants to remove is a five-page investigative piece from 2006 by Jeff Tietz for Rolling Stone – "Boss Hog" – a detailed article that includes some key facts about the company, and identifies the key criticism often made against it (the article focuses on environmental pollution, but also deals with the treatment of animals and workers). It's a valuable source for the article because it clearly outlines the issues, and there are no grounds within the policies for removing it.

This particular article won the Genesis Award in 2006. The writer, Jeff Tietz, has been nominated four times for a National Magazine Award, once for the Pushcart Prize, and has once been a Livingstone Journalism Award finalist. In addition to Rolling Stone, the articles that won or were nominated for awards appeared in The New Yorker and Harper's. SlimVirgin 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Have there been responses to Tietz's article? Have editors made good-faith attempts to locate and include them? Churn and change (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Doc Tropics and Kkirkham having looked for responses. I think that is not what they are there for; the aim seems to be to remove the criticism, not add responses to it. I have more than once asked the Smithfield Foods rep to identify anything inaccurate in our article, so that I can fix it or find responses, but he hasn't done so.

I can only repeat that the Tietz piece is a valid piece of investigative journalism written by an experienced journalist, and that it highlights issues that are often highlighted about Smithfield Foods (the environmental issues in particular). We should not remove investigative journalism at the request of paid advocates or their supporters. SlimVirgin 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is incorrect. The purpose of a Misplaced Pages article is to summarize accurately the subject. "Fair and balanced" are not standards for use. What is fair? Fair is to accurately use sources to make claims. Balance is ony towards what is mainstream in academic circles on the subject. We do not elevate every opinion or side, regardless of how small.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me tend toward the positive, then. Rolling Stone is a respected, award-winning, reliable, in our meaning of the word, mass media source. The cited sentence seems like a clear statement of fact, rather than opinion. The is no "I guess", or "I have heard" or "it might". I can find no justification for Collect's thesis that it must be an opinion. Since it does seem to be contentious, we should probably cite it to Rolling Stone - this is done. I fully support Slim Virgin here. --GRuban (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Churn and change) It appears as though the article has been referenced by a handful of "animal rights" or "healthy living" type books , and Smithfield found it important enough to responded to it here. Given the author's credentials and the fact that the article was published in Rolling Stone and it received or was nominated for various awards, it seems reliable/important enough for at least inclusion of opinion on some details and of fact on others. Location (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make clear, in response to Doc Tropics comments, that I am not an animal rights activist, or any other kind of activist (on or off Misplaced Pages). I'm here as a Wikipedian. I didn't write the Smithfield article. I've made just 68 edits to it in over five years. I didn't originally add Teitz as a source; it was added here, though I may have been the editor who added Tietz's description of the lagoons. I'm also not the article's "custodian," but I don't want Smithfield Foods to become that custodian either, whether directly or by proxy. SlimVirgin 00:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I found one source here ("An Analysis of Pork Production in Virginia: Production vs. Protection" inside the page) which covers both Tietz's article and Smithfield's response. You could probably use that as the source (its basic conclusion seems to be Smithfield is bad for the environment but acting to restrict them would be bad for Virginia's economy). The paper, best I can see, is not published in a journal, but it has been published in a fairly notable college's main site on "Environmental Studies->Student involvement' indicating significant vetting and an editorial-check process. Incidentally seems like Smithfield's response was also published in Rolling Stone as a "Letter to the editor" in 2007. One more: Google book, p. 106. Still another, focusing on Mexican hog production, but refers to this as well: A faculty member's report I think these sources should be used instead of Rolling Stone, a magazine non-neutral for political views, and not much of an RS for environmental facts (yes, I know it has die-hard fans, so I guess I will avoid getting into that argument). Churn and change (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• The first article you mentioned looks like an unpublished student paper. There's no need to find alternative sources to Rolling Stone. It's a reliable source and we don't remove investigative journalism just because companies don't like it. Of course they don't like it. We can add Smithfield's response if it touches on issues that we include in the article. If it doesn't we can add it to the Tietz footnote for now, and develop the article so that we cover the issues Smithfield responded to. SlimVirgin 00:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that I posted a request on the talk page to the Smithfield rep to identify the errors in the article so they can be fixed (he says there are "many falsehoods" in it), but Doc Tropics has advised him not to respond. SlimVirgin 02:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned as to AGF on the company rep claim. Unless KKirkham proves KKirkham is who KKirkham says KKirkham is, I think we should avoid references to a Smithfield rep. Churn and change (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is off track

The concern of this noticeboard is in regards to reliable sources only. While there are certainly many things that can be discussed about the subject, much of this belongs on the talkpage or Dispute Resolution Noticeboards. A question has been asked and Slim Vigin supplied the correct answer. There are three criteria for relaible sources:

• the piece of work itself (the article, book),
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

The next consideration is context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. The article "Boss Hog" is not an opinion piece, but straight journalism, regardless of its strong wording. The author is a known and award winning journalist, Jeff Tietz . The cited source publication is Rollingstone, which has full editorial oversite with fact checking.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

http://publicintelligence.net/

This was raised before at . "Public Intelligence is an international, collaborative research project aimed at aggregating the collective work of independent researchers around the globe who wish to defend the public’s right to access information. We operate upon a single maxim: equal access to information is a human right. We believe that limits to the average citizen’s ability to access information have created information asymmetries which threaten to destabilize democratic rule around the world. Through the control of information, governments, religions, corporations, and a select group of individuals have been able to manipulate public perception into accepting coercive agendas which are ultimately designed to limit the sovereignty and freedom of populations worldwide." So it's an aggregator of sorts. We use it for a number of articles., including List of Bilderberg participants where I think we need a better source.

Should it be used for anything? If so, how? Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry this did not get answered for you before Doug Weller. No. This should not be used on Misplaced Pages as a source of any kind. Besides being a tertiary source, aggregating information from "independent researches" (yeah...Misplaced Pages editors are "independent researchers") it is also "an attempt to compile and defend public information using software and methods which are open source and available to the public at large". It is a self published source as defined:"This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is anything of value it can be traced back to its original publisher, author etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative

An editor at this page is making the claim that the author of a source must meet WP:N in order for the source to meet WP:RS. The argument is just getting silly so I figured I'd come here to put this to rest. Note that I have no opinion as to whether the source in question meets WP:RS. I just want it clarified that an author need not pass WP:N in order for the source to be considered reliable. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I've made the argument on the Talk:Genesis creation narrative that WP:N is just as much dependent on WP:RS as WP:RS depends on WP:N. I argue that in order for a source to be meet WP:RS, there must be some indication to its WP:N, not just limited to an author passing WP:N. If an author doesn't meet WP:N, then at least the publishing house should. If neither the author or the publishing house doesn't meet WP:N, then some WP:INDEPENDENT source should meet WP:N if its going to vouch for the resource in question. This is my argument. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 05:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A source being produced by a notable publishing company, for example, can be useful in determining if a source is reliable. But there is no requirement in WP:RS for the author, company, or anything else to have an article here in order for the source to be suitable. Numerous reliable journals exist, for example, that do not have their own articles. VQuakr (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you determine if a source is reliable, if there is no WP:N to support or vouch for it? Then wikipedia will be riddled with pages like: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination). I would really appreciate an admins input in this matter, because I'm tired of bantering with non-admins. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 05:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

An admin's input carries no more weight than any other user's. I of course welcome any admin's input, but it wont come in the form of a decree that will get you (or me) what you want. "Tired of bantering with non-admins" is a troubling attitude. Again, what you're attempting is a policy change that should be discussed at WT:N, WT:RS, or both. If you get the policy changed, more power to you. In the meanwhile, you can't unilaterally decide that a source can't be used based on its author's lack of notability. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about a specific source here? Otherwise this is probably NOT within the scope of RSN. — raekyt 06:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jasonasosa, this is complete nonsense. There is no reason why a completely non-notable author, publisher or company cannot produce a fully reliable source. The qualifications for reliable source status have to to do with quality of the source, the editorial processes used to produce it and the reputation of the source amongst experts in the relevant field. How notable any particular person or organisation that are involved in its production is entirely irrelevant. - Nick Thorne 06:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking for a policy change. I'm not even saying that it is absolutely necessary for an author to meet WP:N. I'm saying that in order for a source to be reliable, it must be vouched for by someone or something that is WP:N whether it be a wp:notable publishing house, or a wp:notable wp:independent source. What is the bottom line that makes a source reliable? The WP:RS policy states "The policy on sourcing is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability" and a part of verifying something is determining its Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Notability just as much as ensuring that there is no Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Original_research. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 06:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. In any case this is not the place to be having this discussion. Take it to WP:RS if you want to make this change of policy. Good luck with that. - Nick Thorne 06:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I too have suggested that numerous times. It's clear that we're dealing with a minority of one here and can move on. Jasonasosa has been told how he can proceed. I think we can all move on. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Jasonasosa, the policy on Notability says that it is notability that determines whether a subject is suitable for its own article. Notability and Reliability are not the same thing. Someone could be very notable, like Donald Trump, and very unreliable, like Donald Trump. I wouldn't use anything that guy prints as a reliable source for anything except wiping my butt. :) However, he is incredibly notable. Conversely, there may be a professor at a local community college that has spent his entire life cataloging the life cycle of the common beetle, and he has toiled in a life of academic obscurity, but he may be the world's foremost beetle entymologist, recognized by his unquestionable research and the fact that not one person has found anything worth challenging in his papers and statements. Such a person would be an imminently reliable source on beetles, but may know next to nothing about Donald Trump. Apparently when one can sing off key and talk like a hick, or tell the cops you have sent your kid into space, or happen to have been homeless and have a great voice, you are noteworthy enough for an article in Misplaced Pages. But that doesn't mean you are reliable as a source of good information. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Alan W. Pollack (2000-08-27). "Notes on "Hey Jude"". Retrieved 2012-08-29.
2. Cite error: The named reference Courtesy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution