Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:40, 8 March 2015

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.

Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch, for the nth time

Despite the fact that RSN continually finds Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch unreliable for bare statements of controversial fact, at Shaar HaNegev school bus attack we have users re-inserting the claim that "Hamas released a video of the attack, which confirmed the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." So here I am again, asking RSN, "are these sources, which are known for their agendas over their journalism, reliable to state anything like this as fact?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The farthest I think would be allowable with those sources is a statement akin to "Hamas released a video of the attack, which claims to show the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." That sort of wording would be allowable with such sources, I think, since it places it on the source and doesn't state it as fact. Silverseren 01:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your comment more addresses whether or not Hamas is a reliable source, but we also need to consider the likelihood that Arutz Sheva and PMW are not accurately reporting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(@Silver seren:)–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you questioning the reporting on whether Hamas released a video with said claims? Or that the source is misrepresenting the claims in the video being reported on? Silverseren 20:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Either or both. There's a video on Youtube, but these sources are not strong enough to link it to Hamas or report on its content. RSN has found repeatedly that these propaganda organs are not reliable for controversial statements of this kind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them propaganda organs. There's no Israeli government news organ that I know of, or even standards of censorship in Israeli news publications thee days, just a bunch of sensationalist news organisations that regularly engage in yellow journalism and tabloid reporting. I would say that, all except possibly Ha'aretz, are poor quality publications though you can rely on them for many Israel-related non-political local topics like archaeology and new public works projects (I actually don't know of any news source anywhere where you can get neutral political news about Israel). Artuz Sheva/Israel National News though, I would not trust for anything, especially things relating to Palestinians, Arabs, liberals, Tel Aviv, etc. as they are known to hate all these things, and the settlements, where they are the official news source, and understandably feel threatened at times, and write as such (though even if it's understandable, it's no reason to use them). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 10 Adar 5775 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No one ever (as far as I know) have accused PMW of faking a video and the video is similar to many others released by Hamas. The logo is there. The terrible Hebrew scary quote is there. I am not sure about the 'Kornet' statement - What does israelnationalnews bases their analysis on? Though it does look like the picture on 9M133 Kornet page.

Arutz Sheva, which began and persisted as an illegal settler propaganda organ outlawed in Israel, and, when 'legalized', was returned to that status by the Israeli Supreme Court with overturned the Knesset, thrives on reporting extremist claims, such that the Obama administration is penetrated by Muslims,(see also here); that when major Israeli newspapers, relying on direct videos of the abduction, were attributing the Kidnapping and Murder of Abu Khdeir to settler revenge, they persisted in holding out (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182494#.VPXOhps5Dcu implicitly) for the (Arab) pedophile killing rumour. This place customarily gives a hard time for any site like the Jewish liberal-left Mondoweiss, that has excellent reportage, yet is relatively at ease with Arutz Sheva. Consistency in principle would suggest that nothing from Arutz Sheva can be cited as a fact.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Palestinian Media Watch is widely regarded as a reliable source. major news sources including the Chicago Sun-Times the Associated Press, The Telegraph and the Washington Post cite it regularly for it's reliable translation or the Palestinian Arabic-language press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Arutz Sheva is a national news source with a large readership/listenership. It is neither more political not less reliable than Fox New or The Guardian (i.e. not always). It does sensationalize in a Daily Mail, New York Daily News sort of way. The remedy to this is not to brand it as unreliable, but to write "According to Arutz Sheva..." or "According to The Guardian..." taking all news sources with a grain of salt since they all have biases. And striving to source facts to multiple sources. However, we have to recognize that the biases of newspapers show most vividly in the matter of which stories they choose to cover. Sometimes a biased source like Al Jazeera or Russia Times is the only source for a fact. In that case you write "According to..." But you do not, as Rosecaleese is attempting to do here, attempt to disqualify a news source in a country with a feisty, free press simply because you do not like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Arutz 7 articles about Abu Khdeir doesn't include the word 'pedophile' 'gay' or 'homo'. The article about Obama reports of a story on 'Rose El-Youssef'. Ashtul (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If their reports were reliable, much more newspapers and other reliable sources would refer to them. What I mostly see are that some refers to statements others give there etc. and a few other mentions and this is nothing in such a well-covered conflict. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Unreliability of Metacritic

This isn't so much a question but an unusual problem I came across that is relevant to this board so I thought I'd share it. Lately, there has been a flurry of blocking of socks of Jemima West and they were primarily working on an articles called Alisha Heng, Alisha Heng (I), Alisha Evelyn Heng and Alisha Estelle Heng, all of which were deleted because they were created by socks. I was curious to know who this person was so I found a cached version of the last article on Google and the article had plenty of references for acting credits for this 17 year old model/actress. When I checked up on them, Heng was mentioned by the reviewers and sometimes singled out for praise. But when I checked IMDb, it was if she didn't exist. How did this teenager end up in all of these movie reviews from regular film reviewers who review dozens if not hundreds of films for these sites and newspapers?

Later today, I discovered that although she didn't have a fleshed-out IMDb profile, she did have one on Metacritic and I guess it is possible for a user to add themselves to the casts of films. Then, I'm guessing, when these film reviewers went to get details about the movies they were reviewing, they just took it directly from Metacritic without checking to see if it was accurate. So, when she created her bio article on Misplaced Pages, she had all of these movie reviews (from the U.S. and UK) which substantiated her career when, it appears, she has never been in a film.

It just makes me wonder how often this has been done. It actually shows how, because it is consulted regularly, IMDb can have more accurate information than other film sites. If I added myself to the cast of a major film on IMDb, someone would connected to the film or a fan would notice and correct it. But I guess, as long as you credit yourself to a supporting part of a film, on other sites like Metacritic, no one checks to see if the information is accurate. Liz 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic should only be used as a reliable source for the aggregate film review score that it produces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds wise, TRPoD. I searched the archives to see if Metacritic had been discussed as a reliable source and couldn't find much. I thought it was important to get this website manipulation noted in case questions come up in the future. Liz 18:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies

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

Closing this as not reliable source. Every commenter except the filer has expressed this view and offered multiple reasons as to why. Discussion on the source itself has ceased. Closing to prevent further non-discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the following article to provide reasoning as to why people are hesitant to vaccinate in accordance with the US vaccination schedule. The article clearly finds a correlation. Other editors argue that causation needs to be found in order to explain people's hesitation.

Since Vaccine controversies is about the controversy and not the safety of vaccines, I think it is prudent to include the articles commonly referenced by both sides.

Title-Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Author-Miller, Neil Z; Goldman, Gary S Published in Human and Experimental Toxicology30.9 (Sep 2011): 1420-8. Publisher-Sage Publications Abstract-The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year--the most in the world--yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12-14 vaccine doses and those giving 21-23, and 24-26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.Dcrsmama (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dcrsmama's edit pretty much speaks for itself, with its direct comparison of Andrew Wakefield to Galileo.

Dcrsmama received a thorough explanation of the problems with her edits and her insistence on trying to use this particular (low-impact, low-quality, primary, cherry-picked, discussed-previously-on-talk) paper as a source at Talk:Vaccine controversies#Problem of reverting vaccine reformist statements without accurate cause. At this point, we're now into forum-shopping and IDHT territory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What does this particular source have to do with Galileo? TenOfAllTrades, you are being prejudicial to this particular secondary source. The explanations provided are from people claiming ownership of a page making it very biased. The link you provide as an archive for talk was an overwhelming mass of good and bad arguments designed to chase away a viewpoint other than yours. As it is, this is a secondary source from a reputable publishing company. Why should reasoning using this (and other) correlations behind the opposing viewpoint not be explained?Dcrsmama (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Galileo? Nothing whatsoever, along with the entire article subject, which is why your misuse of the article talk page for facile comparisons between Galileo and Wakefield received the response they did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• As already explained at Talk:Vaccine controversies, Miller (PMID 21543527) is a primary study. There are scores of secondary reviews on this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As explained in WP:OR this is a secondary source. The raw data gathered from each country's mortality reports are the primary sources.Dcrsmama (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand WP:OR - the interpretation of the mortality reports as data regarding vaccination is primary research, by any definition whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Dcr, by your interpretation everything would be a secondary source. The source you want to use is clearly not a secondary source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If I had done the work myself and gathered the data and tried to publish it here, then that would be WP:OR. Further, this a peer reviewed journal which is stated as a reference usually allowed.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "I used the following article to provide reasoning as to why people are hesitant to vaccinate". It does not seem to specifically support that unless you have a specific quote from the article which directly verifies that sentence. So what you appear to be doing is original research. More importantly a piece which is primarly a primary source is the wrong source to use when there are secondary sources from higher reliability journals etc. "The raw data gathered from each country's mortality reports are the primary source" No, the raw data is a primary source and the paper is a primary source for the opinions and interpretations of the paper. It goes without saying that a study is a primary source for the study (almost tautologically). A secondary source for the epidemiology study would be a review paper. It goes without saying that epidemiological studies are one of the shakiest forms of evidence and causation can't be taken out from it (personally comparing different nations against each other seems inherently problematic for a variety of reasons which would seem difficult/impossible to control). The journal appears to be a bottom tier journal and shouldn't be used on wikipedia, particularly when better sources are available. Second Quantization (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is indeed a quote about infant death in the wiki article that is directly addressed by the citation. I described original research before. Miller did the research and it was published in Sage Publications, which is indeed a well known and respected publishing house. There is also no evidence that supports the number of vaccinations given to US children is safe. This article clearly calls for more research, which is the crux of the controversy. Again, not an article on vaccine safety..an article on the controversy.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many people have simply cited WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:MEDRS and other sites which I have reviewed thoroughly, in addition to having taken and tutored classes about research. I reviewed these sites just in case there was something different than what is taught in universities about primary, secondary etc sources. It appears to be the same information.
• WP:PSTS states, "A secondary source provides an author's(Miller) own thinking based on primary sources (mortality data)". I see no such corroboration under the primary source bullet. Please state exactly where it states this peer reviewed journal article from a reputable academic publishing company separated from the primary source both by distance and the author's own thinking is a primary source.
• WP:MEDRSstates similar things about primary, and secondary sources. In reference to medications it has an extra stipulation of needing follow-up references to the original article. This article fits into acceptable criteria. It has been referenced no less than nine times in the past four years by follow-up studies. Further, no other study (a few opinion pieces, yes, but no study) has been done to explain the correlation between immunization and infant mortality in first world countries.Dcrsmama (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Miller's paper discusses the research he did into any supposed correlation - census data does not include any such discussion, or even include data on vaccination. That is primary research - there was nothing prior to it, and accordingly it can only be primary, by simple logic. And why, if you have "taken and tutored classes about research" did you state that you "had an assignment to keep up with wiki page for school" on User talk:Alison? Are you still at school, and tutoring classes? Try to be consistent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry AndyTheGrump, you continue to be vague. Where is your wiki quote from the books that are in opposition to what I have stated? To answer your completely irrelevant question; I am a non-traditional older student pursuing a second degree. Last semester was my class on research, which as part of the honors program I tutored other students. This semester I'm taking a class on history of the digital past which had the wiki assignment. Seems completely consistent to me.Dcrsmama (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think we've heard from a number of people explaining why the Miller/Goldman paper is not a suitable source for our vaccine controversies article. At this point, continuing to hammer on about it is just getting disruptive on the part of User:Dcrsmama. This is not a forum to argue the validity of the paper's findings, although authors elsewhere have thoroughly debunked them. Basically, the authors are claiming that Storks Deliver Babies, p=0.008, but with a straight face. MastCell  18:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

With your explanation you are saying a blog is a more reliable source than a peer reviewed journal article. I have continually seen how people disagree with this view of the topic. One person stated that Sage Publishing is not a well respected publishing house as a basis. This is a curiosity since, well it is well respected and used in academia worldwide. Other than that, the general consensus seems to disagree with the content, and the secondary vice primary seems an effort to support personal belifs. As far as the storks go, there are many correlations such as this. However, the stork correlation can be easily explained by population trends and stork nesting habits. No study has been successful in finding another reason for this correlation. People seem to think that causation needs to be proven. In fact, it is correlation that is noted, and you wait until there is a reason for the correlation before moving forward. Snarkiness seems to run rampant here. It really does not add to the conversation. Does it make you feel better?Dcrsmama (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that some blogs are more reliable than some peer-reviewed journal articles. (In fact, a number of peer-reviewed journal articles, even in very reputable outlets like Nature and Science, have collapsed when bloggers pointed out flaws that had eluded detection during the peer-review process). As I said, I'm not going to argue the paper's merits with you; others have already debunked it in what is, to my mind, a conclusive manner. Perhaps you might wish to explore the criticisms next time you study, or tutor, a class on research methodology? As far as snarkiness, I think you're seeing humor being used as a defense mechanism to cope with your relentless flogging of this paper in clear disregard of unanimous feedback that it's inappropriate. MastCell  20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• A primary research study (as opposed to a review article), in a second-third tier journal, by authors who are not qualified/established in the field, making controversial claims in a area where authoritative sources are available is certainly not usable on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So although Miller's work is reviewed by doctors, and he is a notable researcher, You can decide he is not qualified when a group of his peers decided he was? That seems odd. Also, according to your conflict of interest link, All studies funded by pharmacology companies, or funded by the government by congressmen supported by pharmacology lobbyists? Someone is always doing the funding. Dcrsmama (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to add my !vote that this source fails MEDRS, and note that the material in question has been added in conravention to numerous guidlines and policies including WP:NPOV (specifically WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE in addition to MEDRS. The galileio treatment was just icing on the cake of how unsuitable this material is for Misplaced Pages. Yobol (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

umm not pertinent to this article specifically, but okay. As far as WP:Fringe, this is a vaccine controversy page. Not a vaccine safety page. The page as is reads like a CDC guideline and gives no credence to the controversy. But that has nothing to do with this peer reviewed scholarly journal article.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what do you expect to gain for in regard to your studies concerning the "history of the digital past" by devoting so much time and effort to this single paper? As far as I can see, this is the digital present we are arguing in, and history has next to nothing to do with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm new and all, but this is not the forum for personal questions. Dcrsmama (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone specify what and where is the next place to deal with IDHT? I'm unclear on where one finds the arb enforcement page or statements for fringe articles, or what is the next step if the IDHT continues (and the FORUMSHOP is expanding as well). Enough time has been spent on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked for a low level mediation for this a while ago. I agree this is not working. I truly wish I could understand why you all think this is a primary source despite the quotes and evidence otherwise. If I'm understanding your reference to IDHT, you are thinking that facts should not be allowed unless there is a majority consensus. Then why have a controversy page if it is just a mirror pharma marketing and not really presenting the controversy?Dcrsmama (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As this is not a study of people's hesitancy, it is not a suitable source for claims about the reasons for people's hesitancy. It would appear to be at best a study making claims about vaccines themselves, not a study about hesitancy or about controversy. If this study is the reason for people's hesitancy, then we should be pointing to a reliable third-party source that states that it's the reason, not to the study itself. If we say people stopped going to the beach because of the film Jaws, we use as a reference the source that makes that statement, not the film itself. So no, it's not a reliable source for what you claim you want to use it for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That has got to be the clearest explanation yet. So what you are saying is cite a source that says there is controversy over the vaccine schedule because there is a correlation with infant mortality, then cite both sources? Or should I use opinion pieces like most of the other references in the article? Even the journal of medicine piece is an opinion piece. Is this where wiki gets the facts, from opinions, then excludes peer reviewed journal articles because it is WP:OR? It is built by popular opinion of the editors, from opinion pieces, not allowing facts...if this is indeed true....though I hope notDcrsmama (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying cite both sources. References are there to verify the facts that are being stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. If the statement being sourced is that there is a controversy due to correlation with infant mortality, then we cite a source that is discussing the controversy - there is no need to cite the study. Even if the source says that there is a controversy because of this particular study, we might mention this study in the text, but the study itself is not reference for the statement. And I am addressing the specific request for input that you made in your initial posting. If you have concerns about the other sources in the article, you may wish to raise them in a specific post about the specific concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your civility and clarity in explanation.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, in addition to the other problematic conduct, Dcrsmama is now experimenting with WP:CANVASSing: , . Regarding this article, apparently "it is like Pharma is paying people to own that page", and "there are too many people making it an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment was removed for vandalism and irrelevance to this topic. Though, I'm honored you are stalking my comments from other user talk pages; you are proving my point. It would be naive to believe pharmacology marketing does not have wiki editors on their payroll, same as politicians, and many other large companies. Further, much of the behavior demonstrated by many of the people that followed me here from Vaccine controversies (without stating anything new) is textbook psychological marketing. This is not an accusation, but an observation. Dcrsmama (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dcrsmama: Do not WP:REFACTOR others' comments. TenOfAllTrades comment was not vandalism nor a personal attack. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:refactor give permission for removal of 'Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material', which his comment clearly is. It is back now, and I have wasted space and time responding to his, and your message. From here on out all off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material will be removed via the wp:refactor rule. Thank you for the reference.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please respond to this?

Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. Can someone please respond?

Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silverseren 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Silverseren 02:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the website but will make a few observations: First, they describe themselves as a "blog" which is not a strong indicator of reliability. On the other hand, this page lists editorial staff, which is a good sign. I will let others comment on how professional that staff is, and whether they have a good reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is an article by Moign Khawaja on foreignpolicyjournal.com an RS?

The statement "Comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto and the wartime uprising there are not uncommon" was added to Gaza Strip based on this source. (see - added by --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

It's 'About page reads the following "Foreign Policy Journal is an online publication dedicated to providing critical news, analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its purpose is to challenge the narratives and narrow framework for discussion presented by the U.S. mainstream media that serve to manufacture consent for government policy. FPJ offers information and perspectives all too lacking in the public debate on key foreign policy issues." and is owned by Jeremy Hammond, a hacker that was sentenced to 10 years (it may actually makes it more reliable :).

The author himself, Moign Khawaja, write this about himself on his blog.

foreignpolicyjournal.com seems to be a blog which might be RS if the author had credibility but a glance at his portfolio doesn't show any major publications. I will appreciate any input. Ashtul (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Still can't refrain from following me around, huh? It was one of the conditions for suspending your topic ban set by HJMitchell.

What you leave out is that the article is not by Moign Khawaja but by Mark LeVine professor of history at the University of California, and a regional specialist with a command of all of those languages. Moign Khawaja merely introduces the topic.

There is nothing controversial about the analogy. The earliest analogy was made by a Captain in the IDF, who said this;:

In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'(Amir Oren, 'At the gates of Yassergrad,' 25 January, 2002 )Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the earliest example I know. A senior staff officer planning war strategies with regard to the Gaza Strip, imagined the study of Nazi strategy against the Jews of Warsaw's ghetto might provide some hints as to how to fix the Palestinians, That was picked up by Norman Finkelstein, and after that, fed into the news world, and into books. The only positive thing about it was that it made a lot of Arabs look up the history of what the Jews suffered in Warsaw under Nazism. But the responsibility lies with that staff officer.

LeVine doesn't agree with the analogy by the way, but he remarks on its frequency of its use after the 2008 military destruction of Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a legitimate RSN request.

The officer mantions dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw. Not that the siege on Gaza is similar to Warsaw. Ashtul (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1:LeVine)A 1943 photograph of Jews in a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. Israeli forces and Jewish settlers withdrew in 2005, turning the 41 kilometer long strip literally into the world’s largest prison. Around the world people are beginning to compare Israel’s attack on Gaza to the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.' Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(2=Officer)In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month.

You also get the officer wrong. He is not reported as 'dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw.'

He is raising the idea of dealing with Palestinians along the lines of the way Nazis dealt with Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

Please read texts precisely, and do not misconstrue them.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1 LeVine) The question whether the source is RS is viable. Not sure why you write such an essay.

(2 Officer) He speaks about dealing with Palestinian terrorists years before the blockade. Putting his words into the context as you did is WP:OR at best or completely wrong.

Now, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. Ashtul (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant. Mark LeVine is an eminent historian specializing in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what venue he chooses to publish his views in.

The officer does not speak of Palestinian terrorists. The WP:OR was to construe it that way, as you did. Now, I'd be happy to listen to what third parties say, since your misrepresentations of the sources have been clarified.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• "one of the Israeli officers in the territories said..." - is it RS at all?

Moreover, in 2nd, more full your quote one may read: "The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example..." So?

I'd remind you that we're already talking about such "comparisons" and your willing to equate Israel with Nazis. Now you do the same thing (as well as using & reverting Ewawer here) based on such pro-Hamas propaganda "source" netto as Khawaja and on Mark LeVine whose opinion isn't so NPOV. What else are you willing to bring to Wiki?

I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera

But as I've already mentioned, his Al Jazeera's article cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about LeVine's own opinion.

And you by youself have referenced here Philip Seib's book where he not only wrote about LeVine's contradiction to such comparison, but describes its Hamas, Al Jazeera, Assad's, etc. origins :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS

because both they made false use of the source(/s?) mentioned in their articles.
See appropriate :( Nishidani's edit, 16:03, 2 March 2015, based on them ((what is interesting else here that Nishidani uses here the same ITIC, what he so criticized before :):

The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.

• as well as their text : Khawaja:

The Israeli government’s argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a five-month old ceasefire has been challenged by observers and think tanks alike...

Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled “Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report” on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day

• LeVine:

The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged, not just by observers in the know such as Jimmy Carter, the former US president who helped facilitate the truce, but by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report," confirmed that the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".

Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.

Now let's see what ITIC really wrote in its report:

ii) The escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement, November 4 to the time of this writing, December 17 2: On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets. Since then, 191 rockets and 138 mortar shells have been fired...

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• You haven't noticed that I no longer use Khawaja. I use Mark Levine's original article in Al Jazeera. My minimalist use of LeVine is perfectly consonant with the source text, which is, in my view, mostly unreliable but in the view of editors with a different POV wonderful because it sees terrorists everywhere, and disagrees with everyone else about the statistical breakdown of civilians/'terrorists' in the recent Gaza war.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not correct: I have noticed

• (see "I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera...", 5 March 2015 above),

as well as you've used it in other articles

• ("See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here", 5 March 2015)

(::) --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ Huntley, Steve (7 September 2014). "Decimated Hamas makes ludicrous claims". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 3 March 2015. Cite error: The named reference "Huntley" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. Deitch, Ian (3 November 2010). "Israel takes aim at Palestinian 'incitement'". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
3. Deitch, Ian (15 August 2007). "PETA Critiques Hamas TV for Animal Abuse". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
4. "Russia vows to support Palestinian UN membership bid". The Telegraph. 21 September 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
5. Simmons, Jake (27 April 2014). "Palestinians reward terrorists from British aid". The Telegraph. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
6. Pincus, Walter (30 August 2007). "Plan for Terror Screening of Aid Groups Cut Drastically". Washington Post. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
7. ^ Moign Khawaja, Mark LeVine. (January 19, 2009). "Who will save Israel from itself?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2015-03-07. Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report" on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day
8. ^ Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself?,' Al Jazeera 27 December 2009.
9. Seib, Philip (2012). Al Jazeera English: Global News in a Changing World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 153. ISBN 1137015748.
10. "The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement" (PDF). Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). December 2008. Retrieved 2015-03-07.

Rappler

Is Rappler a reliable source? It is presently used to "verify" a partner of the deceased Zulkifli Abdhir. Here is the website being used, and it is being used to verify the name "Zainab Dongon".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. The facebook origin, the focus on "news and action site" , the reliance on social voting for stories all lead to the reputation of a publisher with a focus on clickbait rather than fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring that Rappler.com is made and run by award winning journalist Maria Ressa and is very often cited as a legitimate source of news from the Philippines. It's voting emotion system is no more than a streamlined comment section which is widely used on other websites despite their established credibility. True, the source in question may not be the exact one referring to Zainab Dongon which is http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/83258-marwan-ties-family-global-terrorism which is also linked on the page. In conclusion calling Rappler.com an unreliable source of information is entirely ridiculous when compared to other "reliable" sources that have been used on this site, such as Fox News for instance. Breckham101 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So what if the what if the editor is notable, so is the editor of The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, but that doesn't change it in the eyes of most here as it being a reliable source (which I may disagree with). Also how is it "often cited" what other news sources that are generally considered reliable relying on Rappler like they do say Associated Press or United Press International? Please provide examples.

And just because Fox News is a reliable source, doesn't automatically make Rappler a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not my job to prove that this is a reliable source, it's your job to prove otherwise. You were the one initially making the claim that Rappler.com is an unreliable source based solely off of attention grabbing article names (which tons of other "reliable sources" do much worse than Rappler. i.e. Fox News, again.) and the emotion setting, which I have argued is nothing more than an experimental alternative to the comment section on news articles on sites such as The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and many others. This is, in my opinion, a preferable alternative to the vile idiocy left in news comment sections. Furthermore, Tucker Carlson is a political pundit, who IS NOT notable for actual journalism. Your arguments are invalid. Breckham101 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, in fact it is the other way around. Presently there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source, only a single user says it is. Furthermore, I marked it as not a reliable source not based on "attention grabbing article names", as I have been accused of (please stop), but because it doesn't meet WP:IRS. Therefore, the above statement by Breckham101 holds no weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on WP:IRS, I do think that Rappler, being prima facie a news organization (albeit having only an online presence), can be considered as a reliable source for their news articles. The only reason we Wikipedians can consider a news organization to be unreliable is because the organization is known to consistently fabricate or misrepresent facts, or is widely considered to be part of yellow journalism. I have not seen any discussion here on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere that says Rappler is unreliable. —seav (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it's two against two. As with all ongoing discussions there is not a consensus until such a consensus has actually been reached. Please stop acting as though the opinions of two users can undermine one of the forefront new publications in the Philippines for all of Misplaced Pages. Breckham101 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've used Rappler as a reliable source for things such as WP:DYK. I've gone lazy on creating WP:GAs for a while now (far longer than right after Rappler started), so I don't know if it can be accepted as such on that level, but considering GAs can become DYKs lately, that means de facto it can be accepted. No one has raised questions on using that website as a source on the articles that I've written. The fact that people had accepted it as a reliable source for DYK means it's good to go for most articles which aren't being rated. –HTD 17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of encyclopedia as source for statement that humorism is pseudoscience

• Article: Humorism
• Content and source:

Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.

References

1. Williams, William F. (December 3, 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 1135955298.

Jayaguru-Shishya removed this from the article:

• first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
• then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

I asked for a valid reason to reject the content and source, and JS responded with: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)"

He offered no actual discussion, except to restate that quote from RS... which is no discussion at all. So, here we are. Is the content and source OK? Maybe not, but I am looking for actual, thoughtful input. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Source is not a fringe source, it is a reliable source about fringe topics (very important distinction). Secondary sources can trump tertiary sources, but the high-value that secondary sources holds does not mean that we cannot use tertiary sources. The bit about discussion does not mean that every tertiary source has to be discussed on the talk page before being added, it means that if he can bring in some sources that counter the contested source, we should downplay or avoid the contested source. WP:PSTS also says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog. First of all, I opened the discussion at Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, so I am pretty surprised to hear that I "offered no actual discussion". Second, calling another editor's comment "a bullshit reason" is hardly WP:CIVIL nor constructive, in my opinion. And third, as you already said yourself, WP:TERTIARY goes as follows (emphasis added):

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Did you discuss at the article Talk Page before re-inserting the source? No. Instead, I said that "we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias". This seems to be in line with WP:TERTIARY. I hope this helped to clarify. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Favoring secondary sources is not a reason to remove a tertiary source. It would be a reason to replace it with a secondary source for a specific point, but tertiary sources are better for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Please follow the spirit of the policy instead of just hanging on a single out-of-context portion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ian.thomson. Indeed, I launched the discussion at the article Talk Page, and not until now I got a reasonable answer. I am hoping, though, that user Jytdog will control his emotions better in the future, and restrain himself from calling other users' comments as "bullshit" or such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

i tried to discuss with you JS and all you did was offer nonsense ("source about extraterrestrials") and repeat a quote from RS three times, which is not actual discussion. Which is still all you are doing (now for the 4th and 5th times). I am looking forward to hearing from others, which is why I posted here. If you have something thoughtful to say, I look forward to hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The source is perfectly acceptable for the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the one who inserted it and I thought it was a perfectly acceptable WP:RS too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is no problem with the source. It's not the 'ideal' source, but the fact that modern use of the theory of humours is pseudoscience should be uncontroversial, though I think the statement itself could be rephrased to emphasise that it is the continued use of humour theory that is pseudoscience. The theory was science (i.e. "knowledge") when it was dominant within medicine. Jayaguru-Shishya, User:Jytdog is correct that the mere fact that you quote a passage from WP:RS does not constitute a 'discussion', since the passage does not say encyclopedias cannot be used. If it were a "source about extraterrestrials" you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been some criticism of the source regarding whether the specific content of specific articles is reliable. But, as with most encyclopedias, the reliability of any individual article does not relate to the matter of article selection. It is not necessarily an ideal source, as Paul says, and I can honestly see that, but I haven't seen anything which indicates that there has been any significant question regarding the subjects chosen for inclusion in that source. The exact phrasing of the content might be open to question, but I can't see any good reason to remove any such mention based on that source entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• question - Jayaguru-Shishya this is, right now, a snow close. We have 4 new voices, plus the editor who posted it, plus me, who all think the source is fine for the content (with a small tweak to the content, perhaps). You yourself have not even provided a reason for "no" - just cited a guideline that says a secondary source would be better. In the absence of any actual "no" here, do you see a need to take up more of the community's time with this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy (ISBN 0-8160-3351-X) is an unreliable source that fails WP:MEDRS. It is neither a widely recognised medical textbook nor a scientific review article and its reliability has been seriously questioned by the skeptic community. The Skeptical Inquirer review of the book says that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", " contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." Please refrain from using this source in all medical articles. -A1candidate 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the above editor should read User talk:SandyGeorgia#MEDRS and pseudoscience. The apparent opinion of what may well be more knowledgeable editors about that source is that the above claim is a bit of a logical fallacy. As indicated there, what is being discussed here is whether the subject is a "pseudoscience". That, however, seems to have no bearing on whether it is or is not medically accurate. And as someone familiar with that review, as I said in my last comment above, there is nothing indicating that the subjects selected for inclusion in the encyclopedia are not legitimately included. I rather strongly urge the above editor to perhaps realize that there is in no way a clear and obvious equivalence of the terms "medicine" and "pseudoscience," despite his or her seemingly absolute conviction regarding that point. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Webster's New World Medical Dictionary describes humorism as "definitively demolished" since the 1800s. Dismissing the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as flawed is one thing, but asking for a MEDRS to cite for the statement "humorism is now regarded as pseudoscience" seriously makes as much sense as demanding MEDRSs for similar statements about astrology, alchemy, or the Nine Herbs Charm. Humorism was totally disproven before the 20th century and its absence is a rather distinguishing feature of modern medicine. WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that we do not need a MEDRS to dismiss humorism, but that a MEDRS would be needed to say that humorism is not a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:PARITY supports use of this source in this context. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable The source in question starts by explaining the various difficulties of using the term pseudoscience and, amusingly, invalidates itself, "The word 'pseudoscience' is not itself a scientific term. Insofar as it connotes a rigor it does not in reality possess, one might even call it a pseudoscientific term." Looking at the entries for A, these include atomism, Agassiz, Age of the Earth, antimatter, aphrodisiac and Avebury. As these all seem to be reasonably respectable topics, the source should not be used indiscriminately to tag any such subject as pseudoscience. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The term is difficult and POV-pushers for fringe theories love to endlessly discuss the demarcation problem. Sure there are boundary problems, but red is not blue and the argument becomes idiocy after a while. And there are pseudoscientific aspects to all those topics you just cited. The proposed content clearly limits application of the term to modern proponents of humorism. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement with Jytdog here. The articles linked to by Andrew Davidson bear the same titles as those in the encyclopedia, but it is also true that each of those links is to a topic which is rather broader than humorism. For instance, we all know Avebury exists, and that cannot be said to make it pseudoscientific. the article however deals with the pseudoscientific nature of some of the claims made about it. Humorism however is a much narrower topic, and the EoP article seems to be dealing with, basically, the same topic as our own article, so, on that basis, the claim, reasonable in some other cases, that the similarity of article names does not necessarily indicate the similarity of article subjects does not seem valid here. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Humorism seems quite a wide topic in that such ideas dominated medicine for thousands of years. Even now, the idea that trouble may be caused by such imbalances is still prevalent; we just have a more detailed understanding of the components of which we might have an excess or deficiency - cholesterol, iron, serotonin, vitamins, &c. And our current understanding still seems quite limited in some ways. For example, a recent blood test indicates that my lipid level is higher than the doctor might like. But can she tell me whether I actually have incipient atherosclerosis or not? There doesn't seem to be a good test for this and so uncertain risk factors are used instead. These risk factors seem quite like the broad stereotypes of the humoural sort but instead of being choleric say, you might have a high BMI and type-A personality. Plus ça change... Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OR claim that's akin to saying alchemy isn't necessarily a pseudoscience because gold, silver, and lead are on the periodic table. Your doctor would hopefully be using the risk factors based on previous documented connection, not because of magical stereotypes. Humorism is specifically the belief in blood, phlegm, and black and yellow biles, not other bodily fluids.

Geocentrism and Astrology dominated astronomy for thousands of years as well, but we still describe them as pseudoscience (if not outright superstition). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Radar Online an unreliable source and where is that notated?

I had a Fashion Police edit reverted and the reverter said that Radar Online is not a reliable source. How or where is/was that determined? Is there a list of sites not to use? Wickorama (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• A 2009 discussion of Radar Online here suggests that it can be used, with considerable caution, for pop culture content. A few more recent threads such as here and here assume that it's not a quality source but don't go into details. But with respect to the current Fashion Police edit, you have the added concern about reporting something that's expressly reported as unattributed gossip ("insiders told Radar Online that . . . ") and relates to a living person. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Locals said..." on Ma'an news - RS or not

On Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir the following statement appears "On Thursday evening, Palestinians of Shu'fat reported that four settlers from Pisgat Zeev had attempted to kidnap a 7-year-old local child, Muhammad Ali al-Kiswani, and had fled on being thwarted". The source is Ma'an News which seems to be identified on WP as RS.

The issue with this particular article is that it states "Locals said" which to me seems like a disclaimer of - we didn't verify this story. Basically the equivalent of Misplaced Pages to WP:Attribution but to 'locals' to whom one may believe or not. In other words - not RS.

It contains paragraphs such as "Witnesses told Ma'an" and according to witnesses". But clearly Ma'an wasn't comfortable enough with the quality of information to put they name behind it and say it actually happened. So if Ma'an didn't WP:VERIFY it, the fact they report it as an WP:RS is meaningless and it should be deleted. Ashtul (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ma'an is a RS for what the locals said. The fact that needs to be verified here is, did the locals say that or not? Whether the event actually happened is another question. Ma'an rightly does not claim that it did, and neither does Misplaced Pages. We say that Ma'an, a RS, reported what the locals said. This is the normal way to deal with possibly biased sources. You report what they say and reserve judgment on whether what they say is true. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Margin1522, I respect this opinion but according to this, any source will be reliable to say "locals said...", not just RS such as Ma'an. Ashtul (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How to put it, a reliable source for rumors? But basically, yes. It's not our business to pass along every rumor. I think what the guideline says here is appropriate: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true)." (WP:NEWSORG). In this case, it should be treated a rumor because it was a non-event – nobody was kidnapped, nothing happened, all we have is what the locals said. Whether it should be mentioned is a matter of judgment. How much weight to assign to the fact that rumors were flying, and what that says about the situation at that place and time. Ma'an thought it was important enough to write a story about, so that should carry more weight than a partisan site known for passing along dubious stories and outright falsehoods. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Umm, Ashtul was advised as a condition of his return here that he keep a respectful distance from myself, and yet he persists in going through my edits, one by one, and taking things he questions to various forums, in violation of that condition. Ma'an News, in this case, reports what local Palestinian people say happened. A rumour is something that circulates widely as hearsay: the reports of people who are described as being witnesses in an area to what occurs in that area cannot be dismissed simply as 'rumours'. Almost all reportage from eyewitnesses in news sources, not only for this area, is conflicted. Israeli police reports change by the hour, but we put the first in, and rarely take care to follow up. What Ashtul is challenging is the reliability of (a) the source (b) Palestinians. We simply cannot know, of course, but this is true of a huge amount of reliable mainstream reportage. The answer is not to weed out 'stuff', esp. from one side of the conflict, but simply supply the reader with an attributed and linked source to what is reported, as I have done in a corrective edit now here in response to his worries, and then wait till academic scholarship, as it will, revisits this in book form with meticulous research.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I had no idea you put it in. This have sat there for a few months now. You give me too much credit. Ashtul (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, okay. Let's call it a coincidence. But in any case, I have slightly adjusted the text to meet a part of your complaint, and added a further RSNishidani (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Close? This discussion has rambled ooutside of the purview of this venue. I'm not a regular at RSN, so I'm not going to close it. It seems to me, though, that the discussion ought to be closed here and discussion on wider ranging issues ought to take place as Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. I've created a talk page section at Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir#Suggestion: Move out of "Breaking News" mode. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, it is indeed a coincidence. Your new source states "according to local media", basically pointing back to Ma'an and raising the same question. I think this should be addressed in the policy as this may come back in many other articles, in I/P conflict or elsewhere.

Wtmitchell, what would be the right venue to bring this up? I believe this might fall under "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Misplaced Pages is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." under WP:NEWSORG. Please advise. Ashtul (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, discussion specific to the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir article and relating to improvement of that article ought to take place on the talk page of that article. Such discussion might involve the impact on such articles by details of WP policies such as your "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value ..." quote from WP:IRS. Discussion of the policies themselves, including proposals for changes in the policies and discussion thereof, ought to take place on the talk pages for the relevant policy pages. Also, WP:VPP is an appropriate venue to to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already tried to discuss this subject when Nishidani brought some event as a fact even without such "Locals said" (see en:Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015#NPOV).

I do not think there is a place in Wiki for all of these rumors even "sanctified" by dubious credibility of Ma'an (as well as by any other source). --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm fine with closing it. Ashtul (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Composed of, in political union, within political framework?

• Sources.

1. "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296. Ellis Katz, “Overview of the American Federation” in “Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal Countries”, Majeed, Watts and Brown, eds., 2006, McGill-Queen’s Press,

2. Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined “in political union with the United States of America”. p. 2 State Department 7 FAM 1120 Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions. (2013)

3. Non-state Northern Marianas, like Washington, DC, is “within the political framework of the United States.” (item 27). State Department report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011. .

• Article. Talk:United States#Infobox, “Current composition” error

• Content. The “Current composition” date in the U.S. info box is the admission of Hawaii. I would like a confirmation of my three sources as reliable arguments that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI, Northern Marianas) was admitted as a territory of the United States, — and because it is within the U.S. "political framework” as is DC, as sourced,

The “Current composition” Info box date of the U.S. should be dated from November 3, 1986, the entry of the Northern Marianas (CNMI).

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mail Online

Just wanted to mention one journalist's account of how Mail Online articles are put together . Not sure if any ramifications for WP --Cedders 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Vicious Candy

Is Vicious Candy considered a reliable source, either generally or for birth date/place of a living person? Since the full birthdate and birthplace of Ashley Hinshaw appears in no journalistic cite but only on IMDb, which this appears to copy, I'm not sure and would like other editors' opinions: http://www.viciouscandy.com/happy-birthday-ashley-hinshaw/ . (I had first posted this at WP:IRS, where an editor suggested I post here instead.) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look reliable to me. There are a number of other sites with the same birthday, for example www.famousbirthdays.com. Which doesn't look any more reliable, but at least it's a better name than Vicious Candy. What I would do with either of these or IMDb is put a {{better source}} tag in the footnote, so that someone could replace it if a better source is found. Apparently she's engaged to be married. Journalistic coverage of the wedding might mention her birthdate. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This website seems utterly unreliable to me. It is mostly photos of scantily clad female models, with a few photos of expensive sports cars thrown in. I see no evidence of professional editorial control, or a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. It is just another online clickbait site, as I see it. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen's appraisal of this site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Dead Rock Stars Club

I came across this site being used as reference for the death of the original drummer of the band Umphrey's McGee. I then searched Misplaced Pages and noticed that the same website is being cited in quite a few articles in a similar manner. I searched the RSN archives and found no menton of the site, so I am not sure if has been discussed before. Anyway, the site bills itself as "a list of dead rock musicians and singers, dead people associated with rock and dead people whose music helped influence and create rock (which I feel includes Jazz and Country artists), sorted by the date of their demise. This is a tribute to them." and it seems to be a personal website or database, but I can't find out any more about it. It also seems to be a repository for various links to official artist/band pages as well as other sites including Misplaced Pages. I'm not too sure how accurate the information is because no sources are being cited to support the information provided in individual entries thus making it hard to verify. For example, the entry for Jimi Hendrix links to Jimihendrix.com which is a dead link while the entry for John Lennon links to Misplaced Pages. Finding reliable sources which discuss the deaths of very famous musicians like Hendrix and Lennon is probably not a big deal, but this site looks like it's being used on Misplaced Pages for less famous types like the drummer of Umphrey's McGee. It doesn't seem very reliable to me at all, but I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly. I picked a page from that website at random, and clicked on ten musician's names, to see how the information about the death was referenced. In every case, Misplaced Pages was the reference. Accordingly, I conclude that this is not a reliable source. They base their accuracy to a large extent on linking to Misplaced Pages. It would be unacceptably circular for us to cite them as a reliable source. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking Cullen328. These musicians no longer techincially fall under WP:BLP since they are dead (not recently dead at least in many cases), right? Should the cite just be removed and replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag or should the both the information and the cite be removed? Would the relevant policy be WP:UNSOURCED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CIRCULAR or something else? Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

How can I verify/cite Voris Marker's dates?

So, I've been taking advantage of my new Misplaced Pages/Newspapers.com account to put together an article on Voris (designer). However, I've come across a few sources for her birth/death dates and her husband's dates that I can't verify in other sources. There is this Ancestry page but Ancestry is not considered a reliable source. I then found this site which confirms much of the information on Ancestry.com, with cited sources. There are some issues - Voris is stated to have been born in Baker, Oregon, although the reliable sources say Montana, or "near Billings, Montana" (to be more precise). In 1961, she's being reported as married to Clifford Marker, but other sources claim Clifford was divorced by 1930 (does this mean Voris was his second wife? It would explain how he managed to marry Beryl "secondly" in 1924 per the Boneshadow page, before he is supposed to have married Voris.) This page, with lots of citations, does give a fuller picture of Clifford, but sadly no info on his wife/wives, although it does note he was divorced by 1930.

Please can you advise me whether any of these sources are admissible - I think the last linked page is probably OK for Clifford's dates as it cites a lot of sources and describes the reasoning, etc; but I'm more concerned about getting Voris's dates right as she is the subject of the article. Can I use this for Voris's dates? Or are they all unreliable/inadmissible sources? Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to what Misplaced Pages finds reliable, but in terms of vital records, scholars find contemporary records preferable to secondary or tertiary sources. (This is not Misplaced Pages's usual position.) The marriage license of Clifford H. Marker and Voris Linthacum can be found at familysearch.org (it is Marriage License #7384 issued in the County of Flathead, State of Montana), and states that at the time the license was issued, 25 November 1936, Clifford had been previously married and divorced, and that this was the first marriage for Voris. Voris is said to be 28 and born in Baker City, Oregon. The ceremony took place on 29 November 1936 at Kalispell, Flathead Co., Montana. (For the record, it names Voris' parents as Charles E. Linthacum and Rose née Cunning). I would be inclined to say that the SSDI (the last item you linked) ought to be considered a reliable source for birth and death dates, though further judgement may be needed if it conflicts with other sources. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I must remember this resource. Mabalu (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution