Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aymatth2 (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 19 March 2012 (→Random break: think the sources are o.k.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bhau Kalchuri - Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher)

This book (Bhau Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Manifestation, 1986) is a major source for Meher Baba and also for many of the articles related to him. It is also a minor source for many others, and has even found its way into articles on general religious topics. See the following list, which is not exhaustive:

• 101 Names of God
• Avatar's Abode
• Azar Kayvan
• Beloved God Prayer
• Beyond Words
• Charles Purdom
• Chilla-nashini
• Discourses (Meher Baba)
• Don't Worry, Be Happy
• Francis Brabazon
• Gabriel Pascal
• God Speaks
• Guru
• Hazrat Babajan
• Higher consciousness
• Jai Baba
• Kitty Davy
• List of avatar claimants
• Mandali
• Mani Irani
• Meher Baba's Flag
• Meherabad
• Meredith Starr
• New Life (Meher Baba)
• O Parvardigar
• Perfect Master (Meher Baba)
• Prayer of Repentance
• Quentin Tod
• Qutb
• Religious ecstasy
• Samadhi of Meher Baba
• Seven Names of God Prayer
• Sheriar Mundegar Irani
• Shireen Sheriar Irani
• Silence Day
• Spirit
• Spiritual practice
• Subtle body
• Sufism Reoriented
• Upasni Maharaj

Kalchuri became a devotee of Meher Baba in 1952, and he remains the Chairman of Avatar Meher Baba Trust (see also here). The entire book is available online here. According to the first page, on his deathbed in 1969 Meher Baba asked Kalchuri to write the book. Since he only met Meher Baba in 1952, for the early years Kalchuri had to rely largely on the diaries of devotees. He compiled and edited in Hindi, using sources that were written in Gujarati, including Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Lawrence Reiter. In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning".

The publisher, Manifestation, appears to be one of the imprints of organisations related to Meher Baba (see here). I have heard that Meher Prabhu was initially funded by donations from devotees. The book is known to contain factual errors, as well as devotional interpretations (see Volume 5, Page 1609 as an example of the latter: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind.") One example of a factual error is at Volume 5, page 1612 where Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents.

The book is clearly not academic or critical, but a hagiography by a devotee, written largely for devotees, allegedly at the request of the biographical subject, and almost certainly published by a devotee press. In his recent conclusion to another RS query, Fifelfoo said that such devotional works "do not even approach" the Misplaced Pages threshold for reliable sources. Since each case should be treated on its own merits, I submit this particular source for community discussion. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Fifelfoo. Books about NRMs and their leaders by devotees published by "in-house" imprints affiliated with the NRM and which have not established a reputation for reliability and editorial control are really just SPS. They can be used solely for the purpose of describing themselves, not third parties, so long as they are not overly self-serving, but that's about it. Some very limited use of this source is probably OK in the Meher Baba article, but this source would appear to be used far beyond the narrow limits of WP:ABOUTSELF Fladrif (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While the press, work and author provide a very strong indication against the reliability of this work for historical articles, historical biography, sociology of religion or elements of Sufi, Hindu or Islamic theology; I would suggest attempting to see if this work has been the object of independent scholarly book reviews, for example, in scholarly journals, before finally dismissing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, have you found any scholarly references to Kalchuri? I had a look at Google Scholar and there didn't appear to be anything substantial there. If neither you nor anyone else can find such references, then isn't it time to close this discussion and do something about the articles that use Kalchuri as a source? Simon Kidd (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly my scholarly time is taken up elsewhere right now. If you have thoroughly searched scholar, I would suggest this is a sufficient step to act on contingently. If someone in future discovers appropriate reviews, bring it back to RS/N for discussion. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't what stuff is actually expected. I checked some references on the internet and here are the results:

• www.bahaistudies.net/asma/sufism_reoriented2.pdf
• ambppct.org/meherbaba/Book_Files/AMBBibRevExt.pdf

I wonder if these links are of some use to your discussion. Thanks, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. That second one is a particularly useful resource. In the context of the present discussion, however, I think it only underlines the fact that Meher Prabhu (and most other sources on Meher Baba) are written and published by devotees. I don't see anything to indicate that they are reliable sources in the Misplaced Pages sense. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. I will report more sources, if I find them. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

• I don’t know how many articles on NRMs and religious figures are currently held on Misplaced Pages, but there are surely serious consequences for many of those articles following the ruling recently posted by Fifelfoo elsewhere on this RS/N:

“… self-published texts regarding the history, biography and sociology of a new religious movement, and devotionally-published texts regarding devotion to a new religious movement reliable for the history of new religious movements or the biography of new religious movement figures as both sequences of literature fail the self-published sources criteria: they are published by presses that are immediately involved and do not display the review required for the establishment of a secondary source.”

I do not personally agree with the above inflexible ruling. If articles are well-written, referenced, and can be cross-checked as factually correct, then a deficiency of reviews for the published sources should not be an obstacle. The important factors when editing/writing an article on NRMs are that it is not devotee-oriented or biased (nor intended to promote the subject), that it is open to correction and improvement, and that it is a serious attempt to be objective using all available published sources, including critical. But then, I have “unfamiliarity with wikipedia culture.” Though I did have the opportunity to observe what “wikipedia culture” can actually amount to elsewhere on this RS/N—hence the comment I was obliged to make on personal agendas, fanaticism, and pedantry gone mad.

Due to the large number of articles whose notability hinges on the association with the subject of Meher Baba and the devotionally-published texts used, this is an important test case. With numerous Misplaced Pages articles on NRMs and religious figures, we all know that there are double-standards and inconsistencies in the administration and interpretation of policy. Can the ruling posted by Fifelfoo be effectively applied in this instance, and are the editors of those articles willing to comply and assist?

Simon Kidd, if you require assistance please state what is required. I will try to help. --Stephen Castro (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Stephen Castro's position, which is basically the common sense one originally formulated by DGG when considering a self-published source. This position has, however, already been rejected by Fifelfoo and others, although I am not sure if they are aware of the consequences for NRM articles, many of which may have to be deleted if their interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy is taken to its logical conclusion. For comparison, by the way, have a look at the online Britannica article on Meher Baba:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/373157/Meher-Baba

Thanks for the offer of assistance, Stephen Castro. Whether I need it or not may depend on the outcome of this further discussion! Simon Kidd (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I’ve just read the Britannica Online concise biography of Meher Baba. No mention of anything critical! Yes, the article is neutral, to the point, and informative. I note that there are around 50 or so references to Bhau Kalchuri’s Meher Prabhu in the current Misplaced Pages article on Meher Baba. There are also other texts used in that article which could come under the description of devotionally-published. I would have thought that the constructive way forward would be for the editors of that article to first locate alternative published sources for the Kalchuri references. Certainly, Charles Purdom and Tom Hopkinson were originally not devotionally-published. Both were prominent devotees, but first editions of their books are from recognised publishers. Then there is Marvin Harper’s Gurus, Swamis, & Avataras. I think flexibility should be the keynote here. I believe alternative, and reliable sources (in the Misplaced Pages sense), can be found. Kalchuri’s multi-volume work Meher Prabhu has had an increasing tendency to be used as the authorized version. I can see why—though hagiographic and devotee-oriented in content the multi-volume work is a useful resource which can also be found online with a search feature. I made use of Kalchuri in two articles on Misplaced Pages, and I will certainly refer to Meher Prabhu outside of Misplaced Pages. I will leave the next step to you, Simon Kidd. The Meher Baba article currently has GA status (surely, now in question) and there is no template on the article to indicate that editorial attention is required. --Stephen Castro (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the Primary Sources template. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Soompi

I noticed in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Soul Company that the article was mostly sourced to Soompi, which appears to be an English language site covering K-pop. It is unclear to me, however, whether it is a news site (semi-pro or otherwise) or simply a collection of amateur blogs/fora. This article seems to indicate that it once was the latter and is now the former, so I'm not convinced a priori that the reasons given in the six year old deletion discussion apply anymore. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Posts from Soompi's own editors on their main site may or may not be reliable sources (I am not sure, I'm just some idiot with an IP address not a Wikipolicy expert), but posts in their forums certainly are not, and those are all the citations in the Soul Company article. Soul Company is notable for other reasons though. I'll leave a more detailed comment on that AFD. 61.18.170.202 (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies as a source for Illegal_immigration

Is the Center for Immigration Studies considered a reliable source for content in the Illegal_immigration article such that their claims and research can be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, or are they an advocacy group whose opinions need to specifically attributed to them within the article. see and Talk:Illegal_immigration#CIS_does_not_seem_unreliable_per_se -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The source does have an editorial board ], which plays in favor of accuracy, but much of its content appears to be in the form of opinion pieces. If used I would treat its content as a statement of opinion, not as fact. Follow the guidelines in WP:RSOPINION.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Very clearly a lobby organization whose statements should be attributed, preferably with a mention of their platform - i.e. "anti-immigratin think-tank" or some such.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some of their content for which that would seem appropriate, but other content which is either uncontroversial or well-supported, or both. This content:

The United States is one of only two high average income countries (the other country is Canada which offers it in limited circumstances) that still gives birthright citizenship for children born where both parents are illegal immigrants, tourists, visitors or other types of temporary residents (diplomats excepted).

is uncontroversial and is supported by an apparently well-researched backgrounder which include over eighty references. If we took a conclusion from that paper, I agree it should be attributed, but it seems unreasonable to say "CIS says <trivial fact>".

Another reference was to an opinion piece at that site and I removed the reference and tagged the content as needing a reference. The content, before TRPD, began "Opponents of illegal immigration often cite a lack of enforcement or the inadequate enforcement..." and that seems like a sufficiently neutral presentation of opinion.

Another uncontroversial fact is:

Many illegal immigrants are migrants who originally arrive in a country lawfully but overstay their authorized residence (overstaying a visa). For example, most of the estimated 200,000 illegal immigrants in Canada (perhaps as high as 500,000) are refugee claimants whose refugee applications were rejected but who have not yet been expelled from the country.

42 is a quote from the some Homeland Security official at the CIS site. 43 is a news-like article at workpermit.com. and the final cite refers to a Toronto Globe and Mail article. That content is not improved by slapping "CIS says ..." at the beginning to the paragragh, as was done today.

It doesn't seem reasonable to add attributions when the CIS site is used to support uncontroversial facts - only when it expresses opinion, or conclusions. I happened across the site when I saw an odd edit summary - I have no interest or prior vested effort in the article. TRPD is correct that there is a lot of poor quality sources, he is just taking an approach which seems to place attacking that one source above maintaining the quality of the article. I have been working through the entire article cleaning up the references on both sides of the issue and I plan to continue that followed by more rigorous checking of the sources and removal of unsupported content. I hope you'll agree that each of these cites need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Material from advocacy organisations should always be used with care and should be clearly attributed (as maunus says above, they should really be described as well as named).

Even apparently uncontroversial material should not normally be taken from advocacy websites. Find a neutral source for the same information. Because there is always a chance it is not uncontroversial after all, and because it is bad for the credibility of the article if it looks like it is sourcing too much of its information from sources that have an agenda. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think any reasonable editor can make decisions about what is or is not controversial and if he makes a mistake, there will be many other editors more than willing to point that out. :) I'm concerned, though, with the effect on NPOV of simply disregarding research by an organization which self-identifies as "an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization". Why is this organization subject to a blanket assumption of misleading the reader rather than making a case-by-case decison about whether the content in the article is well supported by the specific source at their website? How are we to identify all of the sites which are subject to this blanket dismissal? Make no mistake, I don't want to include all of these references - I have already removed one during my first pass checking the references on the page - but I am concerned with the impact on NPOV of an arbitrary blanket dismissal. Celestra (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

There is a discussion at Talk:House (season 8)#Twitter as a source about using Twitter pages as reliable sources. Apparently there are some editors who feel that any Twitter page can be used to source anything on Misplaced Pages, and they are using that rationale to repeatedly restore Twitter pages as sources. I would appreciate some comments there or here. Thanks. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweets by notable individuals, if it is highly relevant and important, can be used as a self-published source with proper attribution. --SupernovaExplosion 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Suppose that a tweet from a user A says B. Unless and until there is good reason to suppose that we know who A is, we don't use it at all (there is zero encyclopaedic value in the statement "Someone in the world once said B"). If there is good reason to suppose that A is indeed A, then it can be used to support the assertion "A said B" (or possibly, "In 2012, A said B") but only if it carries due weight. If in addition A is a known expert on the subject whose comments are usually taken as authoritative by other people, then we can use it to support the assertion "B" (again, with due attention to neutrality on the subject of B). Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say Twitter shouldn't be entertained at all unless it is a confirmed account. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, confirmation is essential. But tweets fall under WP:SELFPUB. --SupernovaExplosion 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that any twitter page is considered a reliable source. The issue on Talk:House (season 8)#Twitter as a source is whether the particular user @retlefnegniL, who claims to be House writer Kath Lingenfelter, is a reliable source. In addition, 24.136.38.176 repeatedly removed information only for a specific episode, when @retlefnegniL is referenced in several other places on the page. Editors have provided the following reasons as to why they restored, or don't themselves remove, information referencing @retlefnegniL:

-The account is generally accepted since it has a good record of being accurate.

-The account interacts with verified accounts of House writers/actors/producers.

-An interview states that the person is "Active on Twitter, she is known to be accessible to her fans" The only user on twitter that matches that criteria is the account in question.

DarkProdigy (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

that seems shakey at best. if the specific twitter account were directly linked or acknowledged in "official sources", that might be one thing. but this seems to be built on assumption after assumption. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shakey" is an understatement. A webpage that "interacts" with another webpage that "interacts" with an official Twitter page is about as weak an excuse for determining the reliability of a source as I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. For goodness sakes, tabloids sometimes refer to or "interact" with legitimate sources; will we start accepting everything reported in a tabloid as reliable? 24.163.38.176 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

All it takes is an independent reliable source that says that this account belongs to this named person. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally accept the account 100%, but I realize that it probably isn't fully reliable for Misplaced Pages standards (unless the above comment is acted upon...). I accept it because I've seen over time that the information is correct, but that's not hard evidence that it's always correct. However, to answer the original question, if the account is verified and doesn't violate WP:SELFPUB, then there shouldn't be a problem with using it as a source. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevinbrogers, you again missed the "original question". The original question, here and on the House page, is whether an unverified Twitter page is a reliable source. You finally made some attempt at answering that question. I hope you will accept your own comment that an unofficial Twitter page isn't always correct and not restore again a citation to an unofficial Twitter page if it is removed. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to take an ugly tone. I and many others don't tend to take such rude comments very seriously. Anyway, further discussion isn't worth my time, and the removal of a couple writers isn't going to be the end of the world. We can just add them back once the episode airs. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not an "ugly tone"; it's just summarizing my repeated requests for a reasonable answer that you failed to provide until opinions contrary to yours started appearing here; you even responded "I explained everything you asked quite well" and left it at that. If you consider further discussion as "not worth your time", that's your choice. I personally consider this a very important discussion. Just be careful to respect others' opinions here and elsewhere if an unreliable source is removed from an article. 24.163.38.176 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And there you go deleting only those 2 specific links again. It's like you ignore everything anyone says for the sake of arguing. Removed all references and info, with the exception of a couple pieces of info which I found other references for, for @retlefnegniL, as well as two other twitter users I couldn't find evidence supporting the legitimacy of. DarkProdigy (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand you. You fight tooth and nail to keep the unverified Twitter sources in the article. Then when I finally get enough support to remove the two I had tried repeatedly to remove, you criticize me for not removing ALL of them. "For the sake of arguing" applies to your behavior quite well; you criticize me for removing them, and then you criticize me for not removing them. Let's call this what it is: you didn't like it that the consensus of opinions went against you here, so you're looking for anything to criticize against the person who pointed out your absurd logic to the rest of the Misplaced Pages community. I have no problem with your recent removal of the other unverified Twitter sources, but I had no obligation to do that, so please stop jumping down my throat for not doing what you criticized me for doing. 174.99.123.164 (talk)(same editor as 24.163.38.176} 18:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd hardly describe my actions as 'fighting tooth and nail'. The validity of certain references were questioned, and I provided what evidence I could find to support them. When the consensus indicated the available evidence wasn't good enough, I removed the references. It's inconsistent to delete a couple references to a source for unverifiability and leave all the others references to the same source. While removing those, I noticed similarly cited info, googled them for verifiability, then, failing to find evidence that meets the consensus, removed those as well. While you certainly have no obligations to Misplaced Pages, I simply find it odd that you would put so much effort into getting those 2 specific references removed, yet seem to not care at all about the other references to the same source. DarkProdigy (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now you're trying to backtrack to cover up your uncivil comments. If you had simply found it "odd" I would have ignored your comment, but you didn't stop at that. You took a pejorative tone, first commenting in an edit summary that you had to "clean up after" me, and then accusing me (with no basis in reality) of "ignoring everything anyone says for the sake of arguing", and you did it because I pointed out the weakness of your argument and found substantial support for that here. You decided to personalize the issue rather than focus on the real issues here. Next time you're in a discussion and things don't go your way, let me suggest that you review WP:CIVIL, count to 100, and think before you hand out the criticisms. 174.99.123.164 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to join me in agreeing to disagree, and leaving it at that. DarkProdigy (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree to disagree about the reliability of unverified Twitter pages. That's all a part of being a decent editor on Misplaced Pages. That does not mitigate your uncalled for accusatory tone above. Such an uncivil tone is not a part of being a decent Misplaced Pages editor. 174.99.123.164 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your bashing of DarkProdigy is erroneous. The disagreement has reached a conclusion and, I have to agree with DarkProdigy 100%. If you're going to remove some Twitter sources, you need to remove all Twitter sources that aren't verifiable and aren't the source of a quote. Because he declares that some should be reliable, then says my previous statement, is not "switching" sides of an argument and not fighting "tooth and nail." Reviewing the conversation, I would say that during your repeated bashing of the other user you've forgotten two out of the three main points of the Civility Article:

Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users.

Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.

In doing the latter you have also forgotten the Conflict of Interest Article and the former the Dispute Resolution Article. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradicting a Public Work with a Private One and determining a reference to be inappropriate for Misplaced Pages.

(Question originally asked at WP:HD, I have moved here on advice of responder)

Alexandra Robbins published Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities in 2004. In one of the sections of that book, she includes almost a random lists of secrets, private knocks, methods of sisters verifying each other's membership (signs and countersigns) and what the letters stand for. While there are a significant number of footnotes in the book, there aren't on these claims of secrets. Now for at least one of the sororities in there, the book is used as a reference on Misplaced Pages to include the secret on the Misplaced Pages page for that Sorority. Firstly, what are the options for removing the book as a Misplaced Pages appropriate reference? (given that these pieces of information are not footnoted)

Secondly, lets say that part one is not immediately possible but (hypothetically) that the book had included my co-ed service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega and said that our letters stood for Angry Pink Ocelots. My fraternity wants it removed from the page, but does not want to make the ritual public, is it appropriate to arrange to send a copy of our ritual to either a specific individual at Wikimedia Foundation or anOversighter who could do something (not quite sure what).Naraht (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Footnotes aren't required. Robbins seems to be writing for young adults, and Hyperion is similarly a popular, not academic, press, so this isn't the highest reliability source, but neither does this seem to be the sort of information that would require one. It seems to be sufficient.

2) If your fraternity specifically contradicts something the book says publically and verifiably (say on your official web site, if you have one), we will either go with what you wrote, citing the fraternity's statement, or (if it's a notable controversy in itself, or we still have reason to believe Robbins) write both claims. If you merely contradict something privately, that's much harder. If it's a minor issue, then we can make an editorial judgment to remove the statement - we don't have to write everything our sources do, we get to pick and choose. If it's a major issue, though, enough that leaving it out makes a noticeable gap, then contradicting it privately isn't going to be enough, a verifiable public contradiction that we can cite in the article will be needed. (Think of Obama's birth, for example.) What makes something major or minor enough is debatable, of course, so specifics matter. --GRuban (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

The Hamoodur Rahman Commission is being used as a source in this article. It was suggested for use on the article talk page were I remarked it was not really a reliable source. The report is an inquiry into the actions of the Pakistani army during the 1971 war. It is a primary source I believe but not only that the author of the report only interviewed western Pakistani politicians and officers, I do not see how this report can make statements of fact on actions carried out by rebel forces when the author did not actually speak to anyone in the east. Can this source be used for statements of fact? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like inappropriate use of a primary source in a historical topic. Seek historians, gender studies academics, political and military scientists who have used the report or covered the topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you of the opinion it ought to be removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Using paid research services such as Highbeam.com

What's the protocol for using an article from a paid-access site such as Highbeam.com. I'm assuming that free alternatives should always be used if available, but if they are not , is there any guidance on when, whether, or how to link to paid access versions? For example, in some cases an article might be available through an Economist subscription, or through HighBeam.com. Which should be linked to, or both? The one where it was actually accessed during research, or the one that is cheaper to access? Also, any further guidance about using paid research databases would be appreciated. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sites that require payment for access are fine, if other wise reliable. It is no different in principle than citing a paper newspaper, which also must be paid for or viewed in a library. I'm not familiar with Highbeam.com, so can't comment if that is a reliable site or not. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Cost. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no objection to citing a paysite. If the alternative free site is reliable it would help Misplaced Pages readers to link to it also. Andrew Dalby 02:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If a publication is multiply indexed and served, I would suggest citing the publication's primary current point of service. For example, Labour History used to be served by the History Cooperative, but is currently served (primarily) out of JSTOR. Thus if providing a link to LH I'd suggest linking through JSTOR. Prior to Issue 101's release, I would have suggested linking LH via History Cooperative. This is much like suggesting that if Beano's newspaper stand is the place where Times normally sells itself, suggesting going to Beano's to purchase an issue. Obviously this isn't ideal, but Misplaced Pages's mission is to provide a free encyclopaedia, not to liberate intellectual property. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam isn't actually a source, it is a research tool that will point you to articles in other publications. The actual source is the article and the publication, and that it what should be cited. A Highbeam search query result is no more a reliable source than a Google search query result as a source. A convenience link to the article at Highbeam is OK to use, if the article is not otherwise available online, but one caution: I recall that if you're linking to a Highbeam result that you've accessed from your account, there is some indentifying information in the URL that you might not want posted at Misplaced Pages. Fladrif (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

RS for Featured article

Some sources have been objected on at FAC of Pakistan article: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1. I'll like RSN input on which of those sources are really unreliable. These were the comments of a reviewer:

1. http://www.gendercide.org
2. Tourist guidebooks shouldn't be used as general references
3. Globalsecurity.org isn't a reliable source (it republishes stuff hoovered up from all over the place, and is full of errors)
4. About.com isn't a reliable source

Please comment on the sources. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding another to consider. September88 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1. As for the gendercide source it is a very reliable source run by the renowned genocide scholar Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) who has written the leading academic textbook on genocide studies and lectured at Yale University.
2. No opinion.
3. True. Global Security isn't always reliable.
4. True. About.com isn't always reliable either.

JCAla (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not "always reliable"? Btw, please let uninvolved RSN members give an analysis on this. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not involved when it comes to the three latter sources, I don't even know for which part they are being used as a citation. It is not upon you to decide who provides an opinion here. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get so defensive. I aimed to get fresh eyes and RSN regulars take a look. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1. No: a non-scholarly tertiary; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Pushes a unique scholarly analysis which has not found widespread support in its community of scholars. Is scholars specifically avoiding the scholarly publication mode. Does not contain scholarly apparatus (appendixes, footnotes, bibliographies) allowing other scholars to trace its research—ie this is not a scholarly mode of publication. It certainly isn't a "high quality reliable source" within the meanings of FAC. Use their scholarly publications instead. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source and use.
2. No: non-scholarly tertiaries; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source.
3. No: non-scholarly tertiary; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source.
4. No: non-scholarly tertiary; not a "high quality reliable source" in terms of FAC. Probably shouldn't be used at all, but would require you to follow the instructions at the top of the page for each source. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Do reliable sources that verify the same content exist? If not, remove both the content and the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — 

Was thinking of that. I'll take a look. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Can the government's reports, drafts and articles on official sites be rejected as reliable sources saying its propaganda statement and drafts? September88 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what source and use you're talking about. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is generally considered to be much more reliable than the policy pronouncements of parliamentarians in green paper form. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Transferring a case from Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_March_10

In the article Ahmadiyya, there is a section on India. The present discussion focuses on the following aspects:

• Geographic dispersion of the community.
• Judicial verdict of the community as Muslims
• Absence of restrictions on the community in India
• Ostracizing of this community by mainstream Muslims.

However there are two additional aspects which I would like be included here:
1. There seems to be a general acceptance of this community as a distinct religious group (Cf: my upload of the nonfree image File:Shadi.com AhmediSeparate.JPG from one of the leading matrimonial site Shadi.com listing Ahmedis (this community) as separate group altogether. The aim of this image, now tagged for deletion, is to be used in the article to highlight this).

I request the deletion tag be removed as the image is properly referenced and has a specific purpose to be used in the article just as in this edit in the earlier version of this article. I would like to reuse this image for the article.

2. One of the states in India has recently (unfortunately) declared this community as "not Muslim". This is the first sign that the secular government of India is towing a hardline attitude for the community just as in Pakistan. (Cf: my edit. Although this edit is properly referenced, as can be seen from the history, user:Altetendekrabbe is threatening a possible ban on me if my re-edit the article with this input. I request the admins to please decide on this and the above issue.
Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

These seem to be unrelated issues. For the first, I agree that the image should be removed. A screenshot of a matrimonial site is not a reliable source for a controversial statement about religion. For the second, though, I don't understand why Altetendekrabbe is so against using Siasat as a source. Our article on it is short, but seems to indicate it's established and popular newspaper, and its website claims it's India's largest Urdu newspaper. I see you haven't discussed it much with him. Want to try that? Not just in edit comments, on talk pages. On the article talk page, or here. --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the two issues have only one thing in common - they are related to the article. My idea behind using the matrimonial site image is to highlight the general people's view in India about the community. I will reuse it, if there is a consensus or at least a substantial support of admins / Misplaced Pages editors for it. As regards to discussing the issue with this Altetendekrabbe, I had already posted the following text on his/her talkpage:
Hi. I've seen your edit summary of 14:20, 10 March 2012‎ on the Article "Ahmadiyya". It says and I quote "provide a neutral and reliable source or get banned". Let me also quote my edit:

The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board took a series of unprecedented decisions on February 18,2012. Probably first time in its history, the State Wakf Board has asked the Qazis in the state not to perform Nikah (marriage)of those belonging to Ahmadiyya community because they are “not Muslims.” While the Indian state has always hesitated in declaring its stand as far as the distinction between Muslims and Ahmadiyyas is concerned, the decision marks the first ever such official approval of the popular boycott of Ahmadiyyas by the Muslim community in India.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.siasat.com/english/news/don%E2%80%99t-perform-nikaah-qadiyanis-ap-wakf-board-qazis | title=Don’t perform nikaah of Qadiyanis: AP Wakf board to Qazis |publisher=Siasat Urdu Daily, Hyderabad | author=Courtesy: Two Circles | date=February 20, 2012 | accessdate=March 10,2012}}</ref>

Is this edit not referenced? Siasat is one of the most respectable newspaper of India. Where is the reference a flaw? I guess your role as a fellow editor is not to just to crave for banning/ blocking other users but more importantly to explain the fallacy and improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. If so, please explain your point of view. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Altetendekrabbe simply termed my message as nonsense and deleted it. (S)He, though being just another user, is threatening a ban / block on me. Is he justified? Can a Misplaced Pages editor threaten another user like that? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Oh my. This is not good. Your comment on his talk page was a personal attack. That's not going to get the edit you want in the article, and may well get you blocked instead. Asking for a better source is not a sign of religious prejudice, and making accusations like that is not a way to get someone to discuss things with you constructively. This latest one is only slightly better - you're no longer accusing him of religious prejudice, just of being threatening. Still not ideal. Being polite to other editors is the only way we can build this encyclopedia. Let me try. Let's also split off the Siasat issue from the "possibly unfree files" section. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

hindustani is disengenious. i warned hindustani about a block primarily due to this edit summary . it's a clear example of a nonsensical personal attack. "inhuman and illiberal", my foot. hindustani owes me an apology.-- altetendekrabbe  16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So I see that this discussion board has provided a chance for you to use the expression my foot against me. fine. Thank you for the comment. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

"My foot" is a phrase meaning "no way" or "not possible". It is not a personal attack. This file is not a reliable source for anything but the website itself, and obviously the article is not about the website. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Referring somebody by region and calling me disingenuous is also no personal attack. Thank you, Dougweller. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

As the above was copied to my talk page, I'll reply here. You weren't referred to by region, but by a shortening of your username. And calling someone 'disingenuous' could just barely be a personal attack if it was blatantly wrong, but even then it's hardly comparable to your comments. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In many countries of the world, denial or understating the incidents related with the holocaust is a crime and viewed as illiberal and inhuman. So, when we see incidents of growing trend of ostracizing a group of people and if someone says these incidents should not be reported, what should I presume? You are wonderful, Dougweller. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 7:18 am, Today (UTC+0)

As I see, I fully appreciate the understanding between Dougweller and Altetendekrabbe. But one thing, my previously posted comment was in an open forum where everybody could see and discuss.Altetendekrabbe concealed it by removing my previous posting. Probably, this message will also be "concealed" the similar way. And thank you,Altetendekrabbe, for all your efforts. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

I've reinstated the comment by you that was deleted by Altetendekrabbe. The point is that you need to find reliable sources discussing this trend, and a marital website that doesn't mention a 'growing trend' is not what you need for that as I've tried to explain to you. And if you've looked at my edits at Ahmadiyya you will see that I am one of those trying to keep the article NPOV, which includes reverting those editors, presumably Muslim, who want the article to reflect some sort of 'official' Islamic position on Ahmadiyya. Do we have an "understanding" about that and if so is that a bad thing? Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how this funny thing is taking place: perhaps all three of us have a similar view about NPOV. Yet we strongly differ on the contents. Also, because I personally witnessed discrimination against this community - stopping their stalls in the book fairs, stalling their meetings, confiscating a mosque in their control, snapping ties when come to know somebody is Ahmedi, disallowing the burial of a member of this community in the Muslim graveyard, hurling abuses, etc, I would like to highlight all major developments. But many cannot be posted on WP because of lack of verifiable sources. Anyway, the moral is - you and Altetendekrabbe can carry on with anything you consider as good and inline with WP NPOV - as editors and/or admin - if you are one. And I will probably try to do the same in my own way. Best of luck to both of you. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Siasat on Ahmadiyya

(Restarting, hopefully without any personal attacks.) This is about these edits on the article Ahmadiyya, backed by this article from Siasat. From what I read about Siasat, it seems to be an established and popular mainstream newspaper, so should be a reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

this newspaper uses the extremely derogatory and offending "qadiyani"-term about the ahmadiyya-community. hence, this newspaper is *not* a neutral source, and i doubt its reliability.-- altetendekrabbe  16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see that in our article Qadiani. So I can accept that the newspaper may not be a neutral source. However, the fact seems to have clearly occurred, as I can see in these articles from Ahmadiyya Times, The Indian Herald, The Muslim Times, and TwoCircles.net. At least some of these are Ahmadiyya sources. Unfortunately, they're not as established as Siasat, since they're apparently online only news sources. So the situation we have is that we have a fact, a fairly important fact, that clearly took place, but the most established source writing about it uses a term the Ahmadiyya consider derogatory. So out of the choices of not writing it at all, or using Siasat as our source, I think our best choice is to use Siasat as the source. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

not acceptable. a neutral source is better even when it's online only. suggest to use another or leave the issue until a better source is available.-- altetendekrabbe  18:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But the statements we would put in our article would be the same, whatever source we used as the reference. Our article text wouldn't be affected. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is yet another source, The Hindu. It's even more respectable than Siasat. Unfortunately, it also uses the word "Qadiani". It looks more and more like we're going to have to use these sources, however insulting Ahmadiyya people find them, much as we still use old South African and American Southern sources that used derogatory terms for american blacks. Bias doesn't make a source unreliable. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Keeping aside my own observation about one or two messages posted posted here and also in another forum on the English Misplaced Pages, I fully endorse GRuban's observation on the article edit as stated above. But one thing - let us not use the word "Qadiani" for this community and merely state the rest as reported in the newspapers. Will that be okay? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

A major issue here is how these people (ahmedis) are illtreated. If you check the website of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board, you will find the name of Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani as its Chairperson. Check this person's Facebook posting (http://www.facebook.com/Gulamafzalbiabani) of Feb 19,2012:

In a major decision, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board has unanimously resolved to remove four religious places belonging to Qadayani sect from its list.Making the announcement, Wakf Board chairman Syed Shah Ghulam Afzal Biyabani said that the four properties belonging to Ahmediyas sect were registered with the Wakf Board. Since Qadyanis (Ahmediyas) are not Muslims, the Wakf Board has decided to remove them from the list. The properties include Ahmedi Jubilee Hall at Afzalgunj, Anwar Manzil and Baitul Irshad at Barkatpura and Masjid Chinna Kunta in Mahabubnagar.The State Government has been asked to take control of religious properties belonging to Qadayanis under its direct management or hand them over to Endowments Department.Similarly, the Wakf Board has decided to take one mosque at Falaknuma Railway Station under its direct management. The mosque belonging to Sunni Muslims is presently under the control of Qadayanis.The Wakf Board chairman said that a comprehensive State-wide survey has been ordered to identify the properties belonging to Muslims which are presently under the control of Qadayanis.Rajya Sabha MP and Wakf Board member MA Khan said that the State Government would be pressurised to accept the Wakf Board resolution. Another member and IAS officer Omar Jaleel said that the Muslim community should maintain restrain over the issue as the Wakf Board.Former Wakf Board chairman Ilyas Seth said that all Qazis have been asked not to perform the Nikah of Qadyanis. He also demanded that the State Government provide adequate security to Wakf Board chairman who has been facing threats from the Qadayanis.The Wakf Board has also identified about 45 places of worship of Qadayanis in the State which are not registered with the board. They include Masjid Alhamd at Madannapet in the Old City.The Wakf Board's decision evoked celebrations by Sunni Muslims at several places across the city. Congress MLC and Jamiyatul Ulema-e-Hind State president Hafiz Peer Shabbir Ahmed, Shaik-ul-Islam Academy chairman Moulana Yehya Ansari Ashrafi, Anjuman-e-Qadaria president Syed Ifteqar Hussaini, Sunni United Federation of India convenor Hafiz Mohammad Muzaffar Hussain, Idara-e-Tehqiqaat Ilmiya director Syed Khaja Moizuddin Ashrafi and other religious leaders welcome the decision.

I don't advocate quoting this Facebook posting into the article but surely this is a major development and has to be included on Misplaced Pages. So I await a decision on which source to choose. Regards,Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

From the above discussion, I conclude that Siasat is a reliable source for editing the article on the Ahmadiyya sect. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Toonzone

Ok i know there has been many discussion in the past about toonzone. www.toonzone.net

Currently a lot of articles use toonzone for sources

What i would like to estbalish is a consesus on toonzone as a source how ever i do not want to establish is toonzone a reliable source as it would fail under reliable sources criteria, but at the same time reliable source criteria also states no on source is 100% reliable so what i am suggesting is we break toonzone down into multi parts and determine each part whether it is reliable or not or whether they need to be condition on certain parts of the site being used as source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also liek to say i really hope as many editors as possible discuss it, and when a conesus is reached that we then mark that area aas resolved with the result of th conesus and a general opinion on how or hwo the soruce can be used--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

ok so here goes

Forums

Ok this is a bit of a no brainer but still a i like to have it so can be search and verified in the future by other editors. My personal view is the forums can never be seen as a reliable as a source on the article, maybe can be used in a article talk page if maybe the forum has pointed to a something that can be discussed and then another source found to use in a article..--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

News

Ok i have seen much debate on this one before, i believe that the news section can be used as as source but scrutiny over what news sources are used.

if the news story provide a link to the original news story then this can be deemed reliable but might be best using the original.

If the news story is something written by one of there admins who say have been to local event and writing on that event this could be deemed reliable.

If however the news story gives a link to where the news story came from and the source for there story is from a source deemed to be unreliable then the it can not be used as a source.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Schedules

Ok i think these can be used as source for titles, airdates where available and production code information as the site gets there listings direct from the broadcast so input the information as the broadcaster give it to them. Obviously we would have to hope the broadcaster would have the correct information but sometimes they get it wrong so if any article has information sourced from here but the information can be proved wrong by another source then articles are amended with a cite to the new source to show why the amended would be different to this source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Blog

This appears to be similar to the news site so i say the same criteria as i said for the new site would need to be applied here--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Toonzone wikis

I believe these should be consider unreliable as any register user of the site can edit it so it be like here--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

CD!

This links to a new site called cartoonsdammit.com and am not really able to determine it reliability so i would say just now unreliable until it can be determine--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comics

This appears to be the same as news and blog it is admin edited so can be deemed relible--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hosted sites

These appear to be able to be edited by register users so as such i say there unreliable as as source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

As i say i am trying to determine the reliability of the site in separate parts rather than in a whole as the site is massive and different section it unfair to say just cause one bit is unreliable the whole site is, reliable sources does state no source is 100% reliable and a whole site doesn't have to be reliable for it to be used as a source it is the part of the site you are using as a source that has to be determine if it is reliable, by having this discussion on separate parts of the site and determining a reliability for each we can then know if article will need sources removed or can be left or used in more articles, if we cant get a consensus on this i am affaird it will come back again and again and will always be arguments by editors as whether the source can be used, so it be nice to get a consensus on each section and then editors can refer to this discussion as to a whether it is seen reliblke--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

'Reliability' isn't an inherent property of a particular source; we can't and won't make blanket declarations that a given source is 'reliable' or 'unreliable', as that is a question that depends so heavily on context. In each case, we need to ask how a source is being used in a given article; it's not possible for us to say that Source X is reliable and therefore every statement from Source X can be used in any article. For example, you mention a website forum—generally we hold that forum posts aren't useful for Misplaced Pages articles, except when they are used to demonstrate that the forum poster has said a particular thing, or holds some opinion. (In other words, they're treated like a self-published source.)

Your best bet is to follow the suggestions at the top of this page, and present specific instances where this website is being used as a source and where disputes about it have arisen. A few such discussions (heck, maybe just one such discussion) should give you a very good idea of how the website will be treated in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair point :) as i say it general is contested by plenty of editor, but general previous discussion have certain around since one part of the site is unrelible the rest is an as such other editors remove or dispute content hence my idea of breaking it down to the spefic part of the site. yes i agree there is expection to the rule of forum, but as i say i am trying to get a general conesus of the site for each part of it so in teh future people can come back and see this is what the general consesus at the time was but s is known conesus can change as could the use of the source, i mam perosnal using it on quite a few animation episod elists but one editor of one them has refuct my use of toonzone cause they said previous discussion deemed the enw unreliable but as i point out above not all the news is unrelaible but i have seen dispute plenty of times on artivcle i jsut watch or look at and dnt edit hence th reason for this more broad discussion as previosu maybe only have 3 or 4 editors i am wanting broader rangers of eidtors opinions some part sof the site i dnt use myself but i am trying to get conesus on whether it deemed realible or not hope that explains--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

William Muir's opinions in Life of Mahomet

Am i allowed to cite the book "Life of Mahomet", by William Muir, he is an academic figure from Cambridge University. However he is a Christian and has been accused of not being a reliable source by some users who accuse of having an anti-Islamic slant.

I have quoted him in the Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article mainly to give a contrasting view:

The Muslim Scholar Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri suggest that the reason for the attack was that the Banu Mulawwih were being provocative (without further details), whereas the Non Muslim historian Sir William Muir claims the reason for the attack is unknown.

I have also found that the primary sources (Ibn Sa'd volume 2 p 156) support Muirs view in this occasion, as it does not mention what Mubarakpuri claims. Should Muir's opinion be removed or is it allowed?

Help preventing edit war: 1 user added a "This article's factual accuracy is disputed" tag on that page 8 months ago. And i removed it saying "removed tag which has been there for ages and not discussed", but he then added it back again and said "not resolved and it was discussed", then was reverted by another user telling him to "fix it". I fear this user is trying to draw me into a edit war, as last time i was banned indefinitely for participating in an edit war with him, he was also banned (for 24 hours). Now I am on a 1RR policy. This particular user has taken no steps to resolve the dispute in my opinion, 8 months ago someone volunteered to solve the dispute but wanted to here al-Andalusi's (disputing user) view first.( see here) but he has not taken any steps to get involved.

Please advise --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses

First, don't get drawn into an edit war. You've had your revert. It's just a tag on an article, not a dispute about content at the moment. The next step is discussion. Invite that user here.

After looking at the William Muir article, it seems even today his work on the life of Muhammad is considered authoritative albeit biased — but I daresay the same could be said of Muslim historians. Having a bias doesn't automatically invalidate his historical claims, it just means one must be careful about presenting his claims as fact, particularly if there are no corroborating sources. It is perfectly valid to reference him, because he is a notable historian.

In the passage you quoted above, one historian says one thing, another says another thing. The problem the other editor might have with this is the appearance of giving both sources equal weight, if one actually has greater credibility than the other. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Muir is fine, but there is particularly one editor who will not let you reference Muir unless you were writing an article about worst historians of all time. He tried to get me banned (lol) because I thought Muir bio got vandalized. I would stay away from any references more liberal than bin Laden for now. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess in Misplaced Pages there are lies, and then there are talk page posts. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And then there is Muir's bio which takes the best of both. Meishern (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how can anybody seriously consider a 150 year out-of-date book as a WP:RS? When the book was published, the steam engine was high-tech, people were laughing at Semmelweiss, and Lister's use of antiseptics still a decade in the future. This book is historically interesting, but not a useful source for factual information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, Semmelweiss did a mean "yo mamma" routine. Other than that, completely agree. The source should be treated as WP:PRIMARY and serious consideration should be given to whether it is WP:UNDUE to use it in the same way that you might use a more recently published book. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we really deem a book from the present any more reliable than a book 150 years older on anything from the past? Age has nothing to do with reliability of information - unless referring to something of our past, their future, or something uncovered only due to technological or understanding's advancement in that area. Because the steam engine was considered high-tech in that period does not say that the people of that time were dumbasses and knew nothing about Muhammad. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can. Scientific progress is not limited to the hard sciences alone. 150 years ago, there were no reasonable research libraries, especially not on topics peripheral to the dominant culture. Very few collections of primary sources were available, and many primary sources were either undiscovered, unappreciated, or unknown. Sources in general were spread around the world, not accessible at your fingertip via the internet. To get a source, you typically would need to go to the location of the source and extract what you thought important in it by hand. There were no photocopiers and textmarkers. If you missed something the first time, going back was impossibly time-consuming and expensive. Very few Western scholars spoke Arabic or worked in the area, so there was little chance for scholarly discourse. Muir would work on an understanding of the Old Testament that predated the documentary hypothesis, and would probably not be aware of the just evolving understanding of the synoptic problem concerning the New Testament. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Stephan Shulz is correct; this work is simply too old to be considered a reliable source on this subject. Jayjg 00:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that no Muslims ("Arabic speakers" lol - slight correction) lived in Sweden and people never passed information on to others? - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the book in question is too old to be considered a reliable source on this subject. Jayjg 01:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The question was directed towards Stephan, specifically, his statement just preceding yours. His statement, in my eyes, is invalid, and insufficient if he wants to say that a publishing from an earlier time period is less factually supported than one of today. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get your Sweden reference - maybe you are confused by "area"? I'm talking about "area of research" as in "field of study", not "area of Europe". Today we are publishing the National Enquirer, so we are quite good at publishing crap. But on average, a scholarly source from today will be vastly superior to a source of similar scope from 1860, because, in your words, our "understanding" has "advanced" significantly in the intervening 150 years. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

When, then, do you suppose this area of research had opened up?

I used the wrong nation - he's Scottish. Regardless, your previous statement implies that no Muslims or others with a reasonable knowledge of Muhammad's life were in England at the time, referring to communication, and the field of study had not not yet been explored. While I agree that an understanding has been furthered in many fields of study, we have not uncovered much undocumented information concerning physical religious events, unless you'd like to talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are, in the current discussion, irrelevant. The synoptic problem and documentary hypothesis, are, through my eyes at least, more theoretical and mental than physical. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I bet there were fewer specialists on early Islamic history in Britain in Muir's time than there are in a single university department of the proper bent today. Also, Muir spend a significant part of his life not in England (nor Britain ;-), but in British India, and in particular in the Northwest, i.e. around today's Pakistan/Afghanistan border. But that is besides the point. Of course we have uncovered large amounts of historical documents over the last 150 years. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example, the Nag Hammadi library is another important example, but there are many more smaller, less spectacular finds that in sum give us a much better and broader view of history. And, of course, "theoretical" results are just as important as real "physical" evidence. As an example, an understanding of the dialects of and changes in the Arabic language can allow us to date and place documents in a way Muir would be completely unable to do. A better understanding of the development and diversity of early Christianity may very well influence how we interpret Christian influences in early Islam. For a different example, consider mathematics. It never ever has had any "physical discoveries", and yet, would you attack a complex mathematical problem with only 1860s knowledge and expect the same results as you would get from a competent mathematician today? No Matlab or Mathematica, no LaTeX, no Bronstein, no pocket calculator, no axiomatic set theory (indeed, no set theory!), no formal symbolic logic, no undecidability results, no Principia Mathematica, ... Sure, everything is available through definitions and reasoning from first principles. But today, you have a much much much better foundation to work on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should a 150 year old source on anything be used for anything other than as a primary source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with you in the area of Mathematics, however I do not believe that Arabic was not fully developed at that time. Northwest British India would have been more than scarcely populated with Muslims who would have been likely to speak Arabic (and possibly learned the native language) and had some knowledge of Muhammad. While I agree that I am working on a set of assumptions, the probability that at least one Arabic translator and Arabic-speaking Muslim would be in the area that could have worked with Muir is high.

I simply cannot agree that those living in the 1860's were cavemen and cannot be trusted now unless fully-supported, area-changing, developed, physical evidence pertaining to the subject - not another, like Mathematics, a completely different subject - is presented; such a broad statement should not be used in an encyclopedia without. As FormerIP stated, serious consideration should be given before declaring a book reliable, or declaring it unreliable and unusable as anything but a primary source. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this seems to become fruitless. Most commentators agree that a 150 year old source is not useful as a reliable secondary source. I don't know why you keep mentioning Arabic - I can learn Arabic, and still know shit about the history of Islam. There are about 300 million English speakers in the US who know very little about the history of England (or the US, for that). History is a social science with a complex and evolving tool set, just like any other actively area of science. Among the tools that Muir did not have are large research libraries, fast communication, reliable dating, computerised bibliographies, edited and indexed collections of relevant documents, and so on. And he is missing out on the 1.5 million man-years of research put into relevant parts of history since his time (number pulled from an orifice, but probably within two orders of magnitude). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How so? The discussion is concerning the use of a source used in a Misplaced Pages page - and I believe that worth my time at least (and I'm working through the response corresponding and in the order of your last observations.) "Most commentators" think this - but why? Just because colleagues believe something does not mean it is correct and they have no elaborated reason, thus making it an opinion. If you have a source for this, I would like to see it. I mentioned Arabic in response to your statements: "As an example, an understanding of the dialects of and changes in the Arabic language," and "Very few Western scholars spoke Arabic," and, furthermore, the knowledge of Arabic may have been vital in consuming the (albeit few) facts in the Quran and possible other texts and the local teachings. Again, this is a probable assumption based off of Muir's knowledge of Muhammad in the first place. In the William Muir article, it states itself: "Muir's contemporary reviewers of Life uniformly praised him for his knowledge of Arabic." In the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica (available on public domain here) article on him, it also asserts the following: "Sir William Muir was a profound Arabic scholar, and made a careful study of the history of the time of Mahomet and the early caliphate." The 300 million English speakers in the United States who know "very little" about the United States is a true assumption, however, they are required, in secondary school, to take a United States History class, and it is another of their responsibilities to retain that knowledge, and they typically fail to do so. I do not, in spite of this, see many biographies written by these people about the history of the country. He did attend two universities and a college. These would have had some facts about the Muslim culture, including Muhammad. The availability of fast communication, computerized bibliographies, and indexed collections of documents are merely conveniences that we have today - Muir, as well as any historian, could have done without. The reliable dating would be a reinforcement to the previously (unsorted) documentation of his life as would likely have been taken simply because they regarded him as the founder of Islam and a prophet from God. The same reason applies to the "1.5 million man-years of research" that, we're assuming, actually added to the knowledge of Muir's time. This was the case for the Dead Sea Scrolls, due to, from looking at the Wiki page on them, most of them being copies of already existing Bible segments. - This Is M4dn355 300 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Kotaku/Australian Christian Lobby

Can I use the following reference to make this statement on the criticism section of the article Australian Christian Lobby? I understand it is hearsay, but it was a thorough investigation and if I word it in this neutral manner will it be ok?

• REFERENCE: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/05/the-acl-why-do-they-exist-why-do-we-listen-and-why-should-we-care/
• STATEMENT: "According to Kotaku, a high ranking Australian Catholic Bishop who asked not to be named stated that the ACL is "often driven not to change policy per se, but simply to make noise. To satiate those who support and fund the group." Freikorp (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an edited piece of journalism. You should attribute it to "Mark Serrels," the journalist responsible though, and the way you're using quotation marks it appears you're quoting the bishop, not Serrels. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Blog posts and personal websites in the AAH article

Hi, I'm here to seek some advice regarding the reliability of sources cited in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis article.

A few blog posts written by John Hawks, Greg Laden, and PZ Myers, hosted in ScienceBlogs, are being cited. A personal website written by Jim Moore is also mentioned as being recommended in those blogs. These sources are under much dispute in the editing of the article.

Blogs: Although ScienceBlogs has a good reputation, and the 3 bloggers are respected experts on human evolution or evolutionary biology, I think blogging is essentially self-publishing -- posts are not reviewed by the site owners nor other scientists. ScienceBlogs has no control on what he write in his own blog, no matter it's scientific stuff or just "yawn, bored today."

I am aware that a SPS can be considered reliable if the author has previously published on the topic in RS, and AFAIK, the 3 scientists haven't published anything related to the subject, or produced arguments supporting or disputing it.

In such context, John Hawks's blog has been cited disproportionally (presumably because of his fame in the internet).

Website: Jim Moore's website is notable in the debate of the subject, but the personal website is SPS and the author is an amateur, citing the source will be OR even under due weight. (Note that this website has been cited extensively before, now the citing tags were removed, leaving a lot of OR stuff in the article)

In summary, I believe the blogs and websites mentioned are non-RS and thus should not be cited, regardless of the good/bad contents inside. There are many good RS available, and we should use them instead. I and some other editors have removed those citations, but then reverted by others and they suggested to have a consensus first. I guess a consensus is hard to get there because of the antagonistic atmosphere. Chakazul (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That they are respected experts on human evolution shows that they are perfectly reliable for opinions on human evolution which the fringe theory/pseudoscience AAH is involved with. Taking the opinion of experts is perfectly acceptable, and that they are hosted on ScienceBlogs (which is invite only) shows that their opinions hold due weight on the fringe topic. If Jim Moore is notable on the debate then it's perfectly acceptable that his opinions hold due weight. Same reasoning again for John D. Hawks a professor of Anthropology and the author of a widely read paleoanthropology blog. I suggest you also check out WP:PARITY. The attempts to make AAH seem part of the mainstream discourse have already caused the article to have it's ranking recently demoted in the wikiproject primates: IRWolfie- (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My main point is that they're all non-RS. Verifiability and reliability of sources is one of the first priorities in WP. We cannot cite unreliable sources because we find the text reasonable, or just because the subject is a fringe theory. By doing so, we are even lowering the quality and credibility of the criticisms. Citing RS (e.g. Langdon 1997 paper in this case) is much preferable.

If John Hawks etc. have published the opinions in scientific journals, that will be perfectly acceptable, though.

Please make caution when you characterize the AAH as pseudoscience -- some RS say it is and some (more) RS say it isn't. At least we can't find it inside the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Chakazul (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wherever I've seen this topic on the Internet the arguments have been full of sound and fury, hopefully signifying more than nothing. I try to stay out of it because I'm not as tenacious as some and am not that devoted to arguing it. However, I will say that Hawks, Myers, Laden and Moore should be included and removing them would unbalance the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Merely saying that "they're all non-RS" is not the whole story. If Hawks (very hypothetically) wrote on a blog "aquatic apes were green" then that would not be a reliable source from which to add a fact to the article that aquatic apes were green. But it may well be a reliable primary source to establish the fact that Hawks made that statement. And that is how the blogs are being used in the article - as primary sources to establish that Hawks and other scientists said a particular thing. Whether the fact that Hawks made the statement is relevant enough for the article is a different question, but in the particular case of how those statements are used in the AAH article I think they are being used appropriately. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found from only one location, then that information is—by definition——not important enough to include.Moxy (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is wholly untrue for WP:FRINGE issues, when RS do not discuss the endless details of fringe claims. Advocates will attempt to get these details included, and exclusde mainstream replies on blogs etc. The points is that these replies would never be published in scientific journals, as they would not fill valuable space with detailed refutations of fringe material. Paul B (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, the blogs are reliable for the opinions of the individuals who, as the original poster noted, are notable for their expertise in the field of Human Evolution/evolutionary biology.Self-published material may be acceptable 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.. As noted above the material is also WP:FRINGE and subject to WP:PARITY. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My five cents. I'd say AAH is definitely not fringe enough to be ignored by WP, but if we are going to cover it we need to look outside of mainstream academic publications unless we want to unbalance our coverage (WP:NPOV problem). Of course we may not present this theory as widely accepted by the mainstream. We have to present it as it exists out there in the "real world". Rather than fringe I would say that mainstream academics treat most theories about the origins of bipedality as speculative. AAH is one of the various speculations, or perhaps more accurately it is a word used to describe a stream of discussion about one type of idea. But there is nothing wrong with speculation as such, and this speculation is notable. As a speculative discussion, aspects of this subject tends to be debated on places like SPS blogs. I think the best results for something like this will come from attributing everything so the readers can see that things come from blogs and so on, and "feel" that this is a public and on-going debate, happening partly outside of normal academia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Andrew here... the AAH does not sink to the level of being "Fringe". While it may be rejected by academia, it is well known - and accepted as a legitimate possibility - by a wide swath the general public (The general public, in its ignorance, often accepts ideas that have been rejected by academia.)

"Speculative" is a better term. And the key to reporting on speculation is to phrase the article in a way that makes it clear to our readers that we are talking about speculation.

As to the blogs and personal websites that are cited... They are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinions of their authors. The question is whether mentioning these opinions in our article gives them Undue Weight. I will leave that determination up to others, as I don't know the topic well enough. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually just a tweak to what you say: I would not be surprised if someone did a serious survey and found a lot of sympathy amongst academics for this idea, or at least its better argued and less extreme variants. The bigger point is that academics would consider it speculative, and not the sort of thing they would want to take a strong public position about, nor something that it would be easy to publish a strong article about. I think there have been academic publications giving various levels of credence to the theory? Also, I understand that the theory has helped remind everyone that old ideas about the origins of bipedalism all have similar speculation in them, and that in effect we are waiting for the theory that will convince everyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Germanwatch.org

• Hi all, I'm doing a DYK review and I'm hung up over a reference to a press release published at germanwatch.org (Full reference: Einweihung "Dr.Werner-Schuster-Haus" Ehrung für einen herausragenden Entwicklungspolitiker, press release dated 9 May 2003 at germanwatch.org, accessed 24 February 2012 (in German)).

The press release is used to source an opinion and quote. My question is, should we consider this a reliable source, and is the hosted release possibly a copyvio? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just had a quick look but it seems to be Germanwatch's own press release so in a sense a primary source which can be used in some cases? Note that their Bonn office, the source of the release, is called Dr.Werner-Schuster-Haus. The naming of that office is what the release is about I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough, in that case I'll drop a note at the nomination page. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources - Christian Today, The Milli Gazette

Hello,

Are there any references that state reliability of sources Christian Today, The Milli Gazette to be considered as a reliable source.

My understanding is that these are not at all reliable. Per discussion here, I had pointed out why. Here it is:

1. Christian Today - describes itself as "trans-denominational Christian newspaper"; part of christiantoday.com. More info - which states "Christian Today upholds the dictum found in Matthew 5:37, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'". In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ." and so on.
2. The Milli Gazette - describes itself as "Indian Muslims' Leading English Newspaper"; more info . On this link, it states that "We will, insha Allah, add more pages as we progress to a weekly, in due course of time, speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community which is a very important member of the world Muslim community" and so on.

I would like to know how these sources are considered reliable, if at all.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all sources can be used for something. So you should explain what these are being used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic under consideration is Ekal Vidyalaya, a charity considered the largest for country India. The above mentioned sources are neither connected to it even remotely, nor could be considered neutral outside own topic, just as Ekal Vidyalaya can not be considered reliable source for the above two. In fact the sources themselves say "In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ" or "speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community" which in other words points to rather limited context as explained therein.

Therefore, such sources could hardly be called as reliable in general, in particular for the topic Ekal Vidyalaya.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article; that said, it seems to me that some of that color is imparted by leaning over too far towards qualifying its statements, because I found this article in the Times of India in which the intent alleged in the CTI article is stated outright by those affiliated with EV. The CTI article would at least be an acceptable source for the existence of Christian objections. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that the topic is neither about Christian objections not about Hindu objections. It is neither about intent alleged in the CTI article outright by those affiliated with EV, nor it is about intent alleged against missionaries.

After the first statement viz. "There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article", there is hardly justification given for the sources under consideration at all. In fact this article apparently is more reliable, but it says nothing about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette. The query is about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette.

Per the first line, viz. "There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article", it can be taken that the sources Christian Today & The Milli Gazette can be considered unreliable for this topic. Please let me know if there is anything to add about the sources.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Both sources may be considered reliable for the information cited in the Ekal Vidyalaya article:

• The Christian Today article titled AICU president suspects Hindu charitable trust of forming anti–Christian schools for Indian tribals says that John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority.
• The Milli Gazette article titled Another Blow to VHP describes in some detail the (Indian) Union Human Resources Development Ministry's decision to stop grants to 'Ekal Vidyalayas' run by the FTS.

There is no reason to suppose that this information is inaccurate. These are both mainstream publications and may be assumed to have checked their facts, which are backed up by other sources. Is there any doubt about the facts cited? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am again sorry to say that this is not about 'facts' as cited by John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union, or 'facts' as concerted campaign against the Ekal Vidyalayas by a combination of media and academic networks, or doubts about these 'facts'. Any reliable sources can be used in the Criticism section, per norms; the section itself not limited to these 'facts' alone.

The concern here is about reliable sources. The query is about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette each of which say that "In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ" or "speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community". Being mainstream or not offers no concession to their own claimed POV which is expressed very clearly.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Humour you did not yet really explain what the sources are being used for. Please do not try to cut the discussion off too quickly. Maybe this already helps:

• WP policy does not forbid the use of "POV" or non-neutral sources, and indeed some people would say that such things do not exist. What matters is how they are used. For example a Christian might be a good source for what Christians think, but not a good source for what Hindus think.
• What might be another issue is whether the opinion of Christians is relevant or notable. See WP:NOTE. However, if you are editing something about a religious controversy I suppose it would be notable. Is the controversy something that was reported in the media?
• A simple solution to a surprising number of questions on this noticeboard is attribution of anything questionable and controversial. Instead of saying "Mr Smith hates dogs" we should often write "The New York Times has reported that Mr Smith hates dogs". This immediately gives readers a context so they can understand the potential weak point of the claim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• John Dayal is one of the more prominent spokespeople for Indian Christians. His views are relevant in the section on "Criticism" in the Ekal Vidyalaya article. Christian Today is the source for the statement that Dayal criticized the Ekal Vidyalayas. The article does not assert that the criticism was justified, just that Dayal expressed it. Dayal has often criticized the Ekal Vidalayas: A FORKED TONGUE AGAINST CHURCH on the website of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India Office For Education And Culture, Code Shreds India’s Secular Thread in Tehelka, Hindu Group Plans 100,000 ‘Anti-Christian’ Schools in Tribal India by 2012 in BosNewsLife and so on. These sources may be biased, and Dayal may be biased, but clearly Dayal has expressed criticism. The Christian Today example is as good as any to illustrate his views. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• The Milli Gazette article is used as a source for information about a government decision to stop funding the schools, and the reasons for the decision. It covers much the same ground as the short article Public funds for saffron agenda and the longer Centre stops grants to 'one-teacher schools', both in The Hindu, but the Milli Gazette article gives rather more detail. A short summary of the decision and reasons appears in the Indian affairs annual for 2006. Excerpts from the report are given in Training to Hate: The Ekal Vidyalaya Way. None of these sources are "unbiased" but there is no doubt that the information cited from the Milli Gazette article is accurate: the government did indeed cut off funding for the reasons given. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources here are used in criticism section of a charity organization Ekal Vidyalaya, & not about some Christian/Hindu civil/terrorist/right-wing/conversion organization etc.

Therefore the POV here is not about, as said earlier, 'facts'. The substance can easily be supported by sources that has no POV here, as the example from your side as a simple solution to it ie "The New York Times has reported that Mr Smith loves/hates dogs" and so on. None of this is forthcoming, even from other editors.

I disagree with Aymatth2's view that "The Christian Today example is as good as any to illustrate his views." which he stated immediately after "These sources may be biased, and Dayal may be biased". This itself means that neutral sources should be present, especially in criticism section. Also note, the discussion is not on whether Dayal may be biased if at all.

About "controversy", the POV or non-neutral source could be either Christian/Hindu POV sources, although from reliable sources any relevant matter could be included any way. As such, the controversy is not limited by this views alone, rather limited by available information from reliable sources.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Dayal's opinion notable? For example is it something that the media talks about? And secondly is Dayan considered a controversial person? Being controversial does not mean we should mention a person, but it guides us about how to refer to their opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• The article on John Dayal, which is frequently vandalized, shows he is a prominent and vocal representative of the Christian community. As stated in the Ekal Vidyalaya article, he is a past president of the All India Catholic Union and a member of the National Integration Council (NIC) of India. The NIC is chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and membership shows Dayal is recognized by the government as an opinion leader. Dayal is outspokenly hostile to "communalism" - attempts to promote the interests of specific Indian communities - which means he has plenty of critics. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If he is a notable and controversial figure then his opinions may well need to be mentioned in order to be WP:NEUTRAL, but of course if he is controversial we should attribute his opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dayal's opinions are I think correctly attributed in the article, which reads:

  In 2005 John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) and a member of the National Integration Council expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority, in order to "prevent conversions of tribals to Christianity by missionaries."

  Aymatth2 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a bias problem here in that the Times article shows that this is essentially and quite openly a project of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, one of the major Hindutva organizations. It is hardly surprising that Christian groups oppose this (since it is explicitly targeted agianst them), and there's no reason to doubt that Dayal is reported accurately; and as he can be taken as a spokesman, he ought to appear in the article as such. I have less familiarity with Islamic material and therefore have not dared to speak concerning The Milli Gazette. The contrary view, however, is presented in the mouth of François Gautier, and he is notorious and controversial as a defender of Hindutva, to the point where a novel attacking British correspondent Mark Tully was widely assumed to have been penned by him . As it stands the article tends to play down the Hindutva aspect of the project, and to the degree it can't, tends to mark it as a sidelight instead of as a core aspect of the program. Mangoe (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not about POV of John Dayal, which could be included as said earlier. This is about the sources. This is not against views of John Dayal, against conversion, against Hindu/Christian terrorism, against Hindutva/Christianity, and so on. Please avoid this and avoid derailing the discussion.

This discussion is about Christian Today and The Milli Gazette sources. Please go through the above discussion. Is there a reason to avoid reliable sources to support the same substance in the article? The POV of these sources are mentioned very clearly.

Also let me know if Reliable Sources - Religeous Sources is applicable here, which states that "can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." It says nothing about unrelated topic.

About Mangoe, he is creating a lot of straw-men. François Gautier is called notorious, who was accused of 'attacking Mark Tully' where there is no proof and he denied so, etc. - seems the user lacks understanding that such mischief could not be used as an accusation against someone without any evidence or as a reliable source. This is not a place to attack François Gautier or John Dayal.

It is surprising how editors avoid simple questions about how to replace sources with more reliable sources for the same content, which can be seen as a simple solution.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What Mangoe said does not appear true. The article does not play down Hindutva aspect, it is clearly stated the organization is affiliated to RSS, so is VHP. If Mangoe had their way, the article would begin and end with controversy and that would have been the only section, LOL. And don't get us started on the notoriety thing, Gautier is much less notorious than Dayal, who has been criticized for his Hindu-bashing hobby in the guise of Dalit activism by even Indian Christians like P N Benjamin, see here. On the sources I have to say that IMHO Christian Today is fine for quoting Dayal, but Milli Gazette may be removed as we have another source for it already - The Hindu newspaper which though leftist in its views is widely considered reliable. Nmisra (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is, on the other hand, not surprising that some editors, when they don't get the answer they want at RSN, take the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. The sources are reliable for the purposes for which they are currently used in the article, which is what your original question was. Fladrif (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the context of the sources' use in the article. There seems to be consensus here that CTI can be used as a reliable source for reporting Dayal's objection. I'm less assured of it as a source of reportage about the program itself. You raised this issue, however, in the midst of a struggle between you and other editors over the article's content and in particular the lede. Removing these two sources from the article would justify, at least temporarily, minimizing mention that Christians and Muslims oppose the program and in particular that it was funded by the government. In that light Gautier is important now as a seemingly neutral counterbalance, which he most assuredly is not. I don't think the sources are being questioned because the information they present is inaccurate; it seems to me that the attack on their credibility is intended to limit the presentation of the negative reaction to the program. The rest of us hold that they are reliable in reporting that reaction, so I don't think that part of the article can be removed on this basis. Mangoe (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarity. That funding stopped is mentioned by the other sources too ie etc. as also any other neutral article with the same content would do the same.

If you would give pointers to WP policies etc would be great.

Also I am taking it from here that even if sources are biased, if the information is accurate then the sources can be considered as reliable however biased the sources may be, per your statement "I don't think the sources are being questioned because the information they present is inaccurate; it seems to me that the attack on their credibility is intended to limit the presentation of the negative reaction to the program." Is my understanding correct here?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• User:thisthat2011 has a point that in recent versions of the article the content from The Milli Gazette added little to content from The Hindu. Somehow the discussion of the simplified alphabet that Milli mentions but the Hindu article skims over was accidentally dropped. I have restored it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Humour, the 3 key policies about what to include in WP are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. You should also consider WP:NOTE. But in the context of this discussion it might be neater to just say that what WP aims to do is to summarise what notable and relevant people have properly published about subjects, even if we disagree with them. If a person or publication is controversial, the trick is to make sure we mention who they are, to help readers see it, and also that we put in balancing views. So if this charity is controversial then WP should report the controversy. If it's critics and defenders are controversial, we should help readers to be able to see this, and study it further if they so choose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarity. Appreciate it.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Random break

• See the recent changes to this article which again removed (or rather commented out) the content from The Milli Gazette. There seems to be a lot of hostility to including anything from this source. Is this the right place to resolve the issue or is there a more appropriate forum? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the argument being made is that this observation is not notable enough to be given this attention. If this organization is being accused of indoctrinating people to hate etc, then it should be reported, and that was the initial discussion here. But how important is it to have a paragraph about one example of such indoctrination? I am not saying there is anything wrong with the proposal myself, but if other editors of the article find this a case of going into too much detail then this is not really a sourcing question, but more a question of getting the right balance. Sometimes trying to come to a WP:consensus can be a bit painful. It means you should put your big efforts into the most important things, and not every particular point. So ask yourself whether this is something that would really ruin the article. If it is then you'll need to put together a clear argument about why and try to convince more people. But the present disagreement does not appear to be one for this noticeboard anymore?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This particular changes are not about reliability of source. Aymatth2 has a history of POV contributions to this article in the past, which can be seen in the history and talk page. The user does not reply to points raised on talk page but keeps on indulging in POV, synthesis, original research, and giving undue weight to examples. This section is a case in point where the user first added irrelevant facts to and then removed sourced material from response to criticism subsection. Nmisra (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• O.k. The consensus here seems to be that Christian Today and Milli Gazette can be considered reliable for the content used by the article. I suppose that is really all this discussion is about. The question of how much detail the article should give on specific aspects can be discussed on the article talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not the consensus. The consensus is that reliability depends on what a thing is cited for. The same report may be reliable for one thing cited from it, and unreliable for the other one. As pointed out on Talk Page here, this particular citation from MG is unreliable since it has factual inaccuracies. Nmisra (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the document mentioned as a source refers to which in turn refers to as source. The last link is dead link and is unavailable. Therefore WP:V & WP:NOR comes into question.

• It is fairly common for websites, PDF documents etc. to include dead links. Usually the content that was at the end of that link is still available in one of the internet archives. Containing a dead link does not make a source unreliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the sources are definitely biased here, which is pointed out earlier. Therefore WP:NPOV is questionable. Neither Christian Today nor The Milli Gazette can be considered WP:NPOV.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• The question of bias has been discussed at length above. Some would say that all sources are biased one way or another. What matters is whether the source may be considered accurate for the information used in the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would extremely reluctant to accept the publications of any particular religious movement for derogatory information about another very different religious movement. In such cases, it's almost like sourcing for BLP--the information must be supported by neutral sources. Even were it trying as hard a possible to avoid bias, a publication from a conservative Christian organisation with missionary affiliations, is not reliable with respect to a traditional Hindu religious group in such circumstances for anything other than a statement of its own opinion, and it must be so qualified in the article, and used only if necessary for balance. (I would assume this is true for the Moslem organisation also, at least with respect to India where the two religions are notoriously not on good terms generally.) Even when one organisation is quoting from a source, it may be doing so selectively; in particular, as with all publications, the headlines and other summaries cannot be trusted to be neutral to the same extent as the reporting. Frankly, I think it would be highly advisable to use other sources instead for controversial material, especially controversial negative material. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• The way the sources are used is correct, I think. The Christian source is used for a statement that a prominent Christian is hostile to the schools. The Muslim source is used for a simple statement of fact from a government report, very carefully worded. Both sources are named and their affiliation is given before the article says what they say. In this area there are no neutral sources. The Ekal Vidyalayas are part of the BJP-Congress struggle. BJP supporters passionately defend them and Congress strongly criticizes. The BJP gave funding and Congress withdrew it when they came into power. There is also a Hindu-Secular debate. Sources almost always take one side or another, are often sparing with the truth and sometimes make venomous attacks on their opponents. I think with this topic we just have to present what was said and by whom, mostly concentrating on what seem to be plausible facts but allowing some clearly identified opinions, and let readers decide for themselves. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 IGN Review/Jessica Chobot

The source in question is a review from the gaming website IGN for a game called Mass Effect 3:

• Moriarty, Colin. "The Last Effect". 12 March 2012. .

and in regards to its use on the Mass Effect 3 WP page . Jessica Chobot, an IGN employee , worked on this game and IGN subsequently published a glowing review. Neither on the current WP page or in IGN's review is there any mention of her involvement as an IGN employee. When reading the Mass Effect 3 WP page under the Reception heading, the first review mentioned is that of IGN's. I find her role in the game as a conflict of interest (see WP:QS) that brings into question the validity of IGN as a source used for the reception of this game. Is this a valid reason to remove the IGN review as a reliable source on the Mass Effect 3 WP page? Here is a link to the current Talk page on this issue. Redredryder (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems simple enough. The talk page is asking for a reliable source that says as much. Here. The Escapist (magazine)'s article http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/firstperson/9390-Jessica-Chobot-and-Mass-Effect-3 focuses on the issue. Is that good enough as a reliable source about a controversy about a living person? I'm not sure, but I'd tend to say so, since it has won plenty of awards, and this is firmly inside the site's focus, and it's not that controversial an issue. So I'd add a sentence to the footnote about the review. Not more than a sentence, since it's not that big a controversy. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

All that said, are we now saying that IGN is no longer an RS for its review of this game (which, BTW, is not unlike the other reviews as far as content and such). On the talk page this is what was proposed, that IGN be removed as an RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Companies rating law firms

Cleaning up Grette Law Firm I'm wondering if either of these two sites can be used to source the statement "Grette has received very good reviews in recent years in several ratings."

• http://www.legal500.com
• http://whichlawyer.practicallaw.com

__meco (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd use Martindale-Hubbell for US lawyer rating although it is heavily skewed by the old-boy rating system, but at least they try. My understanding is that practicallaw.com is not a reliable source for lawyer reviews. I don't know about legal500.com. --Bejnar (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Grette is a Norwegian law firm, so Martindale-Hubbell wouldn't be of much help. __meco (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not regard practicallaw.com as a reliable source for law firm reviews.

Legal500 is rather like a Who's Who. The firms themselves submit profiles, and then Legal 500 does its own research based on those submissions. Because it does have an editorial staff that does independent research, I guess it is OK as a source.

But, a couple of notes of caution: since Legal 500 only covers large firms with national as opposed to local or regional practices, it is choosing from a relatively small pool of firms, and it may not be a big deal to be listed. If a firm is big and national in scope, it is likely to get listed in at least one practice area. As for Grette, I see that its entry at Legal 500 - Europe/Middle East/Africa lists it as a third or fourth tier firm for most of the categories listed, second tier for tax, and first tier for IP. Not sure I'd crow about third and fourth tier listings, so to generalize that it has received "very good reviews" may be a bit of hyperbole. Fladrif (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm trimming the accolades further. __meco (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment An article about a lawyer I started was deleted from Misplaced Pages not long ago. It seemed no one participating in the discussion was aware of the sources mentioned here. Just wondering if there is a page at Wikipeida that would be an appropriate place to store these references for other Wikipedians who are creating lawyer-related articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

Proposed edit (actually currently in the article, but opposed by one editor) (now removed per with the edit summary: (POV) by an editor who also removed a quote from Thomas Sowell with this doesn't deserve its own section. okay? excising a section which had been fully discussed on the talk page  :

"The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies." source: Social cognition: an integrated introduction by Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, Jun 15, 2006 364 pages

The book, as far as I can tell is widely used (559 articles citing it per Google Scholar) etc. It is described as:

This Second Edition of the critically acclaimed textbook Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction represents a much more integrated and pedagogically developed account of its predecessor. At its heart, the authors examine the different theoretical and methodological accomplishments of the field by focusing on the four major and influential perspectives which have currency in social psychology today - social cognition, social identity, social representations, and discursive psychology. A foundational chapter presenting an account of these perspectives is followed by topic-based chapters from the point of view of each perspective in turn, discussing commonalities and divergences across each of them. The result is a truly holistic approach that will stretch student's understanding of this exciting field and enrich their learning experience.

One editor however says: The mean of the terms "left" and "right" are mentioned briefly in a section about Bobert Altemeyer's "right-wing authoritarian" personality which is part of a broader section on prejudice. You are finding sources as far removed from the subject matter as possible. Do any of your 559 cites actually use the source the way you do? I can only guess that you are looking for sources to support a viewpoint, rather than trying to idenfity what sources say and reflect them in the article. and The issue is whether it is relevant. My approach to an article about right-wing politics would be to use sources about right-wing politics, not sources about other subjects that make tangential references to right-wing politics. If a reasonable person wanted to understand right-wing politics, they would pick up a book on right-wing poltics, not books about social cognition, postmodernism, Israeli politics, or feminism. One concludes that one has a preconceived view of the subject and then mines for sources that appear to support it.

I suggest, however, that "Social Cognition" is a proper area (likely the best single area, in fact) for describing the problems of defining "right wing" in any absolute manner, and that refusal to allow a standard text is verging on tendentiousness. Is the source a reliable source for the claim to which it is attached? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You know my position on undergraduate textbooks' reliability in the social science. I'm not sure social psychology is the best domain of research to be looking at for this. But the claim is so basic as to be a truism in my opinion. Ideology is historicised and socially constructed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I was amazed that such a simple and fairly obvious statement required such pains to get into the article - and then after passing every possible bar, including some rather creative bars, to be told "IDONTLIKEIT" is precisely what it felt like. Collect (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is painful at times. Particularly in the terrain where most ideologically constructed knowledges agree on a point. Are you sure it is an undergraduate textbook and not a "scholarly introduction" aimed at practicioners and scholars? If it were the latter, I'd say it was good enough to demonstrate a truism. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The work is big for sure - and I suspect it is reasonably considered a "standard reference in the field" not just a "textbook" as the one precis places it. It is widely cited per Google Scholar search (558 cites listed) which is not common for a "mere textbook" I would think. Collect (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A re-wording might help. I suspect one problem you have come up against here is that while the fact you have made is pretty straightforward, you are writing in a paragraph which some people would consider "turf" of a specific but different discipline than the one you are now citing. I would try breaking out this statement and making a less academic looking comment about how "Perceptions about the exact meaning of ... etc. On the whole I doubt that RSN can help this discussion. Have you tried writing drafts on the talk page, and getting discussion there? It can sometimes be amazing how quickly such things can be resolved once a good discussion starts. Maybe people are concerned about something else than what I am guessing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with Andrew Lancaster & Collect's analysis of its citation impact as an indication that rather than an undergraduate textbook it is a reference work for the field; and accept its reliability for what amounts to a political science truism (that an ideological position is spatially and temporarily contingent due to variance in human culture) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an ongoing dispute with an editor who insists still that W. F. Buckley was not on the "right" even though his column was titled On the Right <g>. I jumped through every possible hoop here - only to be told that "Social Cognition" is not "relevant" to a term clearly dealt with in the book. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hilary Devey

Whilst researching an unconnected issue, I noticed that Misplaced Pages has a page about ex-Bolton millionaire businesswoman Hilary Devey. The page claims Ms Devey was born in 1957. The conflict being that I went to primary school, and was even in the same class as Hilary. Yet I was born in 1944. How curious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudger812 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 March 2012

Her BBC bio (self-written) gives the birth as March 1957. No woman would ever lie about her age. Collect (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh of course not. What was I thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudger812 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 March 2012

WP:BLPSPS guidance is that this is acceptable as a source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Images taken by a CWO4 Vinas

In looking to continue to improve the article regarding CPT Jose Calugas, I found images taken by a retired United States Navy Chief Warrant Officer of exhibits at a museum in Iloilo City. They reportedly are of artifacts of CPT Calugas, mainly being two images of his uniform (1, 2), an image of a certificate, and an image of the subject meeting President Kennedy. Are these images useful as reliable sources, or would they be considered original research? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notice I have used the Please See template at relevant wikiproject talk pages and a notice at the talk page regarding the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Displays in reputable museums are reliable sources, though difficult for others to verify. The key questions here seem to be whether the museum's galleries have a reputation for historical accuracy and whether that photographer and website have a track record of posting images with accurate captions. Unless you're sure that the answer to both questions is 'yes', it's not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Museo Iloilo (the actual name of the Museum), is a public museum and subsidized by the Philippine Government. Yes it is reliable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sundiata Keita and The Lion King

Hello,

I am currently working on Sundiata Keita's article. For some time, there has been controversy as to where Disney got its idea regarding the lion king which went on to be a musical (the Lion King (musical)), etc. I would appreciate your opinion regarding the reliability of this source . An abstract was also published here . I intend to use it in the legacy section of Sundiata Keita's article. The article is being improved at the moment, I have not finished yet. Thank you so much for your time.

Just one more point if I may. I've gone through the Lion King's article and its talk page but found no mention of this rather important point not even in the Controversy Section (unless I've accidently missed it). It was probably an unintentional oversight. I will be raising the issue in the article's talk page.

Thanks again for your time.

Best Regards

Tamsier (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, but the author draws no causal connection between either the original source or the picture book developed from it, and Disney's movie. Indeed, the course of story development would seem to argue against it. We would need some more substantial evidence to be able to say that Disney drew on the Sundiata story; one academic stating it without proof is not enough to make a notable connection. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mangoe for your feedback. And thanks for taking the time to go through that article.

Best Regards

Tamsier (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

I would like to have addition input on the above page regarding which sources are acceptable for inclusion. Thanks! Location (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

THE ORIGINS OF THE RUMANIANS, BY ANDRÉ DU NAY

André du Nay looks like an unreliable author. His name is, according to his own account, a pseudonym: so we don't know his real identity to be able to to assess his competence on historical issues.

Gábor Vékony, an accredited historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information": .

I want a confirmation that I am acting correctly eliminating this sourceRomorinian (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Romorinian is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Iaaasi.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an important point, and another important point is that we don't know what specific article we're talking about and why this book is being cited. However, as a preliminary thought towards an answer, the book "The origins of the Rumanians" looks like self-publication by an author whose expertise is unproven. The preface by Robert A. Hall Jr. is not enough to validate the book -- it's merely a polite letter. Andrew Dalby 10:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Andre Du Nay is "entrance requirement" at the ELTE (MA level).

Scholars as (cited):"Hasdeu, Densusuşianu, Philippide, Puşcariu, Rosetti, Tamás Lajos, Gáldi László, André du Nay " Fakirbakir (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

IRmep – Institute for Research: Middle East Policy

Recently an SPA has been trying to add content to the AIPAC article sourced to irmep.org. The website gives no information as to who is behind it – no names or background or mission. Its raison d'etre appears to be to malign the image of lobbies operating on Israel's behalf in Washington, with a particular focus on traducing AIPAC. There has been no mainstream coverage of IRmep, only its own press releases through PR Newswire and Business Wire and links to antiwar.com articles that echo the sentiment disseminated by IRmep. In addition to failing the criteria at WP:RS, IRmep doesn't merit mention in the article on account of its decidedly fringe character.—Biosketch (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

B./d. dates refrncd to prim. source of grave stone pic hosted @ FindAGrave.com?

I'd like some advice, from those conversant with Misplaced Pages's consensuses on the topic, of whether, for example, the primary source of a photo of the 1926 gravestone of Geo. Romney's mother, hosted at the self-published source Find a Grave, might be acceptable on Wikikpedia as a supplementary source.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Findagrave.com is a wiki, and has been repeatedly ruled out as a source at RS/N on that basis. Anyone can add material, photos etc. without any factchecking organization to make sure it is all correct. Collect (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you be aware of a guideline to quote in granularity on the point you aver? To be specific, I inquire in particular about the photo of a gravemarker hosted at the self-published website.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If a source is not an RS it is not an RS for any claim at all. That is what RS means. Findagrave is a WIKI. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:SPS: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources" (my emphasis). Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry to have to state the obvious here, but even if the photo is genuine, a gravestone isn't a reliable source. Stonemasons don't employ fact-checkers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • From Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, "The word "source" as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: 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). All three can affect reliability." Findagrave.com publisher is not reliable. "Mark," who provided the text below and above that photo at Findagrave.com as a creator/author, is not regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. The piece of work itself, the photo, is reliable for what it conveys (the stonemason, the creastor/author of the grave marker, is gonna triple check what he carves into the stone before doing it and presenting it to a grieving family). Besides the two out of three strikes, the problem comes in trying to use the information on the gravestone in the Romney family (U.S.) article. There's nothing in the gravestone that connects its information to the Romney family (U.S.). Even if you get passed that, which you cannot -- even Findagrave.com "Mark" failed to provide a connection between the gravestone and the prominent Romney family --, the photo information only would support issues such as dispute over the spelling of her name, and only the year of birth and year of death and then have value only as an inline citation. As used in the article,( or ) the Findagrave.com reference does not directly support the information as it is presented in the Romney family article. Answer to your question: On balance, the photo of the Anna Pratt Romney grave marker is not a reliable source for the text information in the Romney family (U.S.) article. Not that you asked, but ..." Even if you could get passed the reliaible source issue, no one is disputing her birth/death year or the spelling of her name. As such, you probably don't need a reference to support the information. That makes using the reference as a supplemental source even more useless (a different issue from reliability). If the topic of the article were about someone who was barely notable, some might not complain. However, the Romney family is prominent and there no doubt other sources of information on Romney's mother that can be used to directly support the information as it is presented in the Romney family article. In that regard, using the Findagrave.com as a reference in the Romney family brings the validity of the article in question since the topic is so notable. In sum, there doesn't seem to be a valid way to keep the reference to the photo of the Anna Pratt Romney grave marker in the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

      Related to Uzma's reply: Source means three things, but you only need to have one of those for the source to be reliable. You may certainly {{Cite sign}}... but you would be WP:USINGPRIMARY sources, and one of the major (probably insurmountable) problems with this particular primary source is making sure that it's relevant, i.e., that the person whose vital statistics are recorded there is actually the person you're seeking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do not at all agree with the view that "*If a source is not an RS it is not an RS for any claim at all. No source is absolutely wholly reliable for all purposes; no sources is so unreliable it cannot be used at all. Historians routinely use evidence for gravestones and monuments: they are part of the record. They are however primary sources, and need to be evaluated in context, and we can do only a limited amount of evaluation. It's the same as using any other documentary source for a birthdate or death date--unless there is controversy, we can accept it at face value. It may not be true, but this is true of anything. (A statement of how pious the person was, that's of course another matter; I think that indicates the difference.) DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Two duplicate articles

I found it funny that the following two articles posted on en:wp are almost identical: Bharatiya_Vidya_Bhavan's_Public_School,_BHEL and Bharatiya_Vidya_Bhavan_Public_School . In order to reliably showcase the institution, should we delete one article and retain the other? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

This isn't a reliable source issue and Misplaced Pages does not aim to showcase anybody ... but never mind all that! If you can see which name is to be preferred, you can boldly replace the whole text of the non-preferred page with a redirect to the preferred title. Say in the summary that you are "merging identical articles" or words to that effect. Add, from the deleted text, anything useful and encyclopedic that's missing in the other one. Andrew Dalby 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Anchor baby / Double-Tongued Dictionary

There is a dispute going on at Anchor baby over the acceptablility of an online source called the Double-Tongued Dictionary ("DTD"). In addition to whether the DTD itself is fundamentally a self-published source (and thus unusable per WP:SPS), there is controversy over whether a response by the DTD's author to a reader comment is or is not an unusable blog post. See Talk:Anchor_baby#Double_Tongued_Dictionary and Talk:Anchor_baby#.5Bcitation_needed.5D. The dispute here is primarily between the users Factchecker atyourservice and Cuchullain, though some other people (including myself and one or more IP's) have chimed in. The content implications of this dispute may include whether the term "anchor baby" is significantly used to refer to US-born children of any immigrant, or just to children of illegal immigrants; whether users of "anchor baby" tend to be opposed to all US immigration (not just illegal immigration); and possibly also whether "anchor baby" should be definitively and unquestionably tagged as an offensive, pejorative expression. Although the argument has remained mostly a content dispute, there have been some suggestions of possible ulterior motives and/or violations of AGF. To me, it doesn't appear likely that Factchecker and Cuchullain are going to be able to come to any fundamental agreement on their own, so more people need to get involved in order to have any hope of establishing or maintaining a credible consensus. — Richwales 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rich. I think the only part of this that's relevant for discussion here is whether the Double-Tongued Dictionary is a reliable source. I have always argued that it is. This same issue was discussed at length at this noticeboard here as well as on the talk page. The consensus that emerged was that Grant Barrett, the editor of the DTD, is a reliable source, particularly in the study of emerging terms and slang, such as this. To recap a bit, he edited the Official Dictionary of Unofficial English, published by McGraw-Hill, and the Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang, published, obviously, by Oxford. He is vice president of the American Dialect Society and is on the editorial board of, and has been published in, the society's university-published academic journal, American Speech. He also belongs to the Dictionary Society of North America and the Linguistic Society of America. The Double-Tongued Dictionary has received a Laurence Urdang Award from the Dictionary Society of North America for its work on new words. It is regularly described and cited in other sources, for instance these books. I believe that both Grant and the Double-Tongued Dictionary are reliable sources. I further believe that the comment from Barrett on the Dictionary website falls into the realm of self-published sources we can use, as it was written by an establish authority in this field, and only clarifies the entry itself; it doesnt contradict anything in other reliable sources.Cúchullain /c 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the reliability per se of the DTD since March 11, at which time I acknowledged the consensus Cuchulainn describes, although I'd point out that it is clearly self-published and shouldn't be held out to other editors as having "editorial oversight" when in fact a single person is responsible for compiling, editing, and writing the site. Barrett's forum comments especially should not be represented to others in this way.

But, it should be clear, that was not my main issue with the prior state of the article; rather, it was the manner in which the material was attributed and weighted with respect to the AHD definition. The version of the article that existed before I started editing stated the DTD definition, and only the DTD definition, was listed. Immediately after it was the textual reference to the blog comment post, which reference, itself, was OR as it involved a WP editor scooping primary source materials, the two blog comments, and synthesizing them into original secondary source analysis. The reference footnote contained a quote of the DTD definition, with the rather sensational forum-comment by the blog author appended to the definition using an ellipsis—as if the author had himself decided to include his response in the definition. (The response itself also wasn't really identified as a forum comment.)

The AHD definition... the actual established dictionary with the large institutional infrastructure and staff, meanwhile, was mentioned in passing, only as substantiation for the fact that it was revised after an immigration advocacy group and website spoke out against the failure to identify the term as offensive. The AHD definition said nothing about the term being a mask, or opposition to illegal immigration, being a "mask" to hide the "racism and xenophobia" of the person who uses that term or opposes immigration. Only Barrett said that, and only in his self-published website's forum space. Even Barrett didn't say it in his definition. He could have, but he didn't. This is telling.

So we had what any will agree is a rather contentious claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This means you want the best source available. This means you don't bury the best source — the one with an institutional presence and history and likely a substantial number of staff with credentials similar to Barrett's — in a side note about a press release or op-ed by an advocacy org exec, while also going out of your way to quote the most extreme forum-space opinion of someone whom I somehow doubt is even the second-best source on the subject.

That's multiple sourcing and attribution problems combined to make very significant wp:v and weight problems in the core of the article. So I changed it. Anyone care to try and defend the prior version against any of the above complaints? I somewhat doubt it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to continue the rehash the content dispute. In terms of the reliable source issue, I guess I'll repeat, again, what I said in that comment you quote from me and elsewhere: no one has argued that the AHD is unreliable or that the DTD should be given more weight than it. The point here is that Barrett is an established authority in this field and the DTD is a reliable source, and should not be removed or downplayed. Cúchullain /c 04:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Has somebody argued that DTD should be removed or downplayed? Was there a reason to post about the baseline reliability of DTD in the first place? What is your point? (If it's to waste my time with frivolous and off-point argumentation, you're succeeding handily.)

And why — after I went to the trouble of dispelling your apparent confusion and painstakingly detailing the actual reliable source dispute that's at play here — do you not even devote one word to discussing it? Is this an exercise in propping up straw men and then knocking them down?

It's one thing to say, this guy is an expert and thus when he publishes topical material in the relevant field that can be cited to with a bit of caution. It's another thing entirely to say that we can liberally mine the interwebs for any haymaking, politically partisan comments he makes in connection with his work in that field, and dress that up with our own personal professional Misplaced Pages-editor secondary-source prose, OR style, and present it as authoritative in an article that isn't about the person being cited. If this guy Tweets or posts to his Facebook page that anyone who's ever said the words "anchor baby" is a mouth-breathing redneck and a virulent racist, shall we include that too and paste it into the definition, for the benefit of our dear readers, who might not know that they need to look beyond Barrett's actual, stated definition, in order to get the real story?

Simply saying something on the internet is not "publishing", expert-in-the-field or not. For a highly contentious claim you're supposed to look for the highest-quality sourcing available—not to look outside the mainstream and bend the rules on self-published sources, which are already to be used with caution, for the purpose of representing the most contentious and extreme viewpoint that's out there (and one that can only be attributed to a single person). As an administrator you should not need me to explain this basic policy to you. General-topic articles are not supposed to be coatracks for the marginal political rhetoric of the most outspoken guy-in-the-field one can find. That can be cited ad nauseam in an article about the person propounding the extreme view. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

oh, calm down. My initial comment wasn't directed at you, but at the underlying dispute regarding Barrett's reliability which was evidently the reason this was brought up here. Yes, someone has argued that the DTD should be removed and/or downplayed. For the last several months, if not longer, the article has been beset by an one or more anonymous editors trying to discredit or downplay that source, evidently as an effort to push their point of view into the article. I didn't respond to your statements regarding the use of the AHD or making it clear that the reader comment is a reader comment because I don't disagree with you. Several editors were in fact in the middle of discussion about how to better integrate the AHD entry into the article when you started making your swath of edits.

I believe the issue about clarifying Barrett's reader comment as such has already been resolved. I do think that, considering Barrett's background in this field, the comment can at least be used to clarify his own entry. That is, that he really meant immigrants when he said immigrants, not only illegal immigrants. This doesn't contradict what appears in this or other sources; in fact the AHD offers an even broader stance, saying it's used for any noncitizen, not even just immigrants. I don't believe this can be construed as contentious.Cúchullain /c 15:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And do you also think it's not contentious to say that opposition to illegal immigration, like use of the pejorative term in question, is merely a sign of racism and xenophobia? Speak into the microphone, please; this is the third time I've invite you to address that point on this talkpage alone, and somehow you've managed to stay utterly silent on it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Factchecker, it would be best if this topic focused on analyzing the source.--MarshalN20 | 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am analyzing the source. Explain your comment further? Otherwise it just looks like you're not paying attention. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, no, I don't think opposition to illegal immigration equates to racism and xenophobia. But it doesn't matter what I think anyway. In terms of the actual source itself, I believe the comment should be fine for quoting Barrett's opinion on use of the term (And he doesn't say that, either, for what it's worth). Beyond that, as I say, in the very least it should be fine for clarifying that Barrett really meant immigrant when he said immigrant.Cúchullain /c 00:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please give a straight answer. I didn't ask you whether YOU think it equates to racism and xenophobia. I asked whether you admit that it's a contentious claim to make. That having been admitted (and I don't see how you could deny it), the next question is, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, why would it be acceptable to bend the rules on SPS in order to use questionable, low-quality source material (again, a non-published BLOG COMMENT) to express a highly contentious viewpoint that you can't seem to find good, mainstream sourcing for? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with directly quoting an expert, even from his blog, as long as the statement is attributed specifically to that expert.--MarshalN20 | 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine,* except that the claim is not within his ambit of expertise. Being a lexicographer doesn't make him qualified to judge who is (or is not) "racis" or "xenophob", and one strains to imagine how his lexicographical expertise could possibly allow him to perform some kind of Vulcan mind-meld and identify people who are secretly racist and xenophobic and only oppose illegal immigration for that reason. Clearly, we're talking about his axe-grinding political opinion, which is not rooted in his professional expertise.

• (This is all leaving aside the question of whether WP:SPS actually allows that we can take any forum comment, line of IRC chat, tweet, RSS feed, email message, etc., from someone, call it "self-published" even though it isn't really published at all, and cite to it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as the text is written, can be accessed, and is verifiably the person writing it, then no problem exists with citing it. The source would be primary, which Misplaced Pages does not restrict from using (Misplaced Pages does, however, restrict users from interpreting it). A professional lexicographer's opinion on the use of a term is reliable and is certainly within his "ambit of expertise".

Again, claiming that the source has an "axe-griding political opinion" is your personal conclusion and not appropriate (unless you can reliably cite it). Given the circumstance, the correct step to take would be to directly quote the professional. Example:

• According to , "The term anchor baby] is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia."

In any case, this professional lexicographer's claim is logical because these kind of terms are indeed generally used by racists and xenophobes. Your subtle accusations of political agendas and your actions towards removing this information indicates to me that you may have some sort of conflict of interest over this subject (please read WP:COI). That being said, I will not edit the article or respond to your questions in the talk page as I am simply providing a comment (which is what the person posting this topic asked). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, that is not logical at all. Do not make such interpretations because doing so would be original research. It is not up to you to make connections between the two sentences. It is also funny how you accuse others of making accusations when you yourself make accusations. 71.255.83.250 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ex-Jehovah's Witness Barbara Grizzuti Harrison in JW article

There is a dispute at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Grizzuti over the acceptability of late US author and journalist Barbara Grizzuti Harrison as an additional source for a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly exhibit a dread of demon activity. The statement is contained in her 1978 book, Visions of Glory, which combined a history of Jehovah's Witnesses with a memoir of her time as a member of the religion's headquarters staff and subsequent defection.

User:AuthorityTam has objected to inclusion on the following grounds:

(a) Under the guideline WP:NOTRELIABLE Grizzuti Harrison is a “questionable source”. Her book is a memoir and she was not an objective academic because she was an “unabashedly anti-JW activist”. As a questionable source, she is making a “contentious claim” that disparages “every last adherent” of the religion;
(b) her statement about fear of demons was based on observations made more than 50 years ago;
(c) Her statement about demons is polemic and unencyclopedic because of a metaphorical reference to exorcising personal demons.

I contend:

(a) Grizzuti Harrison was a highly respected author, essayist and journalist whose work has been used by publications including The New York Times, The New Republic, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, Ladies' Home Journal and Mother Jones magazine. She has interviewed Mario Cuomo, Alessandra Mussolini and Barbara Bush among others. She gained wholly complimentary obituaries in the New York Times (which described Visions of Glory as a mix of autobiography and "detailed historical research") and LA Times. Misplaced Pages notes that her background as a JW informed her insights, and she was consequently "often asked to write about movements that were perceived to be cults; she described families affected by the Unification Church and the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, and reported on the U.S. government's deadly standoff with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas." Her book certainly contains criticism of her former religion, but there is no evidence that she was an “anti-JW activist”.
(b) The WP:NOTRELIABLE guideline defines a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." Grizzuti Harrison’s book was published by Simon & Schuster and Robert Hale Ltd. It was praised by the NYT for its depth of her research on Jehovah's Witnesses. Her work was used by newspapers and periodicals that do clearly have a concern for both editorial oversight and fact checking and evidently saw no COI in her status as an ex-JW.
(c) Visions of Glory is cited by sociologist Andrew Holden (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, Routledge, 2002) professor of history and religious studies M. James Penton (Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, University of Toronto Press, 1985), Methodist minister Robert Crompton (Counting the Days to Armageddon: Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Second Presence of Christ, James Clarke & Co, 1996), professor James A. Beverley (Crisis of Allegiance: A Study of Dissent Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, Welch, 1986) and Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence (Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil, Wm Eerdmans, 2004) .

Objections about the currency and accuracy of her observations are invalid. The WP article already cites three RS on the point, and as I point out on the article talk page, a Google search shows widespread discussion online and in print about the continuing JW fixation with demon attacks and harassment. The widespread publication of Grizzuti Harrison’s work in mainstream publications weighs against claims that she was a polemicist.

Her statement on demons is a brief one, but in the face of strident objections by one editor that the claim re JWs and demons is a fiction, her inclusion is helpful, particularly as it also addresses the apparent conflict between what JW publications say about demons and what commentators observe about the actual behaviour of adherents. BlackCab (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me, from reading the paragraph in question, that the statement points to the authors'opinion, not to a fact. As such, expert or not, Grizzuti is reliable enough. In addition, her inclusion or exclusion would not change the text much since two other authors expressed the same opinion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an adequate source for the statement actually being made in the article, which is not "all JW have this dread of demons" but "These three people, named WP:INTEXT, say something about JW and demons". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Empowher.com

Can this be used as a reliable source in the article National Masturbation Day? --SupernovaExplosion 01:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Any reply please? My confusion is due to the fact that I can't see an editorial board here, but on the other hand the site seems to be reputed one with advisory boards and awards in its cap. --SupernovaExplosion 13:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The site seems to have two components: regular articles, where there seems to be a good amount of editorial control and fact checking , but also 'user generated content" which is not scrutinized in the same way. Therefore, decisions on reliability for this source would have to be made on a case by case basis. If the article in question is not simply a user generated post, but an article reviewed by the editorial board, chances are it is reliable--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for link. The article I want to include is written by Stacy Lloyd who is described as "HERWriter". --SupernovaExplosion 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends. What is the exact statement in the article that the source will support? In general, it's fairly clear you know how to use sources, so I'd give you the benefit of the doubt if someone else challenged your usage. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel National News and Yeshiva World News

http://en.wikipedia.org/Yeshiva_World_News http://en.wikipedia.org/Israel_National_News

Are these two news sites considered reliable sources?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel National News is described by RS on its Wiki page as "regarded as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement" It is based in an Israeli West Bank Settlement. On topics relating to Israeli settlements and settlement activity it is clearly not third party(WP:3PARTY).

Yeshiva world news appears to be mainly a news aggregation site catering to the Jewish orthodox community. Perhaps it would be helpful if you indicated the context under consideration. WP:RS states "The reliability of a source depends on 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." Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

YWN is not RS. Forget an editorial board, YWN does not even have any contact address. It does not mention the names of the writers in the articles. I don't see any difference between YWN and an anomynous blog. --SupernovaExplosion 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, their street address is right here. Publishing a street address isn't on the list of what makes a source reliable. Even publishing the authors' names isn't necessary. For example, there are hundreds of government websites that do not name any authors, and almost no corporate websites name the individual writers. These can still be reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I didn't notice the street address. But a news website has different criteria for being regarded as reliable than an established corporation or government. If any fact-checking mechanism is not found, a news website cannot be reliable. --SupernovaExplosion 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the rules are the same for all sources. In fact, merely deciding whether a given website is truly a "news" website or not is sometimes impossible. That's one reason why we don't have special rules for different websites.

"A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (NB that's "a reputation for", not "an easily found link to a page listing the names of people who supposedly do this") is one of the criteria that we consider. It is not strictly necessary for a source to meet this (or any other) criterion, because any given criterion might not be relevant (e.g., if the source is being used to support a claim that Example.com contained a particular bit of material on a given date). A good sign that a periodical will have such a reputation is the ability to find published corrections, like this.

Finally, being reliable isn't like being pregnant: it's not an all-or-nothing condition. YWN is perfectly reliable for certain purposes. One might not choose to use it in the same way that one would use a regional newspaper, but that doesn't mean that it is "not RS" under any circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

IsraelNationalNews is a partisan source, but reliable source. It has a professionally organized editorial board. In sensitive topics, it should be used with attribution due to its biased nature. --SupernovaExplosion 14:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it could be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

IsraelNationalNews is one of the most unreliable news sources in the Middle East. It exists for the purpose of promoting the politics of the Israeli settlers. That's why it was founded and that's why it exists today. Many times information taken from that source has proved to be wrong. These quotations are from five different serious academic studies (sources on request): "considered the mouthpiece of the Gush Emunim Movement--supports the concept of the Greater Land of Israel"; "identified with the religious right"; "a group of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories who were opposed to making peace with Palestinians in those territories launched an ideological competitor called Arutz Sheva" (note that INN is the internet arm of Arutz Sheva); "associated with the right wing of the religious Zionist movement"; "voicing the ideology and interests of the settlers in the occupied territories"; "the settlers' radio station"; "settlers' radio station". The evidence suggests that it can be used as a valid source of the settlers' opinion. Trusting it for general news is not an option. Putting this into perspective, there is no reason to believe INN is more reliable than, say, the official newspaper of the PLO. Nobody even tries to cite the latter; we should apply the same standard to the former. Zero 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Its reliable it have editorial board though it present certain POV it should be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeshiva World News is an outlet internal to a particular community of orthodox Jews and is concerned with that community. I think it can be trusted for uncontroversial news about that community (for example, if it tells us some famous rabbi died, we can cite it). I don't see any reason to treat it as reliable on wider issues. Zero 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

LuLu journals

Could a couple of you guys please give an opinion on Talk:International Journal of Transpersonal Studies? Per the WP:RSN archive link there, LuLu has been questioned. So comments on the journal will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lulu.com clearly mentions in its website that they are self-publishing company, Lulu published books fall under WP:SELFPUB. --SupernovaExplosion 15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

But the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies is published online. Lulu publishes on demand prints only. The publisher of the journal is not Lulu, but International Transpersonal Association. Now whether ITA is a reliable scholarly organization is a matter of debate. But the reliability of this journal has nothing to do with Lulu. --SupernovaExplosion 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So is the journal reliable, given that it is not clear who the peers are? History2007 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A list of the editors and the board is here. I've tried to check a couple, and to me the whole thing looks borderline fishy. Few of the people are particularly notable for academic achievement, and many of the core workers are associated only with close-to-fringe institution. It has a walled garden feel to me. I would at least be reluctant to use this as a source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Would this be considered reliable?

Would this source be considered notable? I'm not familiar with Russian sites and while the site appears to be bigger than your standard and obvious Blogger account, I know that appearances can be misleading. Is anyone familiar with this site at all?

I'm leaning towards not reliable, but I wanted to drop a note just in case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The site name "KinoKritik" (film critic) certainly is a nice domain name, one valuable enough that you'd expect a more notable critic or organization to pick it up. That doesn't seem to be the case.

The question is, is the author of that particular article notable in any way (as in, having his reviews covered in multiple independent reliable sources)? The page you referenced doesn't even seem to mention who authored that review.

The site's "About" page says: Absolutely any reader can become a film critic and take part in the development of the site. That means the site consists of mostly, or totally, user-generated content. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the general feeling that I got off the site, that it wasn't considered a RS.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

www.honestreporting.com

Described as "pro-Israel" by bone fide RS , , it would seem to fail the third party requirement for Reliable Sources ("A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered").

Barbara Matusow writing in the American Journalism review called the organisation a "pro-Israeli pressure group". She went on to say, "Frequently, these so-called media monitors, who say they are only interested in fairness and balance, will seize on a word or a phrase and leave out the context. Take the case of a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial that called both PLO leader Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "pigheaded and destructive." In a communiqué urging readers to complain to the Inquirer, HonestReporting.com omitted the reference to Arafat to make the editorial sound like a one-sided attack on Sharon." .

The source is currently being used on a number of highly contentious articles to justify statements of fact in the wikipedia voice without attribution. E.g Rachel Corrie(citation 1 and 45); Saeb Erekat, a living person; and even on its own page HonestReporting to justify unattributed factual statements in the Wiki voice about a journalist who had criticized the organisation. Dlv999 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

HonestReporting is an activist source and is analogous to WorldNetDaily, MoveOn.org, and the likes. It should not be used in BLPs. --SupernovaExplosion 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the input, do you have an opinion on its wider use as an RS in non BLP articles? Dlv999 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See my post below. --SupernovaExplosion 17:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It can be used a source for its opinions, properly attributed. The specif examples you called out are not problematic- the Saeb Erekat reference is corroborated by 3 additional sources, who say the exact same thing, the Rachael Corrie one has similar claims attributed to the Guardian, etc... The claim that being describes as pro-Israel makes it non independent is a wholly incorrect reading or WP:RS Iric2012 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the site allows articles by anonymous individuals, which put the credibility of the site in grave concern. --SupernovaExplosion 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not more so than newspapers that publish stories with a by-line the reads "by staff reporter" or similar. Which is to say, just about any newspaper.Iric2012 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a valid comparison. "Staff" means employed by the newspaper: the article is thus the newspaper's responsibility and to be evaluated on that basis. Who takes responsibility for the articles on this blog (or group of blogs?), the expertise, the fact-checking, isn't clear (to me). Andrew Dalby 11:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I called it a blog because that's what it looks like to me. If it doesn't meet the definition, for "blog" read "site" in my sentence above.) Andrew Dalby 12:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Its apparently have editorial board so I think it meets WP:RS.In anyway it should be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is "Mind Body Spirit" magazine a reliable source for establishing notability within an esoteric movement?

In Bernie Siegel, an author has added a reference to a table Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012 (published by Mind Body Spirit magazine), presumably to emphasize the importance of this author within the new-age/esoteric community. I have contended that this source is self-evidently not reliable since it ranks relatively unknown figures as being more important than very notable global figures such as The Pope and the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Furthermore I do not think a publisher known for it's WP:FRINGE topics can be considered a reliable source for anything other than their own opinion, and this certainly is not sufficient to establish notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting is

Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked Siegel #25 on their 2012 "List of the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People".

The source supports the Misplaced Pages article statement. The source is reliable to claim that Siegel ranks #25 on the Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012. That is what the editor posting the info would like to focus on. However, the problem is the opinion it implies - the list's ranking gives an opinion about the importance of Siegel. For that, you need to figure out whether the source is a questionable source (wp:QS. Questionable sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties which seems to be the issue. As for questionable sources, questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Questionable sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Do you have an issue along any of these lines? The external link you provided reads: ""Watkins’ Mind Body Spirit magazine (previously Watkins Review) is a quarterly publication by Watkins Books, London’s oldest and largest independent esoteric bookshop, established in 1893." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You have correctly summarized my concen: Use of this particular quotation gives a misleading impression of the importance of this figure. By the standards you have described I belive that MBS Magazine is indeed a questionable source. There is much to question on this single page! My previous attempt to remove this reference was reverted on the basis that the editor believed that MBS was a reliable source for what this particular esoteric movement believes. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Salim, you missed the point. You have suggested that it is a questionable source, apparently on the grounds that too few mainstream Christian officials are mentioned, but if you look at the words Uzma underlined, what you think is irrelevant.

To answer your question: yes, it's reliable for the statement given. No, being mentioned in such a magazine's list is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. For one thing, there's no depth of information there, which means that we'd be unable to write a decent article based on that list. (See WP:WHYN for why we require substantial coverage for notability.) Personally, I'd say that inclusion on a "top 100" list for a specialty magazine like this gets you, oh, two to five percent of the way to notability. But that's really a question for the AFD folks, not for RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)

For those interested. Concerns with lack of Reliable Sources.(olive (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

No, the concerns raised were over significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e notability. The sourcing in the article is also poor at present relying on mostly primary sources or undue mentions (inserting sources that give a one line mention). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable blog?

This is concerning an AfD where a representative for the company is trying to insist that they're notable. In the spirit of "don't bite the newbie", I'm asking here to see if it'd be considered to be notable. The only problem is that it was launched in 2010 and doesn't seem to have reached that "absolute authority" level yet. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• If anyone's curious about the AfD and wants to help with the RS argument, it's here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reid Jackson (entrepreneur). I'm really trying to assume good will, but two of the sources in the article happen to be one press release posted on two different sites...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Google Scholar a reliable source?

An editor at Crime Classification Manual wishes to cite a Google Scholar citation search for the assertion The volume has been cited over 300 times in the scholarly literature. I doubt that Google Scholar is a reliable source, but the editor in question has further claimed that Google Scholar is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source with an active editorial staff and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy . I thought it was a search engine, but apparently they have had dinner with a member of Google Scholar's editorial staff . I do not think this is enough to make GS a reliable source. In passing, I note that the assertion would consitute original research, but my question is about the source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That does smack of original research, although I don't think that it crosses the line. Google Scholar is primarily compiled by automated processes regardless of the size of the staff and their expertise. The numbers are computer generated. Although you will get multiple hits for the same citation, the numbers are a good clue as to relative number of citations made to a given work. As such, in discussions about articles, I would say that it is appropriate to use the Google Scholar numbers for evidence. As to using them in an article for specific counts, I would say that that was inappropriate. However, if Google Scholar shows a high citation rate, a relative statement in an article could appropriately be supported, having nothing to do with editorial staff or fact-checking, but having to do with controlled input procedures and well constructed algorithms. Thus "heavily cited" in the text with Google Scholar as a primary source, since they complied the numbers and that is what is being cited, would, I think, be acceptable in a footnote. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's reliable, if no other source chooses to mention anything like this, then it's probably not WP:DUE and thus should probably be omitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation counts are not everyday bread and butter. I don't see how WP:DUE comes into this. A single source can be objective. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of objectivity. It's a question of whether it's important enough to bother mentioning. If it's not important enough for our sources to mention, then it's not important enough for us to mention, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Using Google Scholar to draw the conclusion of the citation count for a work in "the scholarly literature" is original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think it can be used in that fashion. My experience with Google Scholar shows the search results often includes decidedly non-scholarly results such as popular books and fringe websites, so that the statement is not necessarily true. I also agree with WhatamIdoing that regardless of whether or not it is "reliable", if no secondary source has mentioned the number of Google Scholar citations, it probably is undue to mention it. Yobol (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Search engines, of which Google Scholar is but one, are not reliable sources. Yobol is absolutely correct - it frequently returns sources which are not scholarly, and also frequently returns false positives. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The major problem is a subtle one of undue weight and a sort of implicit synthesis. By making a declaration about the number of times a particular work has been cited, we are implicitly suggesting that the number of citations is somehow particularly noteworthy in the given instance. It's a contextless number—we don't know whether 300 cites in Google Scholar is a lot or a little for a textbook, compared to other similar works. We don't know anything about the quality of the articles or skill of the researchers that cite this work. We don't know, for that matter, if the citations are favorable; in principle a large number of citations could be generated by extensive criticism of a work. Without appropriate secondary sources, we don't know how to interpret the number of citations in any meaningful way, and it's not reasonable to expect our general, non-expert audience to be able to make that interpretation (correctly and meaningfully) themselves. By itself, the number of Google Scholar hits is a bit of useless puffery. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

Just to agree that Google Scholar turns up some really whacky stuff, the antithesis of scholarship. And of course TenOfAllTrades is is absolutely right. There's no context to the number that makes usable. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question most directly, Google Scholar is not even a source, much less a reliable one. It's a search engine. It can lead you to reliable sources. A high number of results using Google Scholar is a good indication that the subject is well covered in reliable sources. But then you have to take the next step of digging in to those sources to see how the subject is treated in them, and to be sure that those sources are truly reliable. It's clear that not all Google Scholar results are reliable academic sources. First Light (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education

I believe that the Chronicle Review, specifically this article is a reliable source. I believe it is particularly reliable, because not only is it an award winning news organization, it is academic. Per WP:MAINSTREAM I consider this somewhat significant. At the very least, I consider it a very good source. On the other hand, it is not straight reporting, but it is in their opinion section as are nearly all the sources for Occupy Wall Street. What do you think of this source?

Background: an editor says using a quote for a generalization is undue WEIGHT to the source. The text is "Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." I contend that because the overall gist of the quote is backed up by numerous other reliable sources and is not contradicted, using this quote to get the generalization is acceptable and not UNDUE. The question being answered in the paragraph is "how have conservatives portrayed Occupy Wall Street?" B——C_ritical 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a perfectly reliable source. And the author is an academic expert. The article can certainly be used as RS. But this is an opinion piece, so the quote should be properly attributed. --SupernovaExplosion 01:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's reliable is going to depend significantly on the exact sentence(s) that you're trying to support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case, answering the question "how have conservatives portrayed Occupy Wall Street?" Is it a good source for that? It's not "supporting" anything else, but as I said it gets general support from other sources although they don't make as good introductory quotes. And, point taken about attribution. B——C_ritical 02:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, after a second review, it is revealed Andrew Hartman is a historian and his specialization is education in the US. He is not a political scientist, so quoting a historian of education (whose opinion is published in an education magazine, not political magazine) for a topic on political science may be challenged. Could you provide the diffs showing disagreement over the use of this source? --SupernovaExplosion 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Diffs would take a while to find, but the only objection was that it was given undue weight. "by making this blanket statement and attributing it to this single source. --Somedifferentstuff" Here B——C_ritical 04:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I will say critical and analytical opinions like this should come from authoritative sources, not from some random academic who has no expertise on this topic. --SupernovaExplosion 04:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SupernovaExplosion, what kind of authoritative sources would exist for such a new movement? Do you have any suggestions on actual sources, or on sources which might be there so they can be looked up? B——C_ritical 08:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I said what is considered the best practice in Misplaced Pages. Even a professional historian is dismissed as unreliable in a particular topic if his specialization area is not that topic. For example a historian specializing in ancient Rome may be unreliable for history of USSR. --SupernovaExplosion 08:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, okay I get it. I think he would rightfully be deemed less reliable if there were a specialty on OWS, but his profession and the book he's writing seem pretty close to expertise- at least as close as political science in my personal book. Anyway, thanks! B——C_ritical 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not classify the Chronicle as "academic;" their focus is academia but that does not mean that they write in an academic style about academic issues with the same rigor as established academic presses. It's a bit more complex because many of their guest writers are academics but as they are often writing outside of their home disciplines their academic credentials do not carry much weight.

The Chronicle Review is a bit different because it's composed entirely of opinion pieces. It has a solid reputation and it's more academic than the main Chronicle publication but it's still not "academic" in the sense of being peer-reviewed. But it often has academic experts writing on topics within their field so it's different compared to the main Chronicle which is almost entirely news written by Chronicle reporters with some op eds by others. ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An historian specializing in education in the US seems to me more appropriate for analyzing OWS than a political scientist, who focuses on politics not the general context. Andrew Hartman is currently writing a book entitled "A War for the Soul Of America: A History of the Culture Wars, From the 1960s to the Present" and my guess is that at least the Chronicle Review thought him an expert appropriate to the subject. B——C_ritical 08:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!. How I used this discussion B——C_ritical 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Published letter to the editor of the New York Times

A published letter (second letter on the page) to the editor of the New York Times by the director of a non-profit organisation, the Central Fund of Israel is being used to justify factual statements about the organisation's activities in the Wiki voice, without attribution. The claims made in the letter have not been corroborated by other RS, which actually give a rather different account of the organisation (I have summarized on the talk page of the article)

Is this a reliable source? Is it being used appropriately in this context? Dlv999 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source only for the views of the organization, i.e., attribution required, respect WP:Undue weight, etc. First Light (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Count / Word Count of Literary Texts from Sources such as Amazon, Publishers, Project Gutenberg.. etc

This is complex matter so I am going to make the first of several inquiries. List of longest novels has been decimated and probably will go up for AfD unless certain sources are deemed reliable. Most of my arguments will be in succession; noting cross references and their publishers of what should be considered non-controversial statements.

Question #1: Specific to Amazon.com

I was under the impression that page counts from Amazon listings (which come from the publisher) are typically allowable sources. In a previous discussion, David Eppstein wrote: "...I think in general corporate material about their own products counts as WP:SELFPUB: useful for non-controversial factual information (how many pages the book has, what year it was published)..." during a discussion about Amazon's product description being a source. The length of certain books on said list have used this and other sources to back their claim. Currently the page does not use 'word count', but assuming a favorable result on page count I'll continue appropriately.

Observation: Les Misérables

A public domain work. Has several different publications. One from Signet Classics has 1488 pages according to Amazon. Can this product description be used to cite its page count on an article? The same material comes from the publisher which is actually no different in its claim on the Penguin Books Signet webpage at 1488 pages. I was told that sources are unreliable despite making no more claim then the length of their publication. Last I checked Penguin is a reputable book publisher and it serves no purpose to give false information about page count. The instance of the product description is devoid of advertising and states other key information about the product such as its publication date as noted by the ISBN and publisher independently as: Signet Classics; Unabridged Version edition (March 3, 1987). This is independently verifiable and touted by other third parties; mostly sellers of such works. Page count is not the same as an advertising claim; its a statement of fact to the physical description of the book; much like the ISBN number is registered to the work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Les Misérables was written in French. The word count of a translation might differ considerably and surely wouldn't be relevant, would it?

Aside from that, the use of amazon.com paginations to extract an estimated word count would be original research and unreliable, while using the raw page numbers to compare lengths of books would often give very misleading results. There are too many variables.

Dates on amazon.com are extremely unreliable for older books. Never, never trust them.

ISBNs are assigned by publishers: they are not independent sources of anything. If other sellers give the same data as amazon.com, that data is probably not independent either but drawn from the same ultimate source. Essentially, no one in the publishing and bookselling business has a strong interest in getting these details right. They often are right, of course, but also often wrong.

I'm really sorry to be so negative. Andrew Dalby 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me just clarify. I do not care about word count. Or arriving at a word count and Amazon has nothing to do with word counts. I am specifically asking about Page Count. I am not sure if with fake product descriptions and matters of law; but I would be hard pressed to find a book with fake page counts. All I want to confirm is that the product description; specifically page count; can be cited. Even directly coming from the publisher on something that doesn't make a claim, but is a reflection of a physical matter shouldn't be so difficult to cite. Anyone who owns a copy of the book can flip through and verify such a simple matter. Might as well dispute that a meter stick measures a meter without having a third party verify and cite a source stating that said meter stick is a meter. Its like stating the file size of an ebook which is measure in Kilobytes needs a third party to confirm its file size when acquiring it has the memory allocation required listed as well, kilobytes. I don't see how page counts are a contentious material requiring an independent third party to make specific reference to 'Yep, the Signet Classic edition is 1488 pages.' Its just silly to me to require a report on a books page count and specifically the books page count and saying how they arrived at said page count independent of the publisher. I doubt I'd find a single source which relates to that matter specifically; and such an unreasonable burden of proof on any date or event (even self-evident ones) on Misplaced Pages would be ludicrous. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, look, I agree that the question this list raises is interesting (which are the longest novels?) but unless it has been surveyed by some publication before us, we can hardly answer it without original research, including research on the definition. Page counts are not reliable for this purpose: you would be answering the question "Which editions of novels have the most pages?" and I doubt whether the answer to that is useful or notable. But I'd be really happy for others to give a view here, and I won't insist further. Andrew Dalby 09:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The list has existed since 2004; it used to list both page counts and word counts of estimations from various sources. Word counts can come later; publishers often list those as well, but not all of them do. All have page counts and if we can't trust the publisher's page count then I doubt this list will ever survive. Page counts are all I am interested in for now, pure and simple. The rest can come later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel - Primary Sources

There is a disagreement of what consitutes a primary source. I contend that the article Bernie_Siegel consists mostly of primary sources since it lists the opinions of different people and sources it to the original persons comment. Two Examples:

1. Literary critic Anatole Broyard, writing in The New York Times, describes him as... is sourced to the statement by Anatole Broyard.

2. In 1988, Siegel's Love, Medicine & Miracles ranked #9 on The New York Times Best Seller list list of hardcover nonfiction books. is sourced to the NYT best seller list.

Both these cases appear to be primary sources as they are in one case an opinion sourced to the individual, and in the other case the creator of the rankings. Is this the correct interpretation? Related: Talk:Bernie_Siegel#New_York_Times_Best-Seller.27s_List Talk:Bernie_Siegel#Primary_and_undue_sourcesIRWolfie- (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No. 1 is a secondary source about Siegel: an opinion from a reliable newspaper, sourced and attributed in-line. That's best practice.

No. 2 is a primary source, but not in any way controversial.

They are both quite OK. Andrew Dalby 20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

For your number 1 it's also a primary source since it's the original source of the opinion, no other source contains it. WP:PRIMARY has it as a note that opinion pieces within a source are primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To some extent, the issue of whether these are primary sources is a red herring. The issue is whether they are reliable sources. I don't see how #2 can be considered an unreliable source. That would be like saying that we can't cite to the Oscars website for evidence that an award or nomination was made. As for #1, an opinion about a writer from a literary critic is perfectly reliable as long as it's not undue or we are omitting other points of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In the situation of an oscars nomination we don't need to. The oscar's website is primary for the claim and we easily can and should augment it with secondary sources. In the linked user talk discussion some have the interpetation that it would only be a primary source if Bernie Siegel published it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you don't want this stuff and are hunting, here and elsewhere, for a reason to exclude it. Could I possibly be right? Andrew Dalby 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind it staying. I don't plan on removing it. I think the article has an over-reliance on primary sources though, and we should be diversifying from that by including more secondary sources to veryify content as well as keeping the primary sources. I'm also not "hunting" anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, you lost me: if Siegel published what? As for the Oscars analogy, it's apt, and I don't think we have to augment it with a "secondary" source. Not that it's all that important for the purpose of this discussion, but you really need to look at the policy reasons behind using primary sources with caution. In some cases, e.g., court records, the material often requires interpretation of the sources (see "Policy" paragraph on WP:PRIMARY). In other cases, WP:BLPPRIMARY becomes an issue. In still other cases, the source we are citing is not deemed reliable (the example of a witness to an accident). I don't see how any of those considerations applies here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that the article completely consists of these primary sources, so it is hard to know where the due weight is. It's hard to get the others on the talk page to recoqnise the issue as they deny that the sources are primary. They also have commented that the only primary sources that could exist would be those written by Bernie Siegel himself. BLPPRIMARY appears to recommend using primary sources to augment secondary sources. My question at this stage isn't one of due weight though, my question is, are the two examples I mentioned primary or not primary (for future reference). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My adding of a primary sources tag is being reverted by someone who contends that the only primary sources in the article would be those which are written by the individual who is the target of the article itself: Talk:Bernie_Siegel#New_York_Times_Best-Seller.27s_List "There can be no better source for the statement that a particular book was on the NY Times' Best-sellers list than the New York Times itself. This is not a "Primary source"; that would be Siegel's own blog saying this. ". The article is a BLP, so I fail to see why WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply which states: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion - nothing wrong with citing to the NYT. The fact that the article is a BLP is irrelevant to this issue. The comment about Siegel's blog actually would relate to WP:BLPSPS. I think you should let this go.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see where mentions from primary sources would be acceptable such as mentioning this list but my question is more broad. My issue is where an article consists entirely of text sourced to primary sources; such as a mention in the lede that the "Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked him #25 on their 2012 list". Have a look at the article, pretty much everything in it is sourced similarly. This seems undesirable to me, and the preference should be for secondary sources to be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a general statement, "the preference should be for secondary sources", especially with BLPs, you are right. But in that case it's probably a matter for BLP discussion, not for this board. Would others agree? Andrew Dalby 09:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad (3rd Generation) source reliability and original research dispute

This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.

The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according the that article nonetheless but that does not discredits my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.

Sources in question

• Source claims LTE is not 4G
• Source mentioning the requirements of 4G which LTE does not fit while quoting from the International Transmission Union which is the organisation that standardised mobile technology and there respective classifications
• Another source stating that LTE is not 4G by referencing requirements standardised by the ITU
• Primary Apple source claiming 4G is LTE by labelling their device as 4G LTE compatible

Disputed article

iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.

Previous discussions

Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page

Disputed text

All references to LTE being 4G in the iPad 3 article, this includes content in the infobox and prose.

YuMaNuMa 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please have a quick look at the top of this page, and follow the instructions, particularly regarding full citations of objects linked or referenced (templates are not required). If you follow the instructions and use bullet points the issue will be easier to follow. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have cleared up my noticeboard request, hope that helps users deciding the reliability of the sources provided and to resolve the contradicting claims. If anyone needs me to clarify anything, please don't hesitate to ask. YuMaNuMa 11:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution