Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 28 July 2010

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Kuri-ousity RS?

Is Kuri-ousity RS? About page with staff listing

Lead editor (Lissa Pattillo) is reviewer for Anime News Network example

Shannon Fay has written for Animefringe and MangaLife - both RS by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#General

Website has been cited by Anime News Network: 1, 2-end of page, 3

I can't tell whether the reviewers are paid or not. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Southern Poverty Law Center Blog Reliability

I wanted to add a sentence to the History section of the article on the SPLC. The sentence I wanted to include is: The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right. The reasons for inclusion being (1) the blog is notable work by the subject (2) the fact that the blog is directed towards a particular political orientation is notable (3) the blog/newsletter used to be called Klanwatch. The source for the title is the blog for the Southern Law Poverty Center http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here ). The discussion has been that media sources refer to the blog simply as Hatewatch and that the blog is not a reliable source for the subtitle see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Include_mention_of_Hatewatch_blog.. Mrdthree (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the SPLC blog http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here ) a reliable source for making the statement: "The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right." ? Mrdthree (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because according to the source you posted, that isn't the title, the title is 'Hatewatch'. It says quite clearly and explicitly: "Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report..." Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. Verbal chat 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its dispute resolution. You are saying the blog is not a reliable source for the statement but I disagree with your assessment. There is little ground to discuss after that, so I am seeking another opinion as is the purpose of the RS board. Mrdthree (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't discern any WP:RS question. Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the second appeal to this board on the SPLC article and there is a third one made to the Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard. On the OR referral he has already stated here that he intends to make yet another referral to this RS Noticeboard. There are no shortage of editors contributing to the SPLC discussion -- all issues can be resolved there. The last two referrals were made less than 24 hours after he initiated the proposal at the SPLC discussion page.

In this case, he misrepresents the issue which is basically one of content. The article already has this sentence, In 1981 the Center began its "Klanwatch" (now "Hatewatch") project to monitor and track the activities of the KKK, which has been expanded to include seven other types of hate organizations." The term "Hatewatch" , rather than Mrdthree's preferred longer name, is the one used overwhelmingly by reliable sources. The issue is primarily one of (1) interpretation (what is the official name of the blog --it is not clear from the single source that is subject to this referral) and (2) weight (does one source outweigh the vast majority). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom, Verbal and I are really the only ones discussing these issues. I would like another opinion. Mrdthree (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is about 48 hours old and your proposal for a vote, which led to this referral, is less than 24 ours old. Actually three other editors have contributed significantly to the section (one of them has even started a new section to propose an alternative) and two others have weighed in to basically say, based on several other POV driven discussions you have started, that there is little point in continuin to respond to you. There is plenty of interest at the SPLC board -- you just need to slow down and take one thing at a time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I summarize your position as being that the blog is not a reliable source for the proposed statement? Mrdthree (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a statement to cla rify.Mrdthree (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As the link dose not work no.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was down for maintenance or something. You can access an archived copy here http://web.archive.org/web/20080822104330/http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ Mrdthree (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again I would point out that as the link is dead you cannot use it to say they maintain a blog called Hatewatch. You might be able to say they used to maintain one, but until they are up and running again that is (at best) all you can say. Especially as this archived page appears to be two years old, hardly up to date. I would say that yes its RS for its title. .Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its back up.Mrdthree (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a WP:RS question, it's more a WP:NOR and WP:NPOV problem. You need reliable secondary sources that discuss this blog

1. to avoid WP:NOR, as you can't insert claims based on your interpretation of primary sources (the website), and,
2. to avoid WP:UNDUE, and to ensure the material is actually notable.

--Jayjg 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify on how its POV or OR. Do you think that I am pushing a point of view by mentioning the text on the blog, or do you think I am doing original research by claiming its a subtitle? Would it be POV/OR to say that it hosts a blog called Hatewatch (formerly Klanwatch) whose motto (headline/subtitle/subheading) is 'Keeping an eye on the radical right' ? Mrdthree (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the SPLC article is sourced to the SPLC website. Does this mean that the article is built on unreliable sources? Mrdthree (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As for relevance, no where in the history of the article is it mentioned that Hatewatch is a blog. It mentions that Hatewatch grew from Klanwatch but it does not mention that Hatewatch is currently a blog hosted by SPLC whose motto/headline/subtitle is "Keeping an eye on the radical right". The motto is important because the mission of Hatewatch is much broader than was the mission of Klanwatch. Hence additional information, provided by the subject is illuminating. Mrdthree (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you produce claims based on your analysis of the website's contents, then it's OR. If secondary sources don't discuss the blog, then it's likely not notable, and therefore discussing it would be WP:UNDUE weight. The way to avoid all this is to find reliable sources discussing the blog, and cite what they say, not your own analysis of the website's contents. Jayjg 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not looking to make an analysis of the website. I am trying to state what is published on teh blog by the subject. I want it to speak for itself. I am open to any fair statement that offers such a description. However what appears to be disputed is which description should be given for the text "Keeping an eye on the radical right" is it a subtitle/subheader or headline? Or do you feel that is something that cannot be resolved without introducing POV? Mrdthree (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please find reliable, secondary sources that discuss the blog. That solves all the issues, and will no doubt put an end to any edit disputes you are having. Jayjg 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your position is unclear to me. You claim it is not a reliable source issue. But then you claim I need a secondary source to discuss the content of a webpage. Misplaced Pages's rule is that primary sources are reliable sources for descriptive statements. To say the SLPC maintains a blog called Hatewatch whose subheading is "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" is a purely descriptive statement that can be supported by a primary source. Identify an interpretive element and you have a case. Is it your position that a primary source is not a reliable source for descriptive statements? Or just not for ones that generate controversy?Mrdthree (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't say what you claim. It says the title is 'Hatewatch'. Your repeated assertion that it is sub-titled "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" is not supported by the source. Dlabtot (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mrdthree is seeking to use the blog itself as a RS for the title/text that the blog itself calls itself. The blog is a reliable source for what the blog says about itself. Mrdthree is correct. The amount of effort going into thwarting Mrdthree's efforts to contribute in compliance with Wiki policy is truly outstanding. So are complaints about any procedural means Mrdthree is using to seek assistance. Arguments against Mrdthree's simple efforts must be pretty weak if complaints about procedure deformities are used as a means to belittle Mrdthree's contributions. Where's the WP:AGF in that? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

It simply doesn't say what he claims it does. Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Use reliable secondary sources that discuss the blog, per the above comments. Jayjg 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. Doesn't he want to put in the article the text on the blog that the blog uses to describe itself? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That all depends on whether the material satisfies the requirements of WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V. Finding reliable secondary sources solves that problem. Jayjg 03:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is veering into WP:LAME but I suppose it is debatable if the "Keeping an Eye on The Radical Right" is really part of the name or is a slogan not meant to be taken as part of the name. It seems far more likely to be cited or discussed as "Hatewatch". For another opinion, this article in the Rocky Mountain News quotes it as according to HateWatch, a non-profit that bills itself as the organization "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right." Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think thats as clear as it gets. The plain english of the SPLC blog speaks for itself: the mission of Hatewatch is 'Keeping an eye on the radical right' and the cited article buttresses this understanding of the mission statement. Criticizing the blog for publishing content that strays from its mission statement is OR. Using general statements about the SPLC to infer the mission of the Hatewatch blog is synthetic. The plain language of the blog and a second source to confirm its meaning should be sufficient to confirm the mission statement of Hatewatch is 'Keeping an Eye on the Radical right'. Mrdthree (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters yet again

Does this edit improve the article in question? WP:RS is the cited rationale behind it. Croctotheface (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So the question is actually whether the Media Matters for America is a reliable source in this case. It's a column by a partisan organization. I don't know much about MMfA, but I'd be wary about using that as a source in this case. Especially the first citation, which claims Chicago Tribune said something. Well, can't you use Chicago Tribune as a source there? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to just cite the source being quoted. My question is basically whether we're better off with the fact tag and no source than with the MM source. It seems like this edit makes the article worse, whereas replacing the MM source with the Tribune or with something else would likely make the article better. Croctotheface (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is a BLP. The material is not directly relevant to the person (heck, there are asides about others who are also living persons which are contentious, and for which MMFA is not a reliable source under the new standards). All of which should be excised, and not just questioned. Contentious claims require especial care in all BLPs. Collect (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the Media Matters post titled 'AP falsely claimed Obama has "delivered no policy speeches" on campaign trail' you will note that AP did no such thing. There was one article by Nedra Pickler which took that point of view. I subscribe to Media Matters and find it generally accurate, but this post is a good example of the point of view being expressed which, while not unfounded, creates a false impression. Associated Press is a cooperative, actually much like Misplaced Pages in that there are many reporters and many viewpoints being expressed and little if any central editorial control. Essentially Media Matters for America is an operation with a strong point of view, and inherently unreliable with respect to the conclusions it draws. I think it can be used to locate the articles and positions it talks about, but as it is a media monitoring operation, the media that it monitors will usually be the better source. Fred Talk 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the fourth sentence of the article, by-lined "by Nedra Pickler The Associated Press", is "He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.", it's odd that you would assert that the the article does not claim that Obama has "delivered no policy speeches". In other news, black is white, up is down, and freedom is slavery. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can look at the article and draw original conclusions with respect to the character of Nedra Pickler. Where is the reliable source that draws those conclusions? Media Matter, as much as I agree with their point of view, is not it. They have a strong obvious bias. Fred Talk 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The alleged bias of sources is not a factor when determining if they are RS. I recommend you look at some of the archived discussions of Media Matters. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously reliable source, particularly in this case. In other news, it's worrying that people are continuing to use BLP to wikilawyer that legitimate criticisms of public figures be removed, as Collect did here. II | (t - c) 22:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously not reliable source, particularly in this case: "He has said that 'he CO2 scare is a red herring'" was sourced to MMfA on astronaut Harrison Schmitt's page. Bad. That should be sourced to the media outlet on which that statement appeared. There is absolutely no reason to cite to MMfA for that. Is MMfA a RS on an astronaut? We need MMfA to prove an astronaut said something? And when you go to the non-RS MMfA source to confirm what he said, you get to see all the MMfA spin that goes with it about how looney the guy supposedly is, in MMfA's opinion. That is not a reliable source. I admit MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources. But MMfA itself a RS? No way. Its web posts often do not even name the names of the authors writing the posts. How reliable can a source be if the source is not even revealed? Does the New York Times publish most things anonymously or with only the author's initials? Of course not. The NYT is a RS. MMfA is not a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In this instance, even directly quoting the Chicago Trib is WP:SYN. You would need a reliable third party that directly addresses Pickler 's claim. Active Banana (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And Media Matter "About us" page : dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. clearly indicates that they have a POV that they are advocating - and should not be used as a WP:RS. Active Banana (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. The point is that we have a neutral POV, not no POV - that means we add both perspectives. MMfA is generally very good at citing its statements. It does good analysis - certainly much better than many of the conservative newspapers that it often effectively rebuts. If we didn't allow MMfA to be used, these conservative newspapers - just because they're printed - would be in many cases unchecked, allowing only one POV. II | (t - c) 00:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to make a joke. How can we trust what you just said since you are "ImperfectlyInformed" whereas I'm "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling" and what I say is legit.  ;) Okay, I feel better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious ImperfectlyInformed. Do you regard the similar but opposing organization Media Research Center as a reliable source? Drrll (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes. That advocacy organizations have points of view does not affect their reliability. If it turns out that MRC (or whatever other organization) issues reports that are untrue, that would affect their reliability. As others have pointed out, if opinion -> unreliable, then we'd have literally no sources left to cite. Everyone has a point of view. Croctotheface (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is just bizarre to me that editors repeat the same rejected arguments ad nauseum, and virtually verbatim, as if they are adding something new to the discussion. We do consider advocacy groups to be reliable sources that can be used with attribution. We have never and will never disallow the use of a source because it has a point of view. Dlabtot (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Steven L. Akins (aka Akins of that Ilk)

The article Akins is about a Scottish and Irish surname. At the beginning of the month, 97.82.45.48 (talk · contribs) / Wyvren (talk · contribs) appeared and replaced the page with a pasted text from his Myspace page of "Clan Akins Association" . The back story is that the concept of the clan originated a couple years ago with Steven L. Akins, who pretends to be the chief. Akins pretends to have a coat of arms, that shows he is a clan chief. He actually petitioned the Lord Lyon (the judge of Scotland's heraldic office) to be recognised as chief but was declined. The writer of this list of clan genealogists notes: "In November 2004 I spoke with the Lyon Clerk and Keeper of Records and was told that Akins is not recognized as Clan Chief by the Lyon Court. His application to the Lyon Court contained fraudulent information". Heraldist and genealogist Sean Murphy, who broke the MacCarthy Mor scandal, has shown Akins has faked wills, and suspects he has faked photographs of heraldic-engraved tombstones ; the only verification of these dubious engravings existence are heavily edited photos submitted to websites (like findagrave.com) by Akins himself (see Talk:Akins#Request_quotation for examples of WP:SYNTH using these photos). One of the stones is that of the man in the faked will. There was actually a story published in a Scottish tabloid about Akins attempting to plant a fake tombstone in Scotland . Murphy also shows that Akins is a plagiarist, in his dubious book on druids (Akins claims to have translated a German copy of an ancient Irish manuscript, which supposedly proves the Nazi's Aryan racial views) A review on amazon.com mentions the plagiarism as well .

Anyway, Wyvren's Myspace page was, for a time, was made of the exact same text as that from content originating from Steve Akin. I encouraged Wyvren, on his talkpage, to add sources throughout the article, and he did! However, in the few sources I've been able to double-check, I've found he constantly adds claims that do not appear in the sources, and cherry-picks what information to include-exclude (ie. that MacLysaght states that in Ulster, those of name are of English and Scottish origin, and that the name itself is derived from the English name; see Talk:Akins#Sources not adding up). I wish I could double-check all the sources he lists, because I have my doubts now. The real issue is Wyvren's illustrated heraldry (Steven Akin's 'chiefly' heraldry). All of it originates from Steven Akins, the only verification of any of it is himself, and the content he has uploaded to, and various websites with host 'family coats of arms'. I don't see any reason to take Akins seriously, or his heraldry. I'm getting fed up 'debating' with Wyvren. I've only go so much 'Wiki-time', I want to get out this article's talkpage, and actually work building other articles. But he keeps putting in information that can't be verified, all under the guise of real sources. Can someone look into this Steven Akins, and give an opinion on whether you think he is reliable for an encyclopaedia? Or whether photo-shopped findagrave photos have any bearing on anything?. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a reliable source issue, it sounds like a fundamental conflict about loads of things at once. Not sure how to handle that best. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of it sounds like primary sources, which are only allowed for straightforward statements about themselves. So a photo of a coat of arms merely shows it "exists", not that it is authorized officially as anyone's coat of arms. &c Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do a search on "house of names" and 'scam' you'll see a lot of criticisms. Commercial sites like House of Names and Celticstudio.com should not be used as sources. I'm busy this morning but will look at this article again later. Findagraves is dubious also. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image sourced from House of Names, explaining why in an edit summary and the talk page. Wyvern simply restored it with no comment, no edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Now he's switched the badge's source to: The Clan Akins: A History of the Clan Akins published by the Clan Akins Society, 1996. Try Googling that, it doesn't even exist outside this article. Every single road leads to Steven L. Akins of Jasper, Alabama . Guess where Wyvren's IP address (97.82.45.48) locates to . That's why part of this is a "reliable sources" issue.

Wyvren doesn't discuss the sweeping changes he makes, he doesn't specifically respond to any comments on sources. He cherry-picks the sources I've been able to double-check, for example removing the Scottish derivation from "Atty", "Arthur". Luckily, O'Laughlin's book is viewable on GoogleBooks: page 3 shows the surname "Aitken" and lists variants "Ekin, Aikens, Aikins, Aicken, Aitken" stating "Families of the name are found in Co. Antrim in the 19th century. Most of the name found in Ireland are of Scottish and English descent, originating in many cases from the English name of Aitken". On page 135 it shows the surname O'Hagan-O'hAodhagain, and lists variants "Hegan, Aiken, O'Hagain, O'Hagane, Fagane", thats it no more about "Aiken". Wyrven's summary of all this is merely to state "In Ireland the surname and its variations are found primarily in Northern Ireland, where it likely arrived during the Plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. However some Irish Aikens claim that their surname is an Anglicisation of the Irish Gaelic surname O'hAodhagain". How many times do I have to show on the talkpage that he 'misquotes' the few sources I can double-check?

The coat of arms illustration relies on a source that apparently shows a particular engraved tombstone in an American cemetery. However the tombstone's engraving does not show what colour the arms are, and it isn't even clear what the heraldic elements are! One photo (dubious since it is uploaded by Akins) shows pheasant-type birds with long necks and tails; no motto is visible . Wyvren refuses to say what the source even says about the tombstone, or how the source describes it! Presumably the source might show how the engraving is notable, and would comment on what sort of authority the engravers had (one stone has the Duke of Argyll's arms, and many of the stones have supporters which are quite special in Britain). But we are left in the dark; and we are left with Steven L. Akins' made up coat of arms and crest badge. The article's heraldry is just another example how he skews sources, they aren't supported.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't normally use self-published works as sources, and I see no reason that this should be an exception. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DVD covers

Can't recall if this has been asked but are DVD (or even video, whatever those are) covers RS for what the film is about?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable as a primary source. But I'm not sure how much useful information that you would get from a DVD cover. You should probably look for better sources, but it's certainly acceptable. BTW, if the film is a work of fiction, you're allowed to cite the film itself for it's plot as long you don't do any interpretive analysis. See WP:FILMPLOT#Plot. (If the film is not a work of fiction, I'm not sure if WP:FILMPLOT#Plot applies.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Often not, particularly with low-budget/cheapo reissue DVDs, martial arts films in particular. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say it is reliable. It may not necessarily be right though. I would use cautiously, especially in the cases Michig cites.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this is where we need more detail. Which film is it? What does the DVD cover say? What content do you want to support using this source? Which article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

At best it's unlikely to be useful, since it won't tell you anything that cannot be found in secondary sources, and you can't do any analysis based on it. Jayjg 01:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thge LAst Battle (Luc Besson) and it says its a p;opst apoclayptic film (which is what I intend to use it as a source for). Its a quick and nasty source for now, whilst I look for sources for otehr mediSlatersteven (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

Slatersteven: How about this source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine, but this is also a more general question as the list of such films is wholey unsoucrced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for plot summaries, you can cite the film itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is interperative. That is to say one person may see a film and think its apocalyptic and another person may see it and disagree (this is what has raised this question, but not about this film). Its what film sto include here List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Covering the race of a victim and her attackers

It seems over on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape we've got a bit of a debate going about mentioning race in an article about a rape. The reference being used is a piece from the LA Times: Sandy Banks, "Finding a deeper lesson in high school gang rape", November 07, 2009. There are two questions:

• Is the column by Sandy Banks sufficiently reliable to be used as a source for the race of the victim and her attackers?
• Given the context of the discussion in the column, is it reasonable to use it to justify including race in the article?

I'm not sure that both are really questions for here, although I believe one is. The discussion is pretty much going in circles now, so any input, in any direction, would be welcome. - Bilby (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

For greater clarity: The story ("Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue") referenced below by Richmondian, who is an "involved editor", as am I, is not about race as an issue in the crime itself, but about race as an issue in the authorities' decisions as to how much security to provide to a given school. The headline is misleading, which is no surprise. I have no information about the reliability of "Colorlines.com" as a source. To the best of my knowledge, there is no WP:RS source that concludes race was a factor in the crime. Bielle (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Are there any other sources to corroborate the races of the victim and her attackers? BTW, the author doesn't really say the racial background of the attackers. Instead, it says "her attackers were described to me by students..." That's a distinction that should not get lost in the article (assuming it should be in the article). Also, for the benefit of those reading this, the author's bio is available here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, it would be WP:UNDUE. Even when I search specifically for it, the sources generally don't mention it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:WEIGHT, race isn't even mentioned until the very end of that source, yet somehow is featured prominently in our article. In the lede, no less. Of course, in order to judge weight, we need to look at all the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion columns in mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for the author's opinion, and should be used with attribution. But they are not generally considered reliable for facts, certainly not in a case where the alleged facts are presented as anonymously sourced hearsay. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• We can find a better source for this statement than an opinion column where the author has to explicitly rely on hearsay from underage sources. Here, San Francisco Chronicle. "P- is the only black suspect named in the case. S- is white, and the other suspects are Latino." --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that one. :) It doesn't mention the race of the victim, though. - Bilby (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would avoid it. If race was not made an issue, there is no particular reason to mention it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The reporter seems to have interviewed witnesses to the rape, as well as having expressed an opinion. So it is typical newspaper reporting of the testimony of witnesses to the event, not hearsay. She says, "In the Richmond gang rape case, I was surprised that so many readers made race the subtext. And they took me to task for not mentioning the race of the victim or her attackers." So there must be an original report by the reporter who wrote the opinion piece which does not mention race. So she, and others made an editorial decision that race was irrelevant, which we can, or not, take as a guide. If there is a fact to be reported it is that many people assume the attack had significant racial elements instead of it being the multicultural event that it was. So, good source, but perhaps not relevant information. Fred Talk 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable sources don't make race was an issue in this case. And in fact the opinion column source was written in part to explain why this reporter concerned didn't think it was a useful factor to talk about when reporting on the attack. Ergo, we shouldn't doing what amounts to synthesis by mentioning something that most reliable sources, one explicitly, have determined to be irrelevant. This is most particularly true in the Lead. --Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources say the race of the victim (LA Times) and the attackers (LA Times and SF Chron). The source also says that numerous people have written in about the racial dimension. Still not enough? See "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue" which came right to the top when I googled. Seems like that's an open-and-shut case: race IS an issue in the case and a simple mention of it is not WP:UNDUE. If there were a section labeled "Racial Dimension" that would be taking things a little bit far. I can also tell you, first hand, that the local papers bend over backwards to conceal the race of attackers. Frequently there will be a crime and the attacker will be described by height, weight, clothing, but not race. Being from the area I can also state that the school has only a handful of female white students, which definitely raises eyebrows when one of those are the victim of a vicious gang rape, hard to imagine that its just random chance that one student was chosen without regard to race. Guys, its ugly, but racism happens. Richmondian (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The opinion column is definitely out for statements of fact like this. It's fine for sourcing the reporter's opinion (in this case, her opinion that she was justified in not making race an issue in the actual news article). Also out, obviously, is a Misplaced Pages editor's personal opinion that it's "hard to imagine" race wasn't an issue. Of course there may be some other sources that do discuss/mention/make a big deal about race; how to deal with that is an editorial decision that should be made at the article at hand. It looks like the discussion is progressing.--Cúchullain /c 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no one said put my opinion in the article. But, my opinion on what is relevant is totally appropriate. Given my proximity to the community it is actually *more* than appropriate. You won't find another editor closer to the subject matter. And indeed, hard not to see the racial dimension...out of all those hundreds of people at the dance, the one Caucasian female was gang-raped.

Now, There are three reliable sources, one titled "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue", that we have. I'm guessing there are many more. Sure, one is an opinion column in a top-level reliable source. That doesn't make it unreliable, as per WP:RS. So, I hope that shuts the "reliable sources" question.

As to the question of "Undue" weight; a simple mention is not undue weight, especially given the obvious concerns of multitudes who wrote to the journalist at the LA Times.

What's more of a problem here is that if this is removed, its a clear-cut violation of WP:CENSOR. This is well-cited material. It is ugly and sad. But wikipedia doesn't censor facts that are ugly and sad. Covering it up does no one any good -- and is against wikipedia's policies. The girl's family may not have realized the racial environment at RHS, and the danger to her, precisely because of censorship like this.

Finally, a parallel. The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case article is an entire article about a rape that didn't happen. The names of the people that didn't do the crime are right there for everyone to see. The race of the non-victim and non-attackers are all stated, in the lead:

"In March 2006 Crystal Gail Mangum, a black student at North Carolina Central University who worked as a stripper, dancer and escort, falsely accused three white Duke University students, members of the Duke Blue Devils men's lacrosse team, of raping her at a party held at the house of two team's captains" Richmondian (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the RS Noticeboard, where we talk about the reliability of sources in context. Your off-topic, tendentious, disruptive and argumentative comment completely ignores the issue of the reliability of sourcing - in this case as well as the Duke lacrosse case. I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting further comments in the same vein. Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Did you miss this?

There are three reliable sources, one titled "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue", that we have. I'm guessing there are many more. Sure, one is an opinion column in a top-level reliable source. That doesn't make it unreliable, as per WP:RS. So, I hope that shuts the "reliable sources" question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs) 2010-07-16 04:24:37 (UTC)

Yes, you are right there are three sources likely reliable for one thing or another. But not for everything. Multiple independent editors here, and on the talkpage of the article have concluded that they do not justify the edit you wish to make. Your post, with its claims of censorship, personal knowledge, obvious truth and wanting to get the word out, are all signs of advocacy of a pet point of view. This board is not the place for that post, and the encyclopedia is not the place for making points not made by reliable sources. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But, the sources DO make the exact claim: the girl was white, the attacking group was multiracial. Its pretty clear to me this board has taken on a political slant when info from the LA Times, which no one has claimed is inaccurate, is considered "unreliable". Richmondian (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One source does make the observation, in the context of saying the information is unimportant and irrelevant. It is a clear example of a misuse of a source. And no, it is not a political bias to say that an opinion column, even one from a well-known newspaper is not a suitable source for information about a living person, most especially when the column makes the opposite point ("I don't believe that explains the attack") from the one you want it to ("race IS an issue"- above) --Slp1 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable secondary source, and this includes staff editorials, discussed or debated race as an issue, then it is appropriate to mention race in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

www.nr.nps.gov

The above website is used extensively in Wikipeidia. It is used in literally hundreds of articles on US buildings to cite the fact that the building is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP) ... it is one of the core citations used by the NRHP project (and in many of their articles it is the only citation given in the article). The website is supposedly the front page of a NRHP database. I say "supposedly" because, unfortunately, it does not work. It may have given access to a database at one time in the past... but if so, it no longer does this. It is essentially an unsupported dead link. So can it be called a reliable source for saying that a specific building is listed by the NRHP? Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the discussion here of help to you?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please continue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#NRIS_website_will_move here (the discussion Wehwalt links to), instead. Yawn...about the repeated attempts to drum up contention... --doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the NRHP Project is aware of the problem, which is good... but that does not answer my initial question... Is the www.nr.nps.gov site reliable or not?

The site is broken (in that the search function no longer works), but it has a link to the current official site, where search does work. I would say it meets the minimum standards of reliability. Ruhrfisch _><>° 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply... so shouldn't we cite the "official site" instead? and shouldn't we go further an cite the actual page that talks about the building? To give an example... for our article on Crane Hill Masonic Lodge... rather than citing the old non-working site... or even the new search page ... shouldn't we require citation to the actual page on the building? Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For years, this has been the oficial site. As the "here" link from Wehwalt will tell you, we're trying to decide how to transition from the old official site to the new official site. It's impossible to link to individual pages on individual properties; your "the actual page on the building" link produces a message of "HTTP Status 404 - /internal/internal.jsp". FYI, the most important part of nr.nps.gov still works — our citations depend on the complete database, which can be downloaded from the Download Center that appears on that page. Finally, the old official site is quite reliable; there's no less reason to trust it than there is to trust factfinder.census.gov for official US Census Bureau data. Linkrot isn't a reason not to trust data from a website — that's why all the style guides require an access date, since information may change from day to day. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the links to actual pages (or at least skipping everything except the final click) can be generated. Here's the link to Crane Hill Masonic Lodge. I explained the link at User talk:Doncram#Querying NRHP Focus, but Doncram and I haven't been on the best of terms lately.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra, sorry I didn't comment specifically about your suggestion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings to use type of specific NPS Focus link instead of linking to the NRIS database. Honestly, in the context of what has seemed like undue negativity and personal tone in your comments about me, and given that you emphasized your own comments were driveby in nature (that you wouldn't watch the page any longer), I thot it was probably best not to respond directly. Sorry if my not commenting caused you further confusion.

But, I wouldn't recommend the specific type of NPS Focus link you suggest, to replace NRIS references generally and in that specific case. NPS Focus links like your example for Crane Hill Masonic Building might serve to document merely the fact of NRHP listing, but cannot serve to document architecture type, acreage of listing, and many other fields that we routinely get from NRIS, which are simply not available at the NPS Focus link. In the List of Masonic buildings article, NRIS (via the Elkman interface) was my source for architecture, year of construction, and other factoids supported by references to NRIS; NPS Focus was not my source and does not provide that info. And the NPS Focus link would surely frustrate readers and editors even more: it is a slow link, and it suggests that NRHP nomination documents and corresponding photosets will be available in PDF files, which is unfortunately false in most cases. In your Crane Hill example, the link gives URLs to click with false promise. Clicking only yields new reports that the files have not been digitized. Even that is false! They are digitized but just not available via the NPS Focus system; I know you know that because you have collected electronic copies. The NPS Focus site is pretty awful, frankly, and linking to it seems to me to be more unfriendly to readers than linking to NRIS. --doncram (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Focus website does list many facts found in the NRIS database. Granted more may appear in the database, but Focus clearly shows architect and year built, as well as listing date and location. Focus even tells you what the site is notable for (in Crane Hill's case, it is "Social History" and "Event"). No, it's not as great as the NRIS database, but as the site says, it will "soon" be taken down. Also, instead of making users search through a database, this performs the search already (thus the slightly longer load time) and puts the user one click away from reading information (if we use reference numbers instead of names). I'm not saying it's better than the NRIS.. just more user-friendly and more updated. Yes, it gives false links to pdfs, but over time they will be uploaded. Right now the site is lacking, but over time, I see these links as the way to go. For all we know the NRIS database could be taken down tomorrow, and we'd be screwed. It's time to look for a long-term solution and update our references. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The search page of the website is not a reliable source for anything, and never was; you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a proper citation. Individual pages on the website are reliable sources for whatever they document. To document something from the site you need to use the individual pages; for example, this and this are reliable sources showing properties that were listed, the NRHP listing numbers, and the date of listings. Jayjg 01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Many featured articles use the {{GR}} series of templates, even though they're rather similar to the link we're discussing. If featured articles permit links to the search page, there's no reason that this link should be in question. The issue with the nr.nps.gov site is that it can't produce links to more direct pages, so this is the only way to use it as a reference. Both MLA and Chicago permit links of this sort when more direct links aren't viable, and if it's good enough for academia, it's good enough for us. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The website actually can produce links to more direct pages, as I showed in my previous comment, and regardless of what MLA and Chicago allow, it doesn't meet our WP:RS requirements. To repeat, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Misplaced Pages's requirements. Jayjg 03:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be an untenable and unrealistic position, Jayjg. Of course we should always require direct links when pat all possible but I'm sure that there are some reliable sources where that is impossible. Saying that a particular database is unreliable or unusable just because it has a shitty interface seems over the top. (I think this a bit analogous to citing books. We don't force people to cite page numbers which, in essence, is telling the reader to "go look it up." I would love for us to require book citations to include page numbers but that's as untenable as your stance.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but GA and FA articles, for the most part, do cite page numbers, and if they don't, they usually have a page range or a chapter cited for easy reference. Blueboar and Jay's concerns have been raised for years now (and I've raised them myself in the past with no satisfactory answer forthcoming) and nothing has been done by the NRHP project to alleviate the problem. It's time for the project to find a better solution. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A proper citation to "hard copy" certainly does include page numbers... and we have a template for situations where they are not given. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I was astonished that someone would claim we don't "require book citations to include page numbers" because it's "untenable". And ElKevbo, the issue here is not that the database search isn't working any more. The webpage was never a proper citation, even when the database search tool was working. To re-iterate, you can't link people to a search box and say "look it up yourself", that's not a citation that complies with Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirements. Jayjg 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is premised on the theory that the entire http://www.nr.nps.gov/ is about to be taken offline. However, that page merely states that the search application on that page will soon be removed. Is there any indication that the NPS is planning to eliminate the "download center" at http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm ? That download center is in fact the place where Elkman and other Misplaced Pages contributors have gone to obtain the complete NRHP list in order to use it as a source -- and that complete database is the basis for verifiability for information used in list-articles and infoboxes (at least for listings old enough to appear in the most recent version of the database). --Orlady (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The nr.nps.gov URL is not working as of this hour, but I think this likely is due to one of the transient technical problems that the NPS website suffers, because http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/index.htm indicates that it is still online. I looked into whether the new "download center" at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html could be cited in lieu of the old download link, but is not much of a "download center", and it does currently not provide access to copies of NRIS. (It only provides access to Google Earth add-ons that have coordinates for NRHP-listed properties.) Regardless of whether I can download the NRIS database right now, it is still true that much of the information about National Register listings that is used in Misplaced Pages was obtained from the 3-13-2009 version of the NRIS database that was downloaded from the NPS website by various different Misplaced Pages contributors. The fact that a source formerly available online is not currently available online does not normally disqualify that source from being cited. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A second issue

Doncram's comments here and at Talk:List of Masonic Buildings raise another (related) issue... from what I understand, a lot of the time when information is cited to the NRHP database, what was actually relied upon was User:Elkman's "Who Has" search tool... which is used as an intermediary to query the NRHP database. This means that the editor adding the citation did not actually look at the NRHP database being cited, but at the results of Elkman's program.

Now, Elkman's program seems to do an accurate job of finding information on the NRHP database, and I would trust it to give accurate results, so I don't have a problem with editors using it as an intermediary program to query the database (despite it being hosted on a personal website) ... but I do have a problem with not including any reference to this intermediary program in the citations. I think some reference to its use should be included per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to NRHP webpages with the information on them. That's simple and actually complies with policy. Here and here are examples of how to do it. Jayjg 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good... but how do you locate the pages that contain the info about a specific building? Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Google the name, and include the "site:www.nps.gov" parameter in the search field. For example, when looking for information on Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, use this search, which turns up three relevant documents, including one that has all the information needed. Jayjg 04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But if the documents aren't online, they don't show up. See this search for "Threefoot Building". Staff. "NPS Focus: Threefoot Building (#79003408)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. using {{NRHP Focus}} is much better for places like this.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the two, I think Dudemanfellabra's option is better... The result of Jay's option does verify that a building is listed on the NRHP, but the information given on that page is limited, and the search does not work for buildings where the documents are not on line. Dudemanfellabra's option takes us to a page that is only one obvious click removed from the actual NRHP database page for the specific building... a page that contains quite a bit of information. Obviously it would be even better if we could link to that actual database page but, since that seems to be impossible given how the database works, this seems the next best thing. I will ask Dudemanfellabra the same question I asked Jay... how does one locate the page for a specific property in your option? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra's method won't yield a citation that complies with WP:V, though, which is the issue (it also produces a ridiculously long citation, but that's an aesthetic issue). The method I've provided gives more than just the fact that the building was listed - it also gives the NRHP number and the date it was listed, at a minimum, and often a great deal more. You can use the same method to search http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com which in the case of the Threefoot Building returns this listing, which also works if the searching the first site doesn't, and has all the necessary information. Jayjg 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking? You just type in the reference number of the NRHP you're looking for and type and optional name parameter (which does nothing to the search btw.. just the link display). Look at the code of my reply.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What if you don't know the NRHP reference number? To illustrate... At List of Masonic buildings we have a large list of buildings (many of them redlinks) that are included because they are on the NRHP... they were cited to the old (now unsupported) nrhp.gov page... we need to update this to the new page (preferably to the "one step away" link you suggest)... but we don't have any info except the name of the building, and the town it is in. So how do we get to that one step away page for each of these buildings? Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the reference number, you can search the database for the name of the listing and find the reference number. Then you can come back to Misplaced Pages to generate the {{NRHP Focus}} link to use as a reference. Alternatively, you can use the method I describe at User talk:Doncram#Querying NRHP Focus to search for the name directly without having to use the search interface. If there is more than one NRHP listing with the same name (i.e Grand Opera House), though, the database will return all of them. After finding the correct listing, that property's reference number is tied to that property and that property alone, so it's a more reliable reference. Still another way to find the reference number would be to use Elkman's tool, mentioned above, and search for the name. This is a roundabout process for the editor to generate the Focus link, but in the end, the reader is one click away from relevant information. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the reference number, you search http://www.nps.gov and http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com by property name. For the Masonic Temple in Fairbanks, for example, the search is this. I've given an example in the article List of Masonic buildings, replacing an improper citation with a proper one. Jayjg 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK...thanks for clarifying. Your method is somewhat hard on editor trying to format the citation, but the result is acceptable to me. And that is the key... Once the citation is formatted, the reader trying to verify the information will be directed to a page that will (with one obvious click) get him directly to the NRHP NPS Focus page on the specific building where the information can be located. I think this is the best we can do. Do others agree?

No, I've explained the proper way of doing it directly above, which gets the reader directly to the page with the information, and is not hard on the editor trying to format the citation. Jayjg 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: While the above discussion is very useful, we have gotten way off track from issue I want to discuss in this sub-section... when and if editors use Elkman's "who is" search tool, shouldn't they be required to note this fact in their citations? Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, these various citations ought to reference the NRIS database itself (with the date the database copy was obtained) -- not a website nor Elkman's tool -- as their source, supplemented by a link to the NRHP Focus page that includes some of the content from the database entry for the property.

Having downloaded the NRIS database and searched it on my own computer, I know that the NRIS database is not searchable online on public NPS websites, but it is (or at least used to be) downloadable from NPS, and can be searched offline using software applications that are compatible with it. What Elkman has done is create a web-based software tool that accurately extracts information from the database. I have confirmed that (for the handful of entries I checked) the output from Elkman's tool matches what I was able to extract from the database on my computer using Microsoft software. I know that other users have done similar validation checking. Whether a contributor used Microsoft software, some other publisher's software, or Elkman's tool to work with the database, it should not be necessary for reference citations to identify the software that was used to extract information from NRIS. However, if the information in an article is derived solely from the NRIS database without supplementation from other sources, the article should explicitly indicate that the database was the source (this is something that the boilerplate citations favored by certain NRHP WikiProject members have not done) and the date of the database should be listed.

An appropriate reference citation would (as displayed in a reference list) be something like: "National Park Service (2009). National Register Information System database, updated March 10, 2009. Obtainable from ." (Note that I don't remember the date of the most recent version of the downloadable database; the date I quote is just a random guess.) --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't give a database search as a citation for the same reason you can't give a google search as a citation: you must reference at least somewhat static content. Databases are inherently dynamic, and for this reason generally unreferenceable. Searching http://www.nps.gov and http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com produces all the required information in a way that complies with WP:V. Jayjg 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not suggesting a link to a database search result, but rather a reference that identifies the source as the NRIS database and lists the date of the database version -- much the way an offline publication would be cited. In this case, however (unlike an offline publication), it could be supplemented by a link to the web address where the database can be downloaded. --Orlady (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A database website and a date is no more a valid citation than saying "www.google.com - searched July 18, 2010". The fact that a database can be downloaded at some later date, when its contents will undoubtedly have changed, is no help at all. I don't understand why, when proper, citeable pages are readily available, as explained above, editors are still trying to salvage this inappropriate source as a citation. Jayjg 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, new editions of the NRIS database are made available very infrequently. The March 2009 version is the latest edition. It's like a specific edition of a book. Many people, me included, have a copy of this book. It is the source used. A new edition of a book may indeed include some different information. We just need to cite the edition used. The "proper, citable pages" are inadequate as providing documentation of much of the information commonly taken from any edition of the NRIS database. They don't provide many fields of info that is available in NRIS; they are not the source used. --doncram (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I don't understand why, when proper, citeable pages are readily available, as explained above, editors are still trying to salvage this inappropriate source as a citation." ... I can guess... While we are focused on List of Masonic buildigns in this specific complaint... there are hundreds of other articles that cite the source. It is the default citation used by the NRHP WikiProject. If we determine that this page is unreliable, the NRHP WikiProject is going to have a lot of work to do fixing all these references. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Returning to this later, I notice that Jayjg actually has a good suggestion for how to find, efficiently, the NRHP's Weekly Announcement announcing NRHP listing for a given place. I notice there's no current suggestion that way in the wp:NRHPhelp resource page for editors, and i will add it. Such weekly announcements are online and findable for recent years, and those are okay sources (and NRHP editors do use those as sources) for articles about recently NRHP-listed places. But for older NRHP listings, the announcements are not online in the same way; they may only be available within PDF files that unfortunately aren't easily searched, such as all the listings for 1966-1978, which are in one big file. All the NRHP announcements are available by year or other date ranges at http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/nrlist.htm. Note, an NRHP listing announcement, on its own, could be misleading, as a place could later have been delisted. The NRIS database includes all updated records for a given place, including someetimes a nomination pending, then the actual listing, then later a delisting for reason coee indicating demolition or otherwise. So looking up in NRIS itself will more assuredly get you the correct information you need, for all but recent listings. Thanks for the tip, Jayjg, and same for efficiently finding "NRHP.COM" mentions, too (but note NRHP.COM has some known systematic errors).

Also about "Databases are inherently dynamic, and for this reason generally unreferenceable", really that does not apply to the NRIS database, e.g. version of 3/13/2009, a fixed database that many people have copies of. New editions have come out once or twice a year, only. This is a stable, fixed database, like an edition of a book, and many editors can perform lookups reliably getting exactly the same results using this database, for any possible search. --doncram (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Doncram, for pointing out the existence of compilations of listings from years past. Your remark that "they may only be available within PDF files that unfortunately aren't easily searched" is true, but an understatement. These are huge graphical PDFs (i.e., scanned images of paper documents) that do not contain the OCR data that is needed to make them searchable. Additionally, the older listings are very cryptic (consisting only of the county name, town name, property name, street address, identification number, and two dates -- one of which is presumably the listing date). I can't imagine very many occasions when someone would want to use one of those files as a source.

Thinking about the theory that "databases are inherently dynamic," I can think of plenty of examples to refute that claim. Nowadays, a lot of data that formerly would have been published in table form on reams of paper is now published in the form of computer-manipulable databases that are stable and referenceable sources of information. Those databases often are made available online, as well as by CD/DVD. One example that is in some ways comparable to the NRIS is the US Census Bureau's use of the "factfinder" website (which is widely cited in Misplaced Pages) to disseminate 2000 Census data (as well as more recent data sets) in a searchable format that allows users to prepare customized reports. The content of those databases is very stable -- it's the user interface that's inherently dynamic. --Orlady (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A third issue

Blueboar has now embarked on an edit campaign to remove the NRIS source from List of Masonic buildings, where it was indubitably the source for about a hundred instances in the article. It is not the source for other information in the article, and stripping it out makes a mess. I find Blueboar's obsession with this source irritating, but wouldn't mind some refinement of the standard footnote. However, his simply removing the source is wp:POINTY, disruptive, and various other pathetic things, IMHO. I've reverted him for now. Would administrators and other editors please consider admonishing him not to do that? --doncram (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had my disagreements with Blueboar in the past, but on this he is in the right and I support his position. Why can't you just fix the refs? Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed citations to www.nr.nps.gov (what Doncram calls the NRIS source) from that article. Based upon the above discussion it seemed that there was consensus that it was not reliable ... but please note that I have only removed the citation, and not the statements the source is being used to support. I am not challenging whether the buildings are on the NRHP; I am challenging the citation for that fact. www.nr.nps.gov might have been fine as a citation in the past... but it is no longer acceptable. As we have been discussing above, the citation points to an obsolete non-working search engine. In short, the citation does not appropriately support the information. As we have discussed above, the citation needs to be replaced. I am willing to leave the information unsourced while we figure out the best alternative for that replacement, but I will not leave the bad citation in place while we look for a good one.

As for disruptive behavior... Doncram says at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, that he relied on User:Elkman's "Who is" search tool for the fact that the buildings are on the NRHP, in other words he is citing a source that he did not use and did not look at. And yet he keeps insisting on citing www.nr.nps.gov for the information. That is both sloppy, lazy research and dishonest. I have attempted to find alternative citations, and each time Doncram simply reverts back to the unacceptable citation. I am tired of his bullshit and unwillingness to accept that he is wrong over this. The truth is... If anyone is being disruptive here it is Doncram, for insisting on a flawed citation when multiple editors (both here and on the article talk page) all say the same thing... the source is not acceptable. At best, he has a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I developed the list-article in response to previous complaints by Blueboar about different matters, including his claims that redlink items should be deleted. My adding footnotes to support the NRHP-listed items resolved that. I also gave plenty of patient advice how to obtain documents towards making better footnotes. Now he wants to delete the footnotes, which has the effect of losing track of which items are supported and which are not. That is no way to develop anything. No matter if you have some complaint about the footnotes to NRIS that could lead to a refinement, you don't simply delete them. --doncram (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the source you added in these footnotes is flawed... it does not directly support the information and thus does not resolve the problem. The simple fact is that www.nr.nps.gov is a flawed source, and must be removed and replaced. This will take time... especially because it means formatting a citation for each building on the list individually instead of using a group citation (to the old, non-functional search page). Because I am not challenging the fact of NRHP listing for these buildings (only the source used to support this fact), I am willing to leave the entries in place and uncited while we add new citations... but I am not willing to keep the flawed source in place while we work on fixing the problem. I would be fully within my rights to make Doncram do all the work per WP:BURDEN... however, I repeat my statement that I am willing to help... if he is willing to meet the rest of us half way and do some of the work himself (he created the mess by adding the flawed source, so he should at least do some of the work to clean it up). As for loosing track of which items need to be supported and which do not... There is a parenthetical note by each building listed that says... "NRHP listed"... those are the buildings we need to replace the citation for. We have not "lost track" of anything. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar's actions are correct in this case. Jayjg 03:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

However, he's replacing one citation that fails WP:V with another one that, although better, still fails WP:V. I've provided information on the correct way to do this above. Jayjg 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incredibly frustrating! As I am getting conflicting advice, I will stop editing the page for now... but from our conversations above, I was under the impression that the citations I was adding do pass WP:V.

OK... lets look at our options and the arguments for and against them. Using the first entry on the list (a Masonic Temple in Fairbanks Alaska)... the choices are:

• www.nr.nps.gov ... this is the old NRIS search engine's front page that was originally cited by Doncram (note that it is cited on several hundred articles written by the NRHP WikiProject). This website is no longer supported and no longer works... and I think most of us are agreed it does not pass WP:V. Even if it worked, it required a reader wanting to verify the information to perform the actual search.
• nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=80004568&natregadvancedsearch=Search.... This is the NPS-Focus search engine's result page targeted specifically for this property (and is similar to the other citations I have been adding). It is one click away from the page I really want to cite (the page with all the relevant information on it)... but unfortunately for some technical reason we can not link to that page (we get error messages when we do). Thus it is as close as we can get to that page. I thought this was reliable, but Jay now seems to think otherwise.
• www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ak/Fairbanks+North+Star/state.html... This points to NRHP.com. I actually tried using this as a source early in the debates between Doncram and myself... Doncram reverted my edit, and informed me (in this talk page thread) that NRHP.com is actually a private website ... I gather (correct me if I have this wrong) that it is a copy of the NRHP database that is hosted on a personal website. Thus, it is not supported by the NRHP, which calls into question its reliability.

So... we have three potential citations... none of which are completely right. So what do we do now? Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the most obvious option! Form a regular reference to the online-available NRHP nomination document for the place. The discussion has been running for a month or two or more, in which I've encouraged you to read and use these. As far as I know, you have not consulted a single NRHP document, and it seems pretty clear you have not consulted it for the Alaska one, where that one is even on-line. For the Alaska one, the online full document is available and can be directly linked in a proper reference showing author, date, title, etc. of the document. Perhaps this shows the poor quality of the NPS Focus link, which defies even a very interested editor from figuring out how to download the actual document that is wanted. --doncram (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, surely you are aware that the vast majority of nomination documents aren't available online. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I have explained that repeatedly. It seems incredibly "sloppy, lazy research and dishonest", however, for an editor to be using the Alaska case as an example, and overstating the size of this issue, when the NRHP nomination documents for that and a good number of others are available as a superior source for most purposes. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

.

• I don't understand why you say that the nr.nps.gov website does not pass WP:V. At least until recently, it was an authoritative place to go to get access to data in the NRIS database (notwithstanding the fact that the search utility on the site often didn't work -- it was still a place to get the information).
• There are two big problems with nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com. First, it is a commercial site that provides access the NRIS database, but is less authoritative than NPS. More significantly, we have found one serious error in the utility used by that site to parse the NRIS data -- acreages listed on that site are off by a factor of 10. Thus, it's a front end to the NRIS data, but an untrustworthy front end.

And one other serious systematic error in the NRHP.COM private site, is that it gives as NRHP-listed on a certain date, places that were demolished or for other reasons were in fact delisted on that date. NRHP.COM is oblivious to listing status information. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The types of property-specific links to NPS Focus that Dudemanfellabra describes under the "Fourth issue" heading (below) are stable links to the NPS Focus site. --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• It has been explained pretty clearly why nr.nps.gov doesn't pass WP:V. When it worked, it was just a front end to a database, so neither citeable nor verifiable. Now it's not even that. That said, the site itself still contains many pages that are citeable and verifiable.
• I was unaware that it is a commercial site; how do we know this for certain?
• The links described below are not "stable links" to anything; they're searches of a database. There's no guarantee that the search will produce the same result, or any result, tomorrow.

Jayjg 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and, in any event, even if the nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com website isn't acceptable, sure this PDF of the Nomination Form is. It's also vastly more informative. Jayjg 00:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jay, The PDF of the nomination form is excellent when there is one ... unfortunately, the vast majority of NRHP buildings do not have their nomination documents scanned... Try http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/01001294.pdf, which should take you to the PDF for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge, the next building on the list, and you will see what I mean. However, the NPS-Focus citations should be stable as I have formatted the link... while it is a search engine result, what is being searched for is the specific NRHP ID number for the building, which is unlikely to change. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, exactly, that NRHP document prepared in 1979 by James Marcotte (as u can see in its Section 11, several pages in), is superior for most descriptive purposes about the Alaska site. As it is a nomination document, however, it documents facts about the site but not the NRHP listing. Note many places are nominated but not listed. To document the fact of NRHP-listing requires, well, a citation to an edition of the NRIS database would probably be best. --doncram (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Since the document also shows the certification of the State Historic Preservation officer that the property is on the register, in this case it's actually the best source to document the fact of NRHP-listing. Jayjg 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not so. The vast majority of those nom forms aren't online, and the ones that are online aren't consistent about providing information such as listing status and listing date. Furthermore, the State Historic Preservation Officer's information may be different from what is recorded by the National Park Service. The NRIS database is an official U.S. government information source (provided by the National Park Service staff who are the official keepers of the National Register) and it is the single best source of information on whether a property was listed on the Register, its date of listing, the name under which it was listed, and similar details. It does suffer from the limitation that it is not updated frequently (the last version of the database is over a year old; NPS Focus also is based on old data), so listing and delisting actions since the date of the last database have to be obtained from other sources.

On the other hand, the mere fact that the NPS changed its website structure, is abandoning the nr.nps.org URL, and has a new "Focus" website interface that formats records as "search results" does not indicate that there is something wrong with the information provided by the NPS.

Verifiability is not about data formats, but rather is about whether or not a person can obtain the cited information in order to check it; the NRIS database information is most emphatically verifiable. --Orlady (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

. In reply to Jayjg (not necessarily in order):

• I am not the right person to try to defend those links to nr.nps.gov because I have a long record of disagreeing with certain NRHP Wikiproject members over their habit of using NRIS as the source for a lot of content. Nevertheless, I can attest that it used to be possible (at least on days when this .gov website was functioning) to use a search form on that website to verify an entry in the NRIS database. The uninitiated might have had a hard time figuring out how to get the information, but sources were (and still are) fully verifiable within the meaning of that term in Misplaced Pages policy.
• We know that the nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com website is a commercial site because it has a .com domain that is registered to American Dreams Inc. in Rockbridge, Ohio; the site sells advertising; and there's a disclaimer in the lower left corner of the home page saying "nationalregisterofhistoricalplaces.com is not affiliated in any way with the U.S. Dept. of Interior, the National Park Service, or the National Register of Historic Places." Moreover (unrelated to its commercial status), serious errors were introduced into the content of some articles (and there was some serious acrimony amongst us) when Wikipedians relied on that site for information when the search function on the official .gov website wasn't working or was cumbersome to work with. (That's a mistake not to be repeated.)
• Those links in Dudemanfellabra's example are indeed structured like search-results links, but since the search term is the property's unique identifier in the NRIS database, they are not really search results. For better or worse, this is the way that the folks who set up the website have structured the user interface. A link like this one will return the same result (exactly one record) every time.
• There are two problems with replacing NRIS references with links to PDFs of the National Register nomination forms.

1. First, as I said to Doncram a few inches above, the vast majority of nomination forms aren't online. When you click on the links on an NPS Focus page, you get a useless page like this one that says "The PDF file for this National Register record has not yet been digitized." That kind of link provides no verification of anything!
2. Second, the information in most of these NRHP list-articles and infoboxes was obtained from the NRIS database entries, not from the original nomination forms. This may include transcription errors introduced in the process of entering the information into the database, and it also includes various listing codes that probably are derived from information that is somewhere on the original form but may be very difficult to find on that form. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to cite the nomination form as the source of information that actually came from the NRIS database. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy hell, a lot of talking has gone on in just the last few minutes here. To respond to several things at once (and I expect an edit conflict), here goes:

• The NPS Focus links generated by Template:NRHP Focus are completely stable. They search the database for a specific number, called a reference number, that is attached to only a single listing. At no time in the future will any other property be given this reference number, so though the format of the link appears to be a search, it is a reliable search in that it will produce the same result every single time.
• http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com is not a reliable source as several have explained above in that it gets many things wrong. Acreage is the main thing I can think of, but as Doncram reveals above, properties sometimes are listed as being placed on the register in a certain year, yet in reality they are actually removed from the register then. An example, from the same result as the Threefoot Building search above is "Dixie Gas Station". This property is shown on nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com as being added to the register in 1987, but as this list article explains, it was actually listed in 1979 and removed in 1987. These errors make the website unreliable.
• Nomination forms (pdfs) are the most reliable source for any site on the NRHP, but in cases where the forms are not online, the most reliable source from this thread I can find are the Focus links.

--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A fly in the ointment?

Something to consider in this... the nomination documents are Primary sources. Primary sources can be used... but with limitations. One of those limitations is that an article should not rely solely on primary sources. I am not sure if I completely agree with that policy when it comes to something like this... but it is the policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with that. NRHP nomination documents usually contain secondary source information about the notablity of the place. They also usually contain primary source info about the condition of a given property as reported by the nomination document preparer, and also other descriptive information that may be primary and should be used with car. But usually the architectural details and condition info is not controversial. There are multiple sources available to prove a place is NRHP-listed, of which NRIS is the best probably. For most NRHP articles there are at least two relevant sources to use: the NRHP nomination document about details of the place, and NRIS about its NRHP listing status. --doncram (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Doncram. The nomination forms themselves are, in essence, research reports regarding the properties, complete with reference lists and bibliographies. These are not primary sources. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A fourth issue

A fourth (and broader) issue related to the NRIS database references is that entries in this database are the sole cited source not only for lists of properties on the National Register, but also for thousands of articles about individual properties. Two random examples are Sevierville Masonic Lodge and Colony Historic District. I don't think that a terse entry in this database is a reliable basis for a freestanding article. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... that is the elephant in the room, isn't it. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Would the desired solution to this be something like that which is found at National Register of Historic Places listings in Lauderdale County, Mississippi? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the NRHP Focus property-specific refs in that article. Those definitely are better than a generic reference to the NRHP website. Unfortunately, though, for most listings NPS Focus has no more information than the terse database entry in NRIS. Indeed, the Focus entries do not even contain some of the details that are available in NRIS. (NPS Focus links are very informative when the property-specific information has been digitized and uploaded to the website, but that has not been done for most properties.)

Congrats on getting that list-article updated to cite NPS Focus. Was that a mammoth task, or have you found a way to automate it? --Orlady (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It didn't take long. Many of the articles on the list already have articles with infoboxes, so I just copied those over. For those that don't, I have most of them stubbed in User:Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox, so I copied the refnum from there. If there's a way to automate the process, though, I'm all ears haha. As to the amount of information in Focus, they give at least the listing date and location, which is basically all that shows on the list page anyway except coordinates. And those can be found from Google Maps if need be (though the NRIS database gives them). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Focus entries do not include several NRIS database items that are typically included in the Misplaced Pages infoboxes. In addition to lat-long coordinates (something that I've gone to the source to verify on several occasions), the omissions include acreages (a particular issue for historic districts), architect name(s), and the often-irrelevant "governing body" entry. --Orlady (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

True, the NRIS database does contain more information than Focus, but the entire point of this thread is that the link to the NRIS database is not satisfactory. Usually people use Elkman's tool or some other way of accessing this database, so as you suggested above, I believe we should link to his tool instead of the generic NRIS database. Btw, at least the architect is shown (in all the ones for Lauderdale County at least).. couldn't find anything about acreage, which I agree is very useful for districts. I'll look into it. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If the content is from the NRIS database, the article should cite the NRIS database (not some other source). As discussed above under "Second issue", this could be done the same way that an offline book is cited (that is, cite the March 2009 version of the NRIS database, which is the source for most everything that is currently referenced to nr.nps.gov). The NPS Focus link should be provided, too, but because some of the information that is included in lists and infoboxes cannot be verified from NPS Focus, it's not a valid stand-alone source. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw, did you know it's possibly to query Elkman's database directly by adding variables to the URL? (i.e. http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php?refnum=89000169 for Beth Israel Cemetery). This could possibly be incorporated into a citation? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought. Elkman's database is not a reliable source (unfortunately), but I suppose it could be treated as being analogous to an archive. Thus, I guess an Elkman link could be incorporated into a reference that also (1) cites the NRIS database as if it were an offline publication and (2) provides a link to the NPS Focus page. --Orlady (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hows this as an example, again for Beth Israel Cemetery:

"This information was obtained through the National Register Information System (NRIS) database (a copy of which is available here for download) and accessed using this search interface. The specific NRIS information for this site can be found here, and a listing in the National Park Service's Focus database can be found here."

-Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

At least partial resolution is needed

I realize that we have not yet reached a full consensus on what to cite (or perhaps the issue is how to cite it)... but are we agreed that simply citing www.nr.nps.gov (the old NRIS search engine's front page) is not acceptable? This is becoming a problem at List of Masonic Buildings, where Doncram continues to use it and continues to insist that it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I am open to some wording expansion or improvement in references to NRIS, but it is not acceptable to remove references to NRIS when NRIS is the source for information. What Blueboar refers to is my use of NRIS to support a factoid about the Crane Hill Masonic Temple which is available in NRIS but is not available in NPS Focus. My reading of this discussion here, as I assert at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, is that there is clearly no consensus against use of reference to NRIS (and which use that URL). Some wording improvement is possible, perhaps, to clarify for certain editors that NRIS's 3/13/2009 version is a specific edition of a database which, like a book, can be consulted to verify the information asserted. --doncram (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... please do not remove the header for this section again. I will consider it vandalism. To get back to the point... As I stated at the article talk page... no one is challenging the reliability of the NRIS itself... what everyone is telling you is that linking to www.nr.nps.gov is an unacceptable citation to the NRIS. What the discussions above are trying to figure out is what is an acceptable way to cite this information. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I agree that it is okay for you to have some discussion about possible wording change for the NRIS reference. However there is no consensus here that removing NRIS as a source, when NRIS is the source, is acceptable. It seems to be consensus here that the NRIS reference should continue to include a link to that URL or a similar URL where the NRIS database can be downloaded. Your repetition that "everyone" is saying something does not make it so.

About the subsection title At least partial resolution is needed i removed that to avoid fragmenting the discussion, which your edits seem aimed to do. There is no urgent need for a "partial resolution". If/when an improved reference to NRIS can be agreed upon, that can be used to refine the NRIS reference in place. However, it is absurd to suggest there is a crisis from the usage of the existing NRIS reference, and removing it would be nonsensical, causing slippage in referencing which facts are supported by what source. This is Referencing 101 basics. It is below the level of discussion that should take place on this editors' noticeboard, to be contending, if you are continuing to do so, that a source should simply be removed because you don't like its formatting in some way, when in fact it is uncontested that it is the source for information in articles. --doncram (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... you continue to engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and it is at the point of being disruptive. Multiple editors have tried to explain that linking to www.nr.nps.gov is NOT an acceptable citation to the NRIS. Even when it worked, it was the front page for a search engine and did not support any information. Yes, the information is somewhere in the NRIS... but it isn't at www.nr.nps.gov. We have to find some other way to cite the information that is in the NRIS. You can add all the language you want to the citation... but as long as it links to www.nr.nps.gov the citation will continue to be flawed. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to force a solution, then. See the article talk page. There is a communication problem, and we're going to fix it. On the talk page, both sides are to present their arguments for why their sources meet RS. I invite the users here (who are familiar with RS), to assist in creating a consensus based on policy compliance once both arguments are up by dissecting said arguments. If RS is not met, obviously, the source cannot be used.

In the meantime, I've requested page protection for the article, and the disputees are not to edit the page prior to resolving this issue. Failure to assent to the conditions for resolution will invalidate the user's position, and any editing of the page by either side prior to resolution will probably lead to a block of some duration. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (note... I made an edit just before I saw this proposal and agreed. If MSJ feels that this edit is against the spirit of my agreement, he may revert it). Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. I've removed the non-citation and enforced the decision of this board. Jayjg 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now it becomes NECESSARY

From an email earlier between the NPS and I: "That database doesn't meet our current computer security requirements, and we have just taken it down." Looks like the problem just got worse.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

Discussion of an improved reference for NRIS database-sourced info in wikipedia continues in discussions at Talk:List of Masonic buildings and at wt:NRHP. I must say that Jayjg's assertion, a few lines above, that he has "removed the non-citation and enforced the decision of this board", as if he is in charge and as if there is a consensus that the NRIS database is non-reliable, is preposterous. He just made a similar assertion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, and i realized the above discussion-ending comment, needs a reply. NRIS is a reliable source: Orlady, me, many other editors can reproduce exactly the same information from it, which is the definition of reliability. The judgment was discussion-ending only because it was horse-do-do, nonsense, given the information provided by what i see as more serious editors contributing here. I have recently noticed that Jayjg was formerly an arbcom arbitrator, or some such position like that. I don't mean the following as a personal attack, but rather as a comment on roles we get to play. Really, Jayjg, you are not in a position of being the one to make a decision and have that be accepted because of your position. You do not have that role, that privilege, now. Flat assertions, ignoring opinions and information provided, don't convince me, or, i think, others, here or elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fulminations and personal comments won't make the webpage comply with WP:V, and the editor leading your mediation has also noted that my statements are correct. Jayjg 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the self-appointed mediator there did make a pretty blanket assertion that any/all of your statements are correct. It was a mistake, mediation-wise, for him to do that. The mediation is now stalled, with the mediator having committed to unreasonable, untenable positions, and having selected none of the proposed wordings for an NRIS reference that would have settled the debate for that one list-article. It looks like a failed mediation. --doncram (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the debate

OK... given the statement from the NPS noted above, and the fact that the NPS has shut down their old www.nr.nps.gov website, I think my initial question has been settled... the www.nr.nps.gov website is not reliable, and must be replaced Misplaced Pages wide.

We seem to have moved on to a more fundamental question... whether WP:V and WP:RS allow us to cite the NRIS database that this website once accessed. We seem to disagree on this issue... Some of us think the NRIS database is reliable ... some of us think it is not. What has been missing in this discussion are policy/guidleine based arguments for and against. So... in the sections below, please outline what Policy/guideline provisions either allow or do not allow the NRIS database. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're asking the wrong question. There's no question that the NRIS database satisfies WP:RS - the problem, is, it doesn't satisfy WP:V. That is, the NRIS and its database are a reliable source regarding properties on the NRHP, but it's not available in a form that can be properly cited for the purposes of verification. Jayjg 02:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are not doubting that NRIS is a reliable source, Jayjg. Your view on that matter has not been made clear previously. As for verifiability, NRIS content is fully verifiable. A lot of the content is accessible on the National Park Service's current "NPS Focus" website -- go to the advanced search page and enter the unique record identifier for a National Register listing action, and you can get a lot of the NRIS record information for the listed property. It's also possible to check groups of records by entering the name of a property, geographic location, property type, and other attributes. Some record information from NRIS is not readily obtainable from that website, but there are lots of copies of the database in circulation -- finding a copy is likely to be easier than finding a library that has a copy of a particular out-of-print book that is cited as a source in a Misplaced Pages article. User:Elkman has made a copy of the NRIS database available online for the benefit of Misplaced Pages contributors, and those of us who have checked it by comparing Elkman's data to our own copies of the NRIS data are satisfied that he has an accurate copy and that his web interface parses the information correctly. Eventually, it is to be hoped that the National Park Service will have a fully functional website. In the meantime, if a user can't find a copy of NRIS and doesn't trust Elkman's version of NRIS, I'm sure that they could verify that the information in an article came from NRIS by sending an e-mail query to the National Park Service. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which reliable, accessible sources host copies of the NRIS database? Has it been published in book form and is now held in public libraries? So I can use a citation like "NRIS printed database, Harvard University Press, 2009, p. 334", and we can all go to the nearest library, get out the book, and read the material on that page? Saying "I've got a copy from March 1, 2010 on my computer" really doesn't comply with WP:V, unless you're willing to let everyone who reads Misplaced Pages go over to your place and peruse the contents of your hard drive. And, frankly, not even then. As for Elkman's copy, that's self-published, so it obviously also doesn't comply. By the way, is Elkman his first name or last name? Or is it his only name? I assume it's not yet another anonymous Misplaced Pages pseudonym, because that would pretty much throw any verifiability right out the door. Also, when did personal correspondence become reliable sources? Jayjg 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Where's the summary? Summary of what? Given the section title, I'd think there'd be a summary of a debate, but if it is about a debate somewhere else, i suggest you try to summarize, within that debate, what has been said. If this refers to discussions at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, I would think a proposed summary should be proposed there.

I am pretty tired of Blueboar opening up new, duplicative discussion sections. There are 60 or more discussion sections so far opened by Blueboar now on this topic. --doncram (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to "Also, when did personal correspondence become reliable sources?" I am not suggesting that personal correspondence with NPS staff is a reliable source. The subject here, if I remember correctly, can be distilled as "How could a user verify that information in Misplaced Pages came from NRIS, now that the National Park Service no longer offers convenient online electronic access to some NRIS information?" My answer was (and is) "I'm sure that they could verify that the information in an article came from NRIS by sending an e-mail query to the National Park Service" -- that's very much like phoning a far-away library to ask a reference librarian to look up a piece of information in a book that happens to be in that library's collection. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another NRHP issue

Is http://www2.elkman.net/ a reliable source under our rules. This has an impact on whether we can use http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/whohas.php (known at the NRHP Project as the "Elkman Interface") to access the data from the NRIS database. Personal websites are not normally considered reliable, but is this an exception? Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source of the information that is being cited in these cases is not elkman.net or nr.nps.gov, nor any other URL or domain name. The source is the National Register Information System (March 13, 2009 version), which is a large, formatted, collection of records that was published in electronic form by the U.S. National Park Service.

NRIS formerly was available for free download from a website owned and operated by the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS also had a search interface on its website that allowed users to extract a fair amount of information from NRIS. The NPS is in the middle of a slow and not-very-functional restructuring of its website (since this is government, it is likely that this situation is largely due to hiring a new low-bid contractor to manage their web content). The website currently does not make NRIS available for download, and the current search interface on the website doesn't provide some information in a particularly good format (but the search interface does work). However, a lot of us still have copies of the downloaded NRIS information. The NPS probably would supply a copy to you today if there was a way that you could supply a blank CD-ROM and they could copy it onto your CD-ROM without violating federal cybersecurity rules, but between the cybersecurity rules, the low-bid contractor, and federal budget limitations, they can't do that right now. The website problems and federal cybersecurity rules have not invalidated the information in NRIS, nor have they made it unavailable, they have merely made it somewhat harder to obtain.

Fortunately, at least one commercial website has a copy of NRIS that is accessible via a reasonably well-functioning (but flawed) online interface, AND a Wikipedian (Elkman) has a copy that is accessible via a well-functioning online interface. Elkman's website is not a source (the source is NRIS -- the National Register Information System), but Elkman's website is an unofficial archive that people can check to verify that a particular information item is in NRIS.

I'm getting rather tired of these allegations that the National Park Service is not a reliable source because they have a dysfunctional website. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The National Park Service is a reliable source. Elkman isn't the National Park Service, and the National Park Service doesn't run or oversee his website. Jayjg 04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous WP:SPS, no editorial oversight. Sorry, fails WP:RS. Jayjg 04:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS does not apply; Elkman's site is not a blog or anything with any editorial or other comment whatsoever by Elkman or anyone else. It provides an interface to its copy of the NRIS database. It's like a Google copy of a scanned book. Read wp:SPS, it's short. NRIS is a reliable source, which Jayjg has conceded elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the publisher is the NPS, Elkman's copy is analogous to a convenience copy of the data. David Underdown (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• David Underdown has it right. Having an explicit link to Elkman's site was discussed at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, but only because Blueboar wanted it and/or a possible link was proposed towards satisfying Blueboar's concerns, in discussion at that one list-article. Elkman's site is not linked from Misplaced Pages mainspace articles anywhere. Seems linking it or not should be discussed there. Also, this is not "another NRHP issue", it is Blueboar opening yet another discussion section, fragmenting and duplicating discussion elsewhere for no good reason. Discussion section count: about 60 and climbing. --doncram (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question... does the Elkman interface give us all the information contained in the NRIS database... or only selected portions of it? Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And as for the number of threads I have opened relating to sourcing in NRHP articles... what do you expect... When editors repeatedly use the same flawed "cut and paste" citation in hundreds of articles, of course it will take a lot of discussion and threads to sort out the problem. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Elkman interface provides a couple of different types of standard query results. I don't think that any one query result provides all of the information that NRIS has about a particular National Register entry or property. However, in essentially all of the instances where Misplaced Pages cites "NRIS" with the URL nr.nps.gov, the information supported by the citation was based on elements that can be found in Elkman's standard queries. (I say "essentially all" only because I believe there are some instances in which information was obtained from some other source, but an active NRHP Wikiproject member visited the article and officiously inserted "NRIS" in place of the source initially cited.) --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Elkman's site is not not a copy of the NRIS database... it compiles information from that database. The information it compiles may well be accurate, but it can not be considered a convenience copy.

Frankly, I am not sure if we have dealt with a situation like this before. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of how relational databases work, and what a database query is. Now it is possible for a badly formed query to return unrelated data, but from everyhting I've seen here I don't think taht fundametnally alters my previous assessment of this as a convenience copy. David Underdown (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think David Underdown's analysis is correct. Elkman has a valid copy of the original database. Because this is a relational database (and not, for example, a large table in ASCII format), the database file is in a format that isn't directly readable -- a user needs to have an appropriate software interface to read the records contained in it. The NPS website used to have an online interface for extracting and reading selected records from the database, but that web interface often wasn't available, and they've taken that interface down. I have been able to read the file on my own computer using Microsoft Office Access (after running some sort of conversion program to transform the data into a format that Access could read); other Wikipedians have also obtained and used their own copies. Elkman has created an online interface that extracts records from the original database. The new NPS Focus website now has a different online interface (and I think it's likely that the database itself has been converted into a newer data format). The NPS Focus interface works a lot more smoothly than the old interface did, although it isn't programmed to display some of the information items that Wikipedians have previously obtained from NRIS and included in articles. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kavkazcenter !

Hi, I know that on Wiki we should also use other sources also from another point of view BUT this is in that case ridiculous. Just read this part of an article.

About a 500 strong Mujahideen unit is fighting in different front lines and Mujahideen reinforcements are on their way to the battle zone.

Report further added, that about 38 American invaders so far have been killed or wounded, with some of enemy tanks have been destroyed, while five Mujahideen embraced martyrdom ::with another four wounded. It is to be mentioned that NATO and US have never confirm Taliban's summary of casualties of the occupation soldiers. The occupation command keeps their ::count of casualties which are several times lower than the numbers reported by the Taliban.

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/06/28/12257.shtml

I am for banning this source forever. It's not another point of view it's a Terrorist site without any connection to the reality. Bullshit - Islamic propaganda.

No, it's not a reliable source, per this previous discussion. Jayjg 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer!

Is there a possibility to ban this source ?

There is an interesting point here. Kavkazcenter is not just one random individual with a website but clearly has a close relationship with jihadist groups, and at least where the Caucasus is concerned (which is the context in which I've come across it), it has been the main outlet for the views of the Chechen guerrillas. As such, it's been widely cited by the media and published authors. If we are to quote it, it would have to be used very carefully in articles, not using it for statements of fact but attributing its claims - for instance, "The pro-Taliban website Kavkazcenter claimed that ..." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would Misplaced Pages care what "the pro-Taliban website Kavkazcenter claimed"? Jayjg 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, but one way to deal with rampant systemic bias on English Misplaced Pages is "don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be more one sided than wikipedians may like, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. They may also be useful as a primary source of information about why the government of that particular country has its opinion on a subject and why it acts the way it does." - Quote per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. But of course like ChrisO said, proceed with caution. Jim101 (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Countering Systemic Bias Noticebard, it's the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. We're here to assess whether sources are reliable, no more, and advice from Wikiprojects has no weight compared to policy. And when did Kavkazcenter become "the official news outlets of a country" anyway? That advice is directed at sources like the Xinhua News Agency. Jayjg 04:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the topic of whether "Misplaced Pages care what the pro-Taliban website says" does not belong on Reliable Sources Noticeboard either, it belongs to the FRINGE notice board and the WP:UNDUE policy. The only useful argument here is whether Kavkazcenter is the official mouth piece of the Taliban, in which no one here had produced any evidence that is either for or against. If Kavkazcenter is the official mouthpiece of the Taliban, then it can be used (under a very limited circumstances and dictated by policy such as WP:FRINGE) as a primary source. If not, then it does not belong on Misplaced Pages in anyway. Jim101 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Kavkaz Center is apparently a pro-Chechen news website. Despite all the purple prose above, an interesting question has been brought up. We don't overlook the official news outlets of a country, but how does this apply to stateless nations? But a more important question to ask, how notable is their opinion on events outside the Caucasus? But anyway, it looks like the article being discussed is Battle for Height 776, about a battle in Chechnya. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review the meaning of purple prose. Jayjg 03:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet casualties, WWII

Several sources are being put forward to support casualty numbers for various WWII Eastern front battles.

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html

http://9may.ru/04.02.1943/inform/m3913

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/rotmistrov2/04.html

http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2119&Itemid=29

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/vgk/1.html (Primary source?)

http://www.tankobzor.org/glava7part2.html

http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://9may.ru/19.02.1944/inform/m4596

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#5

http://9may.ru/15.04.1945/inform/m4233

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1945.html#14

http://9may.ru/30.11.1944/inform/m2804

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#49

http://www.novoemnenie.ru/rassl/14p.html

http://goga-hidoyatov.narod.ru/soderj.html

http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://kursk-battle.narod.ru/

http://otvoyna.ru/kursk.htm

http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-1-132

http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/03.html

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943

http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-kursk

http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html

http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/

http://duel.ru/200829/?29_6_1

http://war1960.narod.ru/sww/toropez.html

I apologise for the number, but they have all been insisted as reliable by an editor, who won't accept that the burden is on him to show their reliability. Krivosheev, Glantz, Frieser, Zetterling et. al. are already in use mainly on the larger articles involved, and have been accepted by consensus.

The articles in question are Battle of Kursk-(Primary), as well as Battle of Prokhorovka, Battle of Stalingrad, Baltic Offensive (1944), Battle of Moscow, Barvinkove-Losowaja Operation, Operation Iskra, Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, German Holocaust crimes against Soviet Jews, German war crimes against Soviet civilians, Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive, Barvinkove-Losowaja Operation, Budapest Offensive, Toropets–Kholm Offensive

For space reasons, I am not adding all of the exact quotes to be supported, but they are all casualty figures, many of them Soviet estimates of German casualties, usually a single sentence in the main body or infobox.

Main discussion: Talk:Battle of Kursk#Casualty figure sources. A diff would be over 100KB.

(Hohum ) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, since most of us don't know Russian, and there's so many of them, they will have to be able to explain why those sources are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition: many of them are wartime figures. Blablaaa (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Example Battle of Kursk: Frieser Glantz Zetterling all agree on ~50000 german casualties including ~10000 dead for Zitadelle. The other sources claim 70.000 german dead thus they are 7!!! times higher than the established figures by most recent historians. This example fits for nearly every battle and all this webpages.Blablaaa (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

General Comment: in light of the fact that those articles/topics are examined in detail by large number of scholars with numerous published studies, why do we have to chose these above sources? Using websites instead of books on important historical events is a huge recentism bias. Even if the casualty figure are very new and didn't have the time to make it into a history book, I would at least expect a published paper from a peered reviewed journal. Jim101 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

one editor wants to include them because we "cant trust german/western sources". The articles already have the best avaiable books. Blablaaa (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Although "we cant trust German/western sources" is a valid systematic bias concern, that does not mean we have lower the source standards. Surely there are Russian books published by Russian professors that contain the same content from those above websites. Jim101 (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlikly. If you write a book and claim 500000 german casualties at Kursk then your career as historian is over and your books move to the fantasy section in the stores.Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the possible systematic bias. Actually Glantz is a pro soviet historian, if you watch the article you will see that Glantz is already the russian "voice". Nevertheless he supports the same numbers. You also should note that the pages are used for citing numbers. If we watch all articles we see the simple and good rule, archives of party X for casualties of X . The sites do the opposite "estimations" of party Y for casualties of X. Blablaaa (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Anyway, even if an editor want to include a certain number, they still need to cite a (good) history book. And only after that can we even begin to discuss the matter of bias. Jim101 (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Jim101: Bingo. No one has to use sources from free-hosting services - unless it's to prove a point. The problem is, the point is sometimes (although rarely) valid. We won't know the whole truth, ever. It just doesn't exist. East of Borschov 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the point those "sources from free-hosting services" were trying to make is the "untrustworthiness" of German/Western sources, isn't the WP:REDFLAG clause in effect here? And if those sources are just trying to outline the history from the Soviet (or other) point of view, what are the chances that higher quality/more formal Russian materials does not exist to replace it? Jim101 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books

Verma, Rajeev (2009). Faith & philosophy of Hinduism. Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 9788178357188.

This is an alert. This book plagiarizes extensively from Misplaced Pages articles while claiming to be the product of thorough research. Compare, for example, our article on Lake Manasarovar to that book's description: It is currently used as a reference in six articles. I'm going to remove it from all of those. In a recent case, a Misplaced Pages editor thought that users here had plagiarized from it but an investigation of the editing dates showed it was the opposite. There is also at least one other book in the series, Faith & philosophy of Sikhism, which is probably suspicious as well.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I just checked another book in the series, by a different "author", and found more blatant plagiarism. Be on the look out for these titles:

• Faith & philosophy of Buddhism
• Faith & philosophy of Christianity
• Faith & philosophy of Hinduism
• Faith & philosophy of Islam
• Faith & philosophy of Jainism
• Faith & philosophy of Sikhism
• Faith & philosophy of Zoroastrianism

I guess it's the publisher's business model to assemble books from Misplaced Pages content.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Side issue: are they violating the licence? Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. None of the books mention "Misplaced Pages" or "GFDL".   Will Beback  talk  11:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still researching it, but another book by the same publisher, Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh 2006, may also include plagiarized material. For example, the 2006 version of Puthandu here has several identical sentences to their article, Even stronger evidence: The 2005 version of Pawapuri is identical to their entry. I'm growing suspicious of all of their recent books. Unfortunately, they appear to be cited frequently on Misplaced Pages. That encyclopedia alone is cited about 40 times.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see this came up last year too. Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 42#Problem with ISHA books as references and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#ISHA books and other circular references   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Complicating factor. Copying from WP doesn't necessarily make a source unreliable. It may have adequate editorial controls to determine which bits of WP are right. E.g., I understand Veropedia consists entirely of WP articles certified by experts in their respective fields, so might well count as RS. Peter jackson (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources that copy WP may not be discussed in WP:RS... but they are explicitly addressed at WP:V (see: WP:V#Misplaced Pages and sources that mirror or use it). We may not use them. Period. It does not matter how many certified experts have vouched for them. We do not allow circular references. We need to review each and every citation to books by this publisher, and where they copy WP, we should immediately remove the reference. If the plagiarism continues, we may have justification for banning books by the publisher all together. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter that some parts of the books may be fine, but how much time and energy would it take to figure out the sources used for each cited page, etc? It's a lot a of work. If the authors had only stole a paragraph or even one or two articles, then perhaps that could be worked around. But with these books the copying is so widespread that the only practical solution is to remove them as citations entirely. We still don't know how many other Gyan Publishing House books have the same problem.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not on the point, but as a side-question: Can you call copying from Misplaced Pages as "plagiarism"? Isnt Misplaced Pages supposed to be "free". Or is it that Misplaced Pages should be acknowledged when copying. I don't know actually. I always thought one can blatantly copy from WP. Arjun 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the license that Misplaced Pages uses for its content, but I think in any case, if you use material from Misplaced Pages it's expected that it'll be properly attributed. I think the rules for usage also change somewhat when you're using material from Misplaced Pages to make money for yourself. — e. ripley\ 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to transcribe the text, but the preface of the Hinduism book goes on about how carefully researched it is and how the many references prove the authenticity of the scholarship. The author "doth protest too much".   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another response to the side-question - copy and paste from one WP article to another without attribution is actually copyvio, see Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite true, though perhaps the least of the violations. I'm guilty of it myself.   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one: "Psychotherapy in a Traditional Society" 2008Portions of the text on page 203 and related pages was lifted word-for-word from an earlier version of the Misplaced Pages TM article. The author does credit Misplaced Pages in in-line notes, though it does not place direct quotes in quotation marks. Regardless, it is mirrored or circular. Fladrif (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. Fortunately, it looks like it isn't being used as a reference for WP articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the licence requires any republisher of WP material

1. to acknowledge authorship (usually done by referring back to WP, but actually naming the authors would satisfy the licensing conditions)
2. to inform readers that the material is so licensed & that they are therefore free to copy the material from the book subject to the same conditions

It seems unlikely these people have complied with the conditions, which is why I asked about this earlier. Of course enforcing copyright in India is hard.

BB, are you really saying that if "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" say WP has got something right, they suddenly become unreliable sources? That seems to me a rather bizarre policy. But then WP seems full of those. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone who follows up on license violations? If no one here knows I'll check elsewhere. This appears to be a significant set of violations.

I'm not sure how the question of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" comes in here. Most parts of Misplaced Pages are quite accurate, however they aren't reliably accurate. What is correct today may become incorrect tomorrow (and corrected again quickly, we hope). Many good scholarly works cite Misplaced Pages, and when we use those as sources we can avoid the footnoted references that'd be circular. But when authors hide the fact that they're stealing material from Misplaced Pages it becomes tremendously more difficult to determine WP from non-WP content, and the only practical solution may be the wholesale removal of all citations.

The problem with this same publisher came up last year, and either wasn't fixed or all of these citations are new. Unfortunately, there's no "blacklist" of sources. We have no effective way of alerting editors besides having them search talk page or noticeboard archives. Someone suggested having a list of circular references, and I think it makes sense. Obviously, the publisher isn't going to recall these books to correct them and so the problem is going to remain forever.

I'm going to delete the citations to Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and I'll leave a note on the talk page of each one explaining the reason. I'll also rename this thread so it's easier to spot.   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted all of the cites to the Encyclopaedia that I could find, about 50. I also noticed that this same book was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200#Misplaced Pages-based encyclopedia that doesn't acknowledge any source.   Will Beback  talk 

The Israeli "art student" mystery article from salon.com

Could someone verify the reliability of this source article.

http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Salon is generally considered reliable. And that's an interesting analysis piece. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally. I have seen some that are so full of errors (contradicted by more professional sources multiple times) that they should not be used on Misplaced Pages. I don't know if the author is any good or not but I do know that some believe the article is scandal mongering. Makes it a little complicated.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

By "generally" I meant it's considered an RS for many topics. Newspapers are. A self-published expert on dinosaur bones is not. Now, whenever you're writing about intelligence subjects there's going to be questions about what is real and what is scandal-mongering. It would be appropriate to include this in an article about Israeli intelligence. It would also be appropriate to cite it with attribution; "according to an article in Salon.com". It looks like the "art students" angle has been discussed in other sources. A quick search turns up Fox News, Haaretz, a few others. We have a paragraph in Art student scam that talks about controversy over the significance of this, with several sources ( mainstream RS and government press releases ) on each side. I would also say that the "art students" stuff might not belong in a 9/11 related article. Some news articles about 9/11 mentioned the art students as background information, but we have other articles to put that in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article that the users won't allow to have this source linked to is entitled "Art Student Scam." It was originally about Israeli "art students" spying on the United States and has strangely morphed into an article mostly about english speaking chinese guys on the streets of china trying to sell you fake art that they say is real. Other users complained that this salon source didn't gain traction, hence I searched google scholar and the espionage book turned up. Thus, I'm having that source checked for reliability also since it extensively cited the salon article. If the espionage book is deemed credible, that might further affect the credibility judgment on the above salon article. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Salon piece seems no more or less reliable than other sources we use in articles. To be honest, the number of sources that we have available regarding the subject matter seems to lend itself to writing more than just the stub we seem to have. Unomi (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How does this salon article become certified for its reliability for use in the wikipedia article "Art Student Scam"? .User:Preciseaccuracy|Preciseaccuracy]] (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Other users don't want to include it even though it contains some of the most in depth descriptions of the art students.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The salon.com article is reliable. Its author, Christopher Ketcham, is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in Harper's, GQ, Mother Jones, Vanity Fair, the Nation, Men's Journal, Hustler, National Geographic Adventure and The American Conservative. That his work shows up in journals of such a wide political spectrum really makes him stand out. There is no doubt of his reliability, and the article is certainly verifiable. It should stand up very well. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ketcham needs an article, actually. Some amusing auto-bio info here and a number of WP:RS mention him over last 10 years in news.google. So enough for an article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to have been pretty thoroughly debunked, at least in terms of the conspiracy-mongering. IronDuke 22:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke, When was this article "thoroughly debunked"? The 12 sentence washington post article, that was written well before this article didn't bother to obtain the 60 pg. dea document. Other sources including haaretz, Janes intelligence, die zeit, le monde, the forward, creative loafing didn't declare israeli spying on the U.S. "debunked." The dismissal of spying as an "urban myth" by the post was thoroughly ridiculous as would be demonstrated if you actually bothered to go through the sources.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Video Game Reporting

I added a paragraph to the Starcraft II page at the end of the Development section. I put in three sources and I'm wondering if they're reliable, and if so how to make them no longer identified as unreliable.

The first link was to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6269369.html?tag=latestheadlines%3Btitle%3B2 from the GameSpot website which reports on video game news and reviews games. It is a widely recognize source and is well known in the industry which should count for its credibility.

Second comes http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/02/report-the-ten-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-apparently-are/ which is probably the most unreliable source I used, as it is clearly showing its list directly from another website, meaning if any link should be used perhaps it would be their reference. However, the information that is shown is correct.

Lastly there is the http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/8081/ link from Yahoo!'s UK site, which seems pretty reliable to me. Your responses in this matter are appreciated. woolysockofdoom (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo, Gamespot and Kotaku are reliable news sources for video games. However, the problem isn't source reliability, it is the synthesis of information from reliable source to make a new claim. Quote:

• In mid July 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that Activision Blizzard had already spent over $100 million developing the Starcraft II Trilogy, which does not include advertising and marketing. This ties Starcraft II with Grand Theft Auto IV, which also had a development cost of $100 million, as the video games with the most expensive development.

None of the above three sources explicitly stated that "Starcraft II ties with Grand Theft Auto IV in game budgets", thus this paragraph is in violation of WP:OR. I hope this answers your question. Jim101 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, and have updated the last sentence to not compare the two budgets, and instead it merely states

• Previously, the most expensive video game to develop was Grand Theft Auto IV, which also had a development cost of $100 million.

Of course, in reality the two budgets would not be equal, since one might have cost, hypothetically speaking, $100.3 million, while another cost $100.4 million. Despite this, I would like to say that I find it odd that with two reliable sources stating that two budgets cost $100 million, I am not allowed to draw a comparison between the two. woolysockofdoom (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, mentioning GTA IV in a Starcraft II article without a source that explicitly link the two game together is also a synthesis offense. The problem is not whether your can make comparison, it is the notability of your comparison per undue weight policy. The logic is this, if GTA IV vs. Starcraft II comparison really need to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages, then a reliable source should be comparing them already. Otherwise, the comparison is just some editor's opinion. Jim101 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. To be synthesis, it has to present some fact or opinion which isn't present in the cited sources. This would really be a WP:RELEVANCE issue where it may be a fact that simply isn't relevant to the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if I found an article that mentioned how Starcraft II is now one of the most expensive games in history to be developed, could I cite it and state something to that effect, and thing bring in this source listing the previous or other most expensive games to make? woolysockofdoom (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's still kind of borderline. This is the kind of information that could get stale very quickly. What happens when GTA V comes out? We should probably just list the development costs of this particular game and be done with it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Avatar page mentions it becoming the highest-grossing film of all time, and references Titanic which previously held that record. I see little difference in the apparent relevance and up to date changes that would take place between gross revenue and budget. woolysockofdoom (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That is because RS citation such as 166 explicitly compared Avatar with Titanic's box office earnings. Jim101 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim101 is correct here; mentioning Grand Theft Auto IV in this article is WP:NOR, unless reliable secondary sources explicitly make the comparison. Even then, the sources would be restricted to those actually making the comparison. Jayjg 03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania as source to identify Mečislovas Gedvilas as a Soviet collaborator

See this edit and the discussion in the edit summaries preceding it as well as on the talk page. I dont read Lithuanian. There are claims the the papers published by GRRCL are peer reviewed. Per the AFD of CRRCL, no actual third parties have been shown to have cited CRRCL's work or even written about them. Active Banana (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

They claim they are "peer reviewed" - if you mean independently reviewed by that, and the work is all anti-Soviet and nationalistic in tone. Not neutral, so not relable Nefesf9 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? There is 107 citations for "Genocidas ir rezistencija" on Google books. Here is an English-language book review in Lituanus. Renata (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked dozens of those so called sources - and you know what - most of them that I saw were other GRRCL works citing each other, not independent third parties. So the claim of 107 citations is a bit overblown. Active Banana (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the author of the article is not prevented from citing it in other articles. It doesn't mean that we can ridicule them as "so called sources". And there are still enough independent citations (for example, ). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My "so called sources" was directed at the person who claimed that simply because googlebooks resulted in 107 hits guaranteed the status of reliability- without checking to see what the ghits actually were. My sampling of the first several dozen resulted in only 1 of the hits being something something from a third party that could potentially be argued created the impression that GRRCL has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The others were circular references with GRRCL publications citing other GRRCL publications. Active Banana (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, it could still be interpreted as trying to insult other editors... I assume you didn't mean it that way, but still, it would be better for you to be a little more careful. If I understand you correctly, "I'm afraid that speaking about number of citations without qualification might be somewhat misleading, as it looks like many of them are works of GRRCL citing other works of this same center..." would have expressed the same idea in a more civil way. Wouldn't you agree? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased sources does not mean that they are unreliable. Most sources is biased to some extent, so trying to draw a line would be problematic. And even if we draw such a line it would conflict with WP:NPOV. Taemyr (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the objection to this source stands up to scrutiny. Just because something published in Lithuania is nationalistic (i.e. pro-Lithuanian) and anti-Soviet is not a valid objection to it as a source. Imagine if we said that books/websites published in the USA about World War II could not be allowed if they were anti-Japanese? Or what about books/websites published in France that were pro-French and anti-Nazi? There is no difference.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the "nationalist" here would be the subject of the article (nationalism and communism are not mutually exclusive) rather than necessarily the source that cites him as "collaborator".radek (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To fix ideas, are you talking about the article saying he was a collaborator, or just saying these people claim he was? Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is OK for Misplaced Pages to talk about people collaborating with the Germans when their contries were occupied by the Germans, it must also be OK to talk about people collaborating with the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union occupied their country. Let us not forget that the USSR was Germany's ally until 22 June 1941.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. I think the question of collaboration of residents of Baltic states with the Soviet Union is a controversial enough matter that we should expect inline attribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I will go with that. Active Banana (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: There's nothing controversial here. One side has won and declared all the people associated with the losing side "collaborators". Once it was "admission into the Union", now it's "Soviet occupation". Simply branding a person "collaborator" merely means that he was part of the Soviet system. The late Algirdas Brazauskas may be controversial but not Gedvilas. East of Borschov 06:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific: why do you think such question is controversial? (And on a less serious note - Godwin's Law might have been invoked from the beginning, for the center in question does research on both Soviet and Nazi occupations). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection

http://books.google.com./books?hl=en&lr=&id=LN7E0U2QDhUC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false

Is this source reliable? Found it through a search of google scholar.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, publisher is iUniverse.com -- a self-publishing company. Though author (Justin Raimondo) is published. Renata (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad attempt at all. Google book search not scholar for this one though since the university library does not mean it is a scholarly work. It looks like he pulled heavily from the Salon article you have been discussing See the notes on p.68. He also pulled from Cryptome. It still looks like the weight you are attempting to add into the article is more than warranted by the sources. You should also try adding a few lines into other related articles (like Mossad) since consensus as that the Israeli Art Student Spy thing was not notable. There is some mention in various news outlets (even though Salon admits that it did not receive wide coverage) so you could always look into recreating the article under a more specific title with some more google sleuthing.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I did find through the google scholar search. Type in "israeli art student" with the quotes and it is the first result.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes because it was in that university's library not because it was peer reviewed work. Google books is the way to view it wihtout having to jump through extra hoops as well. Is that all you want to respond to? The fact that the related information is primarily based on the Salon article is a bigger concern than how someone finds it.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the title sounds very far out, but I did find it through the google scholar search engine with the search "israeli art student." That is why I'm checking if this source is reliable. Let's at least wait for the opinion of a third party objective observer before deciding on reliability. This book could serve as more evidence that the Salon.com article gained traction. The above user seems to have a contrary opinion to yours on the salon.com article.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't expressed an opinion on the Salon article.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that you were meaning to criticize the salon article when you said "The fact that the related information is primarily based on the Salon article is a bigger concern than how someone finds it."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No I am simply trying to point out that it is nothing new and if the Salon article is questioned by others than this won't offer anything since it is essentially the same research.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Author was apparently the republican party candidate in Nancy pelosi's district.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

He has not had a very successful career in politics. Anyways, he took information from another source on a topic that has been called an urban myth by officials. So if you are trying to create an article on something that a fringe says is a conspiracy while officials say it is an urban myth, it is overshadowed by much better coverage. This one wasn't too bad Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The magazines that this author works for seem to be opinion magazines "the conservative" and something else, but I don't know much about them. Read the salon article, fox news did not describe as urban myth, colin powell and ari fleischer seemed to avoid answering questions about it directly. Read the other 8 articles I cited. They discuss it in a serious manner. although haaretz mentions the agent's statement of urban myth it doesn't dismiss the charges completely as if it were actually an urban mythPreciseaccuracy (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely why I thought that one specifically was good. So if you are trying to ask if this source is reliable in a sense that it validates the claim and invalidates the other coverage then I would say no it does not.

If you are simply trying to get "urban myth" dropped as a label as it is currently in then I would refer to other sources that describe it better and tinker with the line so it is not so clear cut.Cptnono (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection" is a reliable source, Justin Raimondo is a reliable author. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, ho, so now we have new standard "RA" (reliable author). Can you please extend your comment a bit further and explain precisely how Riamondo is a reliable author and if you can convince us that he's, how does it make the source to be taken automatically and for granted as RS?--Gilisa (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would allow this as a selfpub by published author, but watch out for undue weight. This is going to be a little "spicier" than the New York Times. If this is going in an "alternative views" section or to add more discussion to the "art students" report that's OK. But I've suggested above that the "art students" stuff isn't connected to 9/11 and really belongs in an article about Israeli intelligence. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What is it going to be used as a reference for? --Slp1 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If a published author self-published, that suggests he may have had a difficult time getting a publisher. Do we know who actually wrote this, Raimondo or Eric Garris? I don't see why this should be seen as a reliable source. We can't simply call Raimondo the author without knowing how much is his, how much is Garris. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. It is clear that the author in general is politically fringe, and not and established expert with a reputation for fact-checking, reliability and neutrality. If anything this book can be used as a source for the statements of the author himself, with clear attribution assuming that his assessment is notable. Pantherskin (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no. The author is an editorial director of the blog Antiwar.com. If he self published a book, it does not mean that his views became any more reliable and/or neutral. Antiwar was discussed at this very board, and as user:DanTD put it: "Antiwar.com once tried to fabricate some 9/11 conspiracy theory, where it accused Israel of making some secret deal in Hollywood, California at the corner of two streets which don't intersect with one another." --Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? I just had to look around, and apparently some of the material at antiwar.com references a translation of an article from a German paper, Die Zeit, which in turn cited French intelligence sources. Somewhere along the way there was a mixup in the address format of somebody's apartment, in Hollywood, Florida. That's a pretty weak disqualifier of antiwar as a news source, and I'm not sure if the mangled address itself even appeared on antiwar.com.

The address is trivia, and I don't think there's any controversy about there being a lot of Israelis in town. What is debatable is whether they were there to watch Atta et al ( Zeit may have made this point ) and whether they were expecting something on the scale of 9/11 ( which the Raimondo book implies ). Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember the exact location where the site made this claim, but Antiwar.com is affiliated with Stormfront.org, a well-known neo-Nazi website. If those false claims of some secret deal aren't enough to discredit the site, that affiliation is. The fact is that any website or book that blames Israel on the 9/11 attacks is not a reliable source. ----DanTD (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very, very dubious to me, that a leftist specialty news outlet would have anything to do with Stormfront. Two, there are no "false claims" of some secret deal. There was a source quoting a source and so on, where an address number got mixed up which wasn't supposed to be a cross street. And no, despite the title, the book does not blame Israel for 9/11. It appears to be mostly about undeclared agents ( similar to this thing that's going on now with the Russians ), and trying to draw a conclusion that they were watching Atta during the run-up to 9/11. While I would take that paticular aspect with a large grain of salt, it appears useful as a bibliography of various reports about suspected Israeli intelligence-gathering during that time frame. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I got Antiwar.com confused with Antiwar.org, but neither site seems reliable at all. The fact is, Justin Raimondo is nothing more than another anti-American enemy sympathizer who want to undermine our ability to defeat Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations targeted in the War on Terror. Let's say for the sake of argument that there were a whole team of Israeli agents watching Mohammed Atta as this book claims. None of these presumed agents knew when, where, or how his cell was going to strike, because even he didn't know until the last minute. ----DanTD (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Without the spin and without 9/11 that's a decent set of information about how these alleged agents worked. Of course, we could always check out the sources the book cites if we're not going to actually use the opinions about 9/11. There's enough published material out there to write an article just about the "art students" situation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case we are dealing fringe theory here, I don't think we should encourage it by finding leeway for how to get this dubious source into Misplaced Pages.--Gilisa (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 9/11 articles already have a section on alleged foreknowledge, so which already makes a lot of these points. Even though Antiwar has an editorial staff and is cited enough to meet RS, which in turn means that the book author's been published so the book technically meets SPS, I can live with leaving it out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% Gilisa. In fact, at one time somebody tried to tag File:Atta in airport.jpg or some other image of the hijackers arriving at an airport for deletion, and I fought tooth and nail to keep it, because eliminating it would give credence to the delusions of the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement." ----DanTD (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(intended) As a matter of fact you're about right about affiliation: (search for "Justin Raimondo")--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that FrontPage article is about some website called "NoWar". That's probably where the confusion came from. It does say something about it linking to news articles from various places including Antiwar, but that doesn't make them affiliated. They can link to whoever they please. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please just search the article for "Justin Raimondo", and you will see I do not confuse anything. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Look closely. That article is about a different website, and a different person who runs it. It says it links to some articles written by J.R. But that doesn't mean anything. I can link to the Wall Street Journal, but that doesn't mean they're affiliated with me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Bad author, bad aource for anything other than the views of Justino Raimondo. IronDuke 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC) unreliable source for anything except the personal views of the author.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke, I'm not yet sure if this is a reliable source or not. Could you explain why you believe Justin Raimondo is a bad author?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I request a third party objective user to look into this? Many of the users editing "art student" scam just moved their comments here. User:Squidfryerchef seems to have pointed out inaccuracies in many of their statements. I'm not sure about the reliability of this source, but the mistatements of information by other users isn't helping to determine whether or not this is reliable.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors' blog at Tricycle Buddhist Review

As noted above, in the www.buddhistchannel.tv section, there is currently a flurry of interest in allegations of sexual abuse made against Eido Tai Shimano, a living person. There are several highly reliable sources for accusations of misconduct up until 1982, most of which I found and added to the article myself. Other editors have sought to include negative material sourced to more marginal sources, such www.buddhistchannel.tv above, and these have been rejected as sources. The latest source proposed is this blog posting by the web editor of Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. It is used as a source for this edit. The significant BLP issue here is that while we have good sources for accusations of sexual misconduct up until 1982, this is the only source for the idea that these have been "many reports of ..abuse... over 40 years". Is this a sufficiently reliable source for this? I'll note that even the blog notes that it is waiting to get information from the other side of the dispute. --Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more that I think this is a case of fact laundering: a potentially reliable source (the editor's blog) is being used "as cover for a dubious source" (the self-published Aitken blog). Thoughts?--Slp1 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense and I removed it. Please raise the issue at WP:BLPN (not here) if it is restored. If someone wrote a blog saying that Joseph Stalin sexually abused women, we would not add that to the article (not a reliable source). People can't wriggle around that by quoting a blog which says that it has been widely reported that Stalin sexually abused women. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blog postings rarely acceptable, per WP:SPS, and are particularly unacceptable in cases like this, where they have very serious WP:BLP implications. Jayjg 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. First, the "editor's blog" is not a blog in the conventional sense. Like many other magazines, it is essentially a news feed and editorial "page". it is not an individual's blog - you will notice that the authorship includes the entire editorial board of the magazine, the most respected journal in the field. Second, Zen Master and abbot Robert Aitken wrote a letter to Zen Master and abbot Shimano, which he posted on his website. This is what Tricycle is reporting - without editorializing. Aitken is a significant figure, not only in Zen as a whole, but in the very entry on Shimano. He is mentioned at least three times there. So, to mention that he wrote a recent letter calling for Shimano to address ongoing allegations of abuse (they are ongoing) is significant - so much so that Tricycle reported on it. And the entry did not read "shimano abused women for 40 years." It said that Aitken wrote a letter saying that such accusations are prevalent, and Shimano should address them publicly. That is all. This is how it reads: "In May, 2010, Robert Aitken posted an open letter to Shimano on his website. Pointing to "many reports of your abuse of women" over 40 years, Aitken called for Shimano to publicly respond to accusations."

As for "waiting to get information from the other side"- What Tricycle is requesting from Shimano's organization is a response, including an explanation for why they said Shimano was resigning from the board on their website one day, and then removed the info within 24 hours - they are not asking whether or not Aitken wrote a letter, which is not in dispute. The former material, about the resignation, is not included in WP entry (though I adjusted bio, since he is no longer listed among board members after 42 years). News stories don't wait for responses from all sides. If there is one later, WP entry can adjust to include. It already says he denies all wrongdoing. This is absolutely not "fact-washing".

Aitken is not making wild allegations on a personal blog that I am trying to get included. he wrote a letter to Shimano, made public and reported on. What I want to see reflected is that there is an ongoing, visible, and newsworthy 40-years long (intermittent) dispute going on between two of the most significant figures in modern American Zen. To not have this info in an entry on Shimano is a gross oversight.Tao2911 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

as evidence of other significant news content from the Tricycle editor's "blog": "India denies Karmapa visit to US", "Buddhist Monks sheltered persecuted Christians", "Soka Gakkai International returns Ponzi scheme donations" etc. This is all in the last four days.Tao2911 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to right the wrongs of the world, or to hold people accountable. Particularly for a negative BLP issue, we require a very reliable source that doesn't gossip (an open letter starting "There are many reports of your abuse..." is 100% advocacy and gossip). Some WP:NPOV language regarding facts could be added to an article (who did what, when; not who made an unsupported claim). Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry J, but you seem to be unable to read. I am not writing any wrongs, except a glaring inadequacy in the profile of Shimano. If the talk threads on various websites are any indication, including on Tricycle, then there should be more sources reporting soon on Shimano's impending complete resignation from ZSS, caused in part by Aitken's letter (in question here) and the firestorm it has created. Hence, again, the wish is to include a news report acknowledging said letter and said controversy.Tao2911 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take this from a different point of view. Tricycle is a reliable source. However, in this case, Tricycle is merely quoting Aitken; they're going to great lengths not to confirm or deny anything, merely to "keep their readers informed". And even Aitken isn't saying anything, he's merely asking for comment about "reports published on the web" without endorsing them. So essentially it's a request for comment about hearsay. We shouldn't cite any of that until it turns into something more real than A says that B says that C says that. If he resigned, we can cite that he resigned, that is something real. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this for concrete action: statement to Tricycle Magazine from Zen Studies Society: "On July 4, 2010, Eido Shimano Roshi stepped down from the board of directors of the Zen Studies Society (ZSS). This was prompted by allegations of clergy misconduct. The ZSS is committed to fully investigating, clarifying and bringing resolution to this matter. Eido Roshi’s wife, Aiho-san Shimano, also stepped down from the Board at that time."Tao2911 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my proposed inclusion at the Eido Tai Shimano talk page: "In May, 2010, Robert Aitken wrote an open letter to Shimano requesting he comment on allegations of sexual misconduct that span "over 40 years." Tricycle Magazine reported on the letter, and asked Zen Studies Society for a response. The Society issued a statement that due to "allegations of clergy misconduct", on July 4, 2010, both Eido Shimano and his wife had resigned from the Board of Directors after 42 years."Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks appropriate to me. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just remind everyone that section in question is called "allegations of misconduct." There are other sources and incidents there. I added this inclusion. Please review it in context, and check the sources.Tao2911 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording in the article is probably adequate, although frankly the sources are dubious because they avoid any confrontational language (I couldn't find anything which says "X was found to have sexually abused women", or even "Y claimed X has sexually abused women" – it's all expressed with delicacy). However, for the record I am going to explain why Tao2911's last comment totally misunderstands Misplaced Pages. Suppose I go to an article for Joe Politician and I add a section called "Allegations of misconduct" saying "Joe Politician has been accused of sexually abusing women" with reference to a blog or a single magazine. The heading "Allegations" is totally irrelevant. In some legal court somewhere, you might be able to claim that "it was just an allegation", but we are smarter and more ethical than that. The WP:BLP policy really is very strong and people who will not understand it, or will not comply with it, have no place on Misplaced Pages. We do not allege stuff: we follow WP:5P and write neutral text that is properly sourced. Big claims, particularly allegations in a BLP, need multiple good sources (and one obscure magazine is not a sufficiently good source). Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty straightforward; these are (still) serious allegations with WP:BLP implications, and they're being sourced to a blog. If you continue inserting the material, based on this source, you stand a very real risk of being blocked. Jayjg 01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, these are very serious allegations. After 1982 there are no serious reliable sources to prove this. This morning I looked at the blog where Aitken letter was posted by him. This is his own blog. Please take a look: http://robertaitken.blogspot.com/2010/05/eido-tai-shimano-roshi.html#comments What is posted here is gross and fishy to me! Do we need such source in Wiki? I wonder why Tricycle would even post this letter?

You would sound like a much more reasonable editor and less rigidly, dogmatically reactionary if for once you could acknowledge my numerous explanations that 90 y.o. Aitken is arguably the single most reputable and respected teacher in American Buddhism - THAT is the VERY REASON why Tricycle reported in his letter, reprinting it in full. And why the internet is lit up with discussions about it. I agree - of course those discussions are not WP material. However, they provide some indication of the man's stature and visibility. But clearly as you've over and over shown, you are entrenched, with no desire to understand anyone else's position.Tao2911 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that Tricyle blog is reliable source for the Statement of Shimano's resignation? Maybe this statement will be published in printed form in near future so we can exclude the blog source completely. Spt51 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

There has been a recent change in the article "Sean Hannity", with the groups CREW, and VoteVets.org, being declared "liberal". Both of these organizations describe themselves as "non-partisan". On a personal level, I would tend to agree with the liberal label. However, as an editor attempting to maintain NPOV, I find this unacceptable. The sources used are a blog, which is not WP:RS, and an opinion piece from The Washington Post. Whilst The Washington Post does meet WP:RS, if we were to declare things as fact, based on someones opinion in a newspaper, we could easily find WP:RS to claim that Barack Obama is a "socialist", or that George W. Bush is a "war criminal". It would be fine to include the fact, with proper sourcing that some find these groups to be liberal. However, as they specifically declare that they are not, it should reqiure proof beyond someone's opinion in a newspaper.Mk5384 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the Hannity article, this is now taking place at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington article itself.Mk5384 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The recent change has been you removing "liberal" from both of these articles--"liberal" has been there for several months, along with sources. The VoteVets.org source you describe simply as a blog is a blog run by NBC News, written by an NBC News reporter (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/10/02/4423915-liberal-group-takes-on-rush) --clearly this is allowed under WP:RS. Another source for this is the Washington Post news story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502483.html . As far as CREW goes, there are news story sources for this in the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Roll Call. I have pointed out these CREW sources in Sean Hannity and CREW Talk sections, but Mk5384 has ignored this. Drrll (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• What Mk5384 dismisses as being just a blog is the blog from MSNBC. Entries are by MSNBC reporters, hosted on the MSNBC site and subject to editorial overview by MSNBC. It meets the RS criteria and blogs with criteria like this are used as reliable sources on a regular basis. The WaPo piece is a regular columnist, not a guest OpEd piece. Again, a reporter, employed by the paper and subject to the normal editorial oversight of everyone else writing for that paper. While Mk5384 may not like what is being said, arguing that it doesn't meet RS is ridiculous and empty. Further, the use of them to make that characterization (which I initially opposed myself) was the result of a long discussion and the resulting consensus. Mk5384 has done nothing with that article, his sole participation has been to quite incorrectly claim that these sources aren't RS's, then breeze in and keep removing them, despite being reverted by more than one editor. He's ignoring consensus, not engaging in meaningful discussion and the only reason he is here is because I challenged him to bring his "they aren't RS's argument to the RSN so he could find out they are RS's in the first place. His "other crap" argument about Bush, Obama etc means nothing here and yes, I did revert him in the CREW article when he removed the exact same info. I'm unimpressed that CREW et al call themselves "nonpartisan". The Klan calls themselves a civil rights organization for white people too.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both the Washington Post and First Read are RS for these characterizations, obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "dismiss" anything, nor did I say "I don't like" anything.Mk5384 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Um, yes, you have. First you misrepresented the blog by just saying "a blog". This isn't some guy with a Wordpress blog, poniticating from his kitchen. These are professional reporters, employed by a well known news agency, using a blog hosted on the agency site and subject to editorial oversight. That exceeds the requirements for RS. But you claimed it "does not meet RS". You're wrong, it does. Then you minimized the WaPo source as "an opinion piece from a Washington newspaper". Wrong again. Yes, it is the authors opinion, but it's not some guest op-ed piece. This is a regular columnist, employed by one of the largest papers in the country, writing in his regularly published column, which is subject to editorial oversight. If nobody bothered to look at the source and relied on your description, it sounds like a guest op-ed in some small weekly paper. Nor did I say that you said you didn't like it (let alone quote you), I said you MIGHT not like it....so if you're going to deny something, at least deny what is actually said, not a fabrication. Further, you have not engaged in any meaningful discussion, just reverts (and are flirting with the 3RR). Even here, your response was essentially "no I didn't". Face it, you made the statement that the MSNBC blog doesn't meet RS, but it does by every standard. I told you that and you came here, repeating the same nonsense. And we constantly use authors opinions in articles, that is the nature of using the sources. All sources don't seem to carry the same weight either. MSNBC is arguably a liberally biased network, yet they were comfortable calling them liberal, but they are a large, well-known, frequently cited news agency. (I feel dirty defending MSNBC). But you seem more intent on edit-warring and ignoring consensus than having any meaningful dialog. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Officially being listed as non-partisan really means nothing. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are both 501(c)(3), but you don't find too many people who think of these as being "non-partisan" in the sense that they don't have a definite ideological base (they aren't necessarily aligned with a party, but they definitely tilt one way or the other). Soxwon (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What people "think" of them is beside the point. . Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These kinds of labels are generally used for poisoning the well, rather than improving WP:NPOV. If a person needs to understand what kind of source it is, they have a link to click on, that will give a full picture, rather than a one or two-word "sound bite". This applies equally if the label is "liberal", "conservative", "left-wing", "right-wing". All should be removed from all articles. If a source that discusses Sean Hannity also mentions that these MSNBC blog/newspaper opinion pieces are "liberal", only then could that descriptor be used in the Hannity article, in the context of describing that MSNBC blog/opinion piece's views. Misplaced Pages cares only what reliable sources say; it doesn't use its editorial voice to pre-dismiss them based on their alleged political biases. Jayjg 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's really a separate issue. His initial complaint was that a RS complaint. I told him he was wrong and to feel free to come here to find out that they do in face pass RS from uninvolved parties. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reliability is always in a context and relative; in any event, there's no indication that these sources are relevant to the Hannity article, but that's an issue better discussed on the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg 04:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The issue at hand is "are the sources reliable". He claims they aren't. Mk5384 hasn't engaged in any meaningful discussion regarding undue weight etc, which should happen on the talk page first, then one of the noticeboards, correct? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Things aren't that simple. If the question is "are the sources reliable", the natural rejoinder is "depends what they're being used for". But it is true that the main issues here are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Jayjg 00:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DJbooth.net

Does anyone have any opinions on whether www.djbooth.net can be considered a reliable source for use in an article about an album or a song? One article it's currently being used in is LOL Smiley Face, and it's being used to support the style of the music, as well as the source of a review in the "critical reception" section. Acoording to their "about us" page, you can join their writing team just by being a "lover of music".--BelovedFreak 13:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to consult with those knowledgable in the field, such as User:Kww.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't meet the RS criteria IMO. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any signs of the site having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. —Kww(talk) 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comments.--BelovedFreak 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No indication of significant editorial oversight, or reputation for fact-checking. Jayjg 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo

It looks like it has been a couple of years since Talking Points Memo was last brought up. I was wondering what the current thoughts were as to this website. Is it RS? --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It has a reputation as a media outlet, and its staff blogs are "published" in the RS sense. The user forums, of course, would not be. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note also that use of editorial opinion is a matter of some concern lest contentious material wend into a BLP or any article relating to a living person contrary to the new policies. Collect (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Eurasia Review per Furkan Dogan

Is Eurasia Review a RS?

Eurasia Review article by John C.K. Daly: Furkan Dogan And The Gaza Flotilla

Concerns the Furkan Dogan and Gaza flotilla raid Misplaced Pages articles.

The issue is whether to describe Dogan as "American", "Turkish-American" or "dual citizen." Currently there are different descriptors in the different articles. Maybe this source could support "American residing in Turkey" or something like that provide perspective on his status, as his father makes a statement.

Here's the discussion on one of the articles.Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Dogan.27s_citizenship

RomaC 04:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the question would be then, even if reliable, would WP:UNDUE then support such a phrasing, in view of the many RS which call him a dual citizen, and quite the US Secretary of State and the Turkish Prime Minister to that effect ...--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that isn't a question for this Noticeboard but potentially for the NPOV Noticeboard. Suggest we first establish whether the John CK Daly (UPI correspondent) article in Eurasia Review is a RS. It's been challenged, but I can't see why it isn't a RS, and it does help provide perspective. Respectfully, RomaC 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated when you brought it up on my talk, it is helpful to mention other difficulties rather than shopping this all over Misplaced Pages. One community, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and as I said on your Talk I'm not looking for this to be the only/definitive source, only to allow it to be used along others to improve the article. Respectfully, RomaC 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolved

Reviews for a Book article

I have been working on Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme I would like some feedback on two of the sources as to there reliability. The first is by Richard D. North He is a journalist and author and the review is posted on his personal blog . The second is Duncan Green also a well published author. His review is on his Oxfam blog here . Are either is these usable for the reviews of the book? mark nutley (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This has now been moved to mainspace Why We Disagree About Climate Change I would still like some thoughts on the above proposed sources, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If a majority (or all) of the sources for factual claims about Jesus are Christian, is it proper to mention that?

Discussion on the NPOV board:

Is this self-published book a reliable source?

is being used as a source at Arkalochori Axe. The author had an article published in a journal earlier, and it's been suggested that this might be an enlarged version, but it may also be that he simply couldn't get it published. I don't think he's well known enough that we can use his self-published book. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Self published books are never allowed per wp:rs it`s pretty straightforward about that mark nutley (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS pretty clearly defines the very narrow ways in which self-published-sources may be used. Jayjg 00:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well SPS says that a published author is okay. Perhaps this can be solved by attribution? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says an already published expert, self-publishing in his/her field of expertise, may be acceptable in some circumstances, but regardless must be used with caution, since "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." It also says they cannot be used under any circumstances for third-party sources about living persons. Attribution isn't really relevant to either of those. Jayjg 03:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And it also says 'established expert'. He doesn't seem to have any academic affiliation, and I doubt that he has a PhD as it isn't mentioned anywhere. He's another one of many amateurs writing about the Phaistos Disc. I'm not against him in principle, a little research shows that at least one well known kook detests him and the literature he suggests on his website is fine. I'm happy with using anything he's written that's been reliably published. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And now we have an editor citing the section headed "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes... the old "but I attributed the statement so the self-published source is reliable for that attributed statement" argument. The reply to that is, "Yes... BUT..."

Allow me to explain. Let's say we are editing the article on the moon, and someone adds the statement "The moon is made of green cheese <ref>Joe Blow's self-published source</ref>". Let us assume that Joe Blow is not an acknowledge expert writing in his field of study (as is apparently the case at the article in question). In this case, the source is not reliable for this statement, per WP:SPS.

Now, let us assume that someone changes the statement to read "According to Joe Blow, the moon is made of green cheese <ref> self-published source written by Joe Blow</ref>" ... the statement is no longer about the moon, but is about Joe Blow's opinion on the moon. I think that the source is reliable for Joe Blows opinion about the moon, again per WP:SPS.

BUT... reliability is not the only policy or guideline on Misplaced Pages. We also have comply with WP:UNDUE. At this point, the issue shifts from "is Joe Blow reliable" to "Is Joe Blow note worthy enough for us to mention his views in this article." Since Joe Blow is not an acknowledged expert on the moon, the answer to that question is "no". So the statement and the citation should be removed... not on WP:RS grounds, but on WP:UNDUE grounds. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well stated Blueboar. The effort to avoid the WP:RS sources frequently leads to other issues that disqualify the source like WP:UNDUE although I think the more relevant policy about the moon being made of green cheese would be WP:Fringe. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:FRINGE is essentially a focused extension of WP:NOTE (for articles about fringe topics) and WP:UNDUE (for statement about fringe topics in other article). But yes, WP:FRINGE would definitely apply to my example. The point is... those of us who are very familiar with WP:RS often forget that reliability is only one of several thresholds that must be met. All of our policies and guidelines must be complied with at the same time, and they all interconnect. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is a "typical" article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal a primary source or a secondary source?

The Arb Comm case on Race and intelligence includes this proposal:

"Articles in the topic area of Race and Intelligence, broadly construed, are put on source probation. All source used in all articles of the topic area must be independent, secondary sources that meets the guidelines of reliable sources. Disagreement about whether a source does or does not meet the guideline should be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard for evaluation by uninvolved editors."

Leaving aside the merits of this idea, I am confused about the distinction between primary and secondary sources when it comes to peer-reviewed articles in an academic journal. Are these generally primary or secondary sources? WP:PSTS does not make this clear (to me). See also this discussion. Thanks for any comments or guidance. David.Kane (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the quote that you provided doesn't mention anything about "peer-reviewed articles in an academic journals", just that they be reliable, secondary sources. OK, maybe you already knew that, but I wanted to be clear about that. So, to directly answer your question, peer-reviewed articles in an academic journals would be secondary sources AFAIK. If I'm wrong, please someone let me know. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what it's being used to back; "typical article" doesn't really mean anything. A primary source is "very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved". In the discussion you link to, you give the example "According to a paper by Hala Elhoweris, Kagendo Mutua, Negmeldin Alsheikh and Pauline Holloway, teachers' referral decisions for students to participate in gifted and talented educational programs was influenced in part by the students’ ethnicity." Your link from there didn't work for me, so I can't see the paper itself, but if Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, and Holloway participated in the referral decisions (i.e., they were the teachers or students in question), or they were otherwise closely involved (they were the students' parents; they were the teachers' spokesmen, lawyers, or union officials), that's a primary source. If they're researchers who interviewed the people in question after the fact, that's secondary; not closely involved in the actual event. As a counterexample, if E,M,A, and H were to conduct a study of the kind psychology students like so much, where teachers get shown black or white students' faces and then get asked to write referrals for them, their account of that study would be primary, because they would be closely involved in the thing they're describing. That's also a pretty typical article type. --GRuban (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me try a different example from the Race and Intelligence article:

"African Americans typically have ancestors from both Africa and Europe, with, on average, 20% of their genome inherited from European ancestors."

The reference is to: Bryc, K.; Auton, A.; Nelson, M. R.; Oksenberg, J. R.; Hauser, S. L.; Williams, S.; Froment, A.; Bodo, J. -M. et al. (2009). "Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture in West Africans and African Americans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 786.

Like almost all academic articles that are not review articles, these authors are describing their own research. Is this article a primary or secondary source? David.Kane (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your problem now. Well, WP:PSTS says "a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors", and from the description of that paper, where they seem to have gathered and analyzed actual genetic samples, that seems to fit most definitions of an experiment. Pretty clearly primary. You may want to double check with Coren to see if he really wanted to say that scientific research papers, as opposed to reviews, should be excluded. Maybe he did, of course. --GRuban (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The paper is a secondary source. The test results are the primary source. The authors here didn't do experiments, they did genetic analyses. Jayjg 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then does the proposal make any sense? The article (virtually) never cited primary sources (if you mean the raw data). It just cites research articles, as in this example. Could Coren really have suggested a proposal that has no impact? David.Kane (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree, Jayjg. I don't think that is a common understanding and I think it has some very troublesome implications that inappropriately render nearly every published document into a secondary or tertiary source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with ElKevbo on this. They did the research themselves and drew conclusions based on their research, and the paper that came from that is a primary source. — HelloAnnyong 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Analyzing the bulk of raw data (even if it pre-existed in form of medical files) creates a new primary work. Sweat of the brow transforms a pool of primary sources into a new primary source. East of Borschov 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There's some interpretations of PSTS that a scientific paper can be both a primary and a secondary source. But I'd have to disagree with the "secondary sources only" proposal. It's good to require that a controversial topic be well-sourced. But it is not good to ban a class of sources that has always been usable on Misplaced Pages, especially as how our readers can use them for fact-checking. I could live with "primary sources only if they've been introduced by a reliable secondary source" though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I come here, not so much for opinions on the proposal per se, but to see if uninvolved editors (like you all) can provide clear guidance about how one can determine whether a random academic article in the peer-reviewed literature is a primary or secondary source. Can you? And, if not --- if the sort of disagreement between GRuban and Jayjg is typical --- is this proposal workable? David.Kane (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Where a document was published does not determine if it's a primary or secondary source; it's all in how it's being used. In fact, I can easily imagine the same journal article being used as both a primary and a secondary source in the same Misplaced Pages article.

Acknowledging that context is everything, I opine that referencing original research in a journal article is probably using it as a primary source. Referencing other material in the same article, particularly from the literature review section, is probably using it as a secondary source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you are a scientist and you write a paper describing work that you and your colleagues have done, or were involved in, then that paper is primary, since it is close to the work being described. If you are describing the state of the art, reviewing and summarizing work done and published by others, then it's secondary. The critical point is distance: if you are close to the work being described, it's primary, while if you are more distant from it, it's secondary. "Closeness" could also mean that you have a close relationship with the group doing the work. Crum375 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good generalization but it's still a generalization. You can certainly use literature reviews, metastudies, and other similar documents as primary sources. In fact, one of my current projects does just that by analyzing how professionals in a particular field have viewed a particular subject so I'm treating virtually everything - including peer-reviewed journal articles - as primary sources since I'm using the articles as evidence of a particular viewpoint and understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

"Primary" and "secondary" are not properties of a document. They're descriptive of how the document is used in a specific situation. ElKevbo (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your example relates to how a scientist would rate his sources, which is not the issue here. On Misplaced Pages, a source is considered primary if its author is close to the work being described, and secondary if the author is more distant from it. So if the author describes work published by other unrelated parties, it would be secondary, while describing his own work, or that of his co-workers or related parties, would be primary. Crum375 (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding but it's not worth spending time on because this subtlety applies exclusively to original research which we wouldn't allow here anyway. ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If we say that a genetic study is a primary source, and a newspaper article (say in the Detroit Free Press) reporting the results of that study is a secondary source, which is more reliable? Jayjg 03:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that question makes sense because I don't think we typically refer to sources as more or less reliable, just reliable or not reliable. In this situation, we would probably prefer editors use the secondary source because that involves less interpretation on the part of the Misplaced Pages editor. ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite; we refer all the time to sources as being more reliable or less reliable, particularly on this board, since there are rarely, if ever, sources that are absolutely reliable. And, since newspaper reporters are for the most part non-experts, who work under tight time constraints, versus scientists, who spend a great deal of time researching and are peer-reviewed, it's not really clear we prefer the newspaper to the study. Jayjg 04:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We prefer the newspaper because once the question of reliability is answered we have to make judgments about weight and interpretation. Weight is easier to determine when there are secondary sources that explicitly establish weight. And interpreting primary sources can often fall into original research so it's discouraged. We don't prefer the newspaper article because we necessarily believe that it will be more accurate than the study but because it's appropriate for the author of the article to have made interpretations and decisions about weight. ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "we" don't necessarily prefer the newspaper (though you personally may), and "judgments about weight" are WP:NPOV issues, unrelated to whether or not the source is primary or secondary. Jayjg 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "If you are a scientist and you write a paper describing work that you and your colleagues have done, or were involved in, then that paper is primary, since it is close to the work being described." Incorrect. You should understand that division of the sources onto primary and secondary has been proposed to avoid original research. Original research is drawing conclusions based on raw data. What do "raw data" mean? In history, that means historical documents, archival data, memoirs, etc. A historian analyses these primary sources and writes his article, which is a secondary source.
By analogy, in physics, chemistry, biology primary sources are scientist's observations, graphs, tables etc. For instance, most contemporary scientific journals publish supplementary materials to each scientific papers, which contain information almost uncommented in the main article. These data are primary source. By contrast, a secondary source is the information that has been analysed by a scholar who provides his own interpretation of these data and draws some conclusions, theories and hypotheses based on that. As a rule, such information passes a peer-reviewing procedure, which means that it has been vetted by a scientific community.
In my opinion this whole discussion stemmed from the fact that many wikipedians do not understand that all scholarly articles are secondary sources. The problem is that, by contrast to art, history and similar disciplines, physical, chemical or biological primary sources are not available for general public: you simply will be unable to interpret crude X-ray diffraction data, a photo made by the Hubble telescope, neutron scattering data, electron micrograph, the results of BLAST alignment of some protein sequence against human genome database, or multidimentional NMR spectrum.
Again, all scientific articles which passed a peer-reviewing procedure are a secondary sources and, importantly, the best secondary sources for Misplaced Pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, that's incorrect. Both primary and secondary sources may be very reliable, or very unreliable. As far as original research in the Misplaced Pages sense, you must be extremely careful when using a primary source, since any interpretation or analysis, or even selective quoting from it, could constitute original research. This is why we prefer secondary sources, because they do the selection and analysis for us. But using a primary source alongside a secondary source which interprets it is fine. Crum375 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, scientific papers which passed peer review are typically not secondary, and are quite often primary, if they describe work performed by the authors. The criterion for primary vs. secondary is not how many expert peers reviewed the work, but whether the author is the one who performed it. And again, primary sources may be highly reliable, but that doesn't transform them into secondary sources. The primacy of a source is generally independent of its reliability. Crum375 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then we're just going to have disagree because I think that you're completely wrong and apparently you think the same of my opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well. Let me ask you the following. If the article of some historian form, e.g. NWY, published in American Historian Reviews, where he analysed some archival data on the Civil War and came to some conclusion is a secondary source (and it definitely is), then why another article written by his colleague from the Physical department, published in Physical Review Letters, where he ahalysed the neutron scattering data he obtained from some protein sample is considered a primary source? Let me summarise: the secondary sources is something produced by a scholar, whereas primary sources are some raw data which have not been analysed by a professional. Of course, the book or article written by some scholar about himself (e.g. Watsons' "The Double Helix") is a memoir, i.e. a primary source. However, his article in Nature about the DNA structure is a secondary source for sure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. A primary source is one written by a group close to the work which was performed, while a secondary source is a review of one or more primary sources, which were previously published elsewhere. Primacy is not reliability, it is the distance of the author(s) from the work being described. Crum375 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The criterion for primary vs. secondary is not how many expert peers reviewed the work, but whether the author is the one who performed it." How can you explain the reason for such a delimitation? Which purpose does it serve? Again the primary reason for division on primary and secondary sources is to avoid original research by the Wikipedians. By contrast, original research made by professionals in the major source WP is based on. These original research are being published by scholars and are called "secondary sources".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your terminology is confused. What we mean by 'primary' and 'secondary' on WP is independent of reliability, or the number of expert peers reviewing the work. Primacy of sources is the distance between the author and the work being described. A secondary source is a review or analysis of another publication, and provides an independent perspective for it. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the historical article you describe would be a primary source. Simply because one analyzes data - and primary sources themselves can be used as data, as in your example - doesn't make the data itself a primary source and the analysis a secondary source. Data are data, not a primary source. "Source," in this context, refers to the analysis and interpretation performed on the data. ElKevbo (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A scientific study is a primary source when it is being analyzed by another source (e.g. a meta-study). On its own, however, it's a secondary source, as the primary sources are the raw data (test results etc.) that are being analyzed by that study. Jayjg

Correct. Otherwise most good WP articles like Uncertainty principle should be deleted per WP:SYNTH because they are based on scholars' own articles. That is ridiculous.

Re: "the historical article you describe would be a primary source." No the primary sources are the archival documents a historian works with.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the context and how and why the article was written. If it's merely a summary of the historical document then it's a secondary source. But if it involves significant interpretation and original research then the article is itself a new primary source that interprets another primary source. I'm sorry but there isn't a simple, predictable movement from primary -> secondary; it all depends on context. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By your definition pretty much every source except a book/article review is a "primary source". If a historian writes a book of history, that's a "primary source" because the historian wrote it, and therefore he's close to it. Every statement he makes, under your definition, suddenly becomes "primary", by dint of him being the author of it. This, of course, is nonsense. Jayjg 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Most academic publications are indeed primary sources for the data they describe. That's because primary sources are works of original research and that is what we're paid to do and what excites us. Creating secondary sources - lit reviews, book reviews, metastudies, etc. - isn't exciting for most of us because there is little original work to be done. (Additionally, creating secondary sources is not very valuable in terms of promotion and tenure for academics because it's not original research. That's a bit of a shame because there is immense value in periodically stepping back to synthesize and summarize the state of the field.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, most books of history are secondary sources about the events they describe, which make use of primary sources (diaries, church records, hospital records, etc.) Book reviews etc. are secondary sources which use books as primary sources, and in that context only are they primary sources. Jayjg 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the book. If it's a summary of events then it probably is a secondary source. But if it's a reinterpretation of events and an act of historical revisionism then it's probably a primary source. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I was going to say that Paul Siebert was right. Similarly with what Jayjg just said. But, as I look at WP:PSTS that seems to contradict what I thought. Apparently a scholar commenting on an old document is a primary source. Not sure what that makes the document, a zero source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's what is being analyzed so it's data. ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a problem with policy. I started a discussion on the talk page there, because a policy should definitely be modified, because it leads to a nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that a paper on an original study written by the researchers is a primary source. Papers reporting studies may contain reviews of other papers, and those portions would be secondary. One of the purposes of having a distinction between primary and secondary sources is that secondary sources act as filters to separate unimportant material from more significant material. Another comparison is to an autobiography. Using the same logic as some present here, the ticket stubs and tax returns would be primary sources and the memoir would be a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "One of the purposes of having a distinction between primary and secondary sources is that secondary sources act as filters to separate unimportant material from more significant material." No. All articles which passed a peer-reviewing procedure have already passed this filter successfully.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm just now reading a detailed review of several hundred studies and it's amazing how many peer-reviewed papers have to be left out because they don't meet simple standards. Peer review isn't magic, and there are many problems with that process. Thousands of papers are published in peer-reviewed journals every year - I don't think anyone would argue that all of them contain significant findings.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to give a pointer to WP:MEDRS, the sourcing guidelines for medical articles, which explicitly state that articles whose authors are reporting their own research are to be considered primary sources. The guidelines are only intended to apply to medical articles (where that principle is essential to avoid massive inconsistency), but if I had my way they would apply to all scientific topics -- allowing room for exceptions in exceptional cases, though. Looie496 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Primary source" on Misplaced Pages means something different than it means in academia. That's where a lot of this confusion is coming from. In general, if something's been peer-reviewed, or published by something with an editorial board, it's been through the "filter" and is a secondary source. A primary source is something like a press release, or government document, and so forth. If that other definition of "primary" is still floating around in some corners of WP, that's a pretty strong reason to not add new rules on primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence that Misplaced Pages has a unique definition of "primary" and "secondary" source? Our policy regarding original research seems to agree with common usage of the terms. ElKevbo (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that rings a bell. There's obviously going to be a lot discussion on this, but what Squidfrychef said is what is causing all this confusion. That's interesting about the medical articles being different. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• The controversy surrounding primary and secondary sources is not unique to Misplaced Pages, see a university library's discussion. Secondary sources are just one step removed from the original analysis. So a review article can be a primary source when it is presenting an original, novel conclusion (as narrative reviews often do) or when the review author is discussing their own research. A research article is a primary source for its original conclusions. Many research articles contain substantial amounts of secondary discussion of other research articles or even reviews. One of the major reasons that we prefer reviews (which are often conflated with secondary sources because they are often secondary) is that they cover a broad range of information, put information into context, and lay out generally-accepted facts. Many of these review articles actually aimed at bringing non-specialists or newcomers to the topic up to speed. Since reviews are less focused on presenting data and the analysis of that data, they are more approachable and understandable for non-scientists. The reason we prefer secondary sources is that authors are often not their own best critics. The drawback of secondary sources is that sometimes they don't have as deep of understanding of the topic as their author and can misinterpret what's going on. Secondary sources are not by definition more reliable than primary sources. If a secondary source says that a primary source A is incorrect, that does not mean the primary source is incorrect. It just means someone criticized the primary source. If a secondary source can point to other primary sources which contradict primary source A, then we can start to say that primary source A is incorrect. II | (t - c) 06:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All of that sounds reasonable, however, that means that the WP policy towards primary sources should be reconsidered. There are two type primary sources: (i) historical documents, archival data, raw tables, figures, photographs, and (ii) scientific articles that analysed these data and draw conclusions based on that. By using first type primary sources a Wikipedian makes an original research, however, I doubt that by correctly transmitting the ideas presented in scientific articles one can make any original research. IMO, the discussion of PSTS is not important per se. What is more important, that it is necessary to define what OR consists in. For instance, I have no idea how the Phys Rev Lett article about quantun Hall effect can be used without violation of WP policy, because it is impossible to make " descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge" based on such an article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if a Wikipedian does the researcher's job, he performs original research. However if he relies on the scholars' works and correctly transmits what they say, by no mean can it be an original research. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is somewhat out of alignment with common use of language, and with common sense. Indeed, in the normal case, a peer-reviewed published article is a secondary source. Measurements, images, data collections are primary sources. Unfortunately, the distinction is not that clear in all scientific disciplines. In computer science, source code is a primary source, as are design notes and profiles. But Fast Pattern Matching in Strings is a secondary source within computer science. Of course, for an historian of science, the very same paper is a primary source about Donald Knuth. In history, a diary is a primary source, as is a newspaper report about the Battle of Gettysburg or the Zimmermann Telegram. Of course, for close contemporaries, the same newspaper report would likely be a secondary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would add that position papers, perspectives, editorials and alike, although containing literature review sections, should be treated with care (probably even a primary source) as these articles aim to outline the idea of the author, but not provide strong evidence for these ideas.

Also note that the use of a paper determines whether it is primary or a secondary source. For example, a philosopher of science investigating the publication style in the late 20th century would treat (almost) all scientific papers as primary sources. Arnoutf (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with II, Stephan Schulz and Arnoutf. Paul Siebert you wrote "By using first type primary sources a Wikipedian makes an original research," Not if the primary sources have been published in a secondary source. If they have been published in a secondary source then they can be used as described the policy WP:PSTS. PSTS says "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages,". What a Wikipedian should not do is go digging in the archives and publish primary sources for the first time. -- PBS (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:PSTS is well aligned with common usage. In the normal sense a peer-reviewed article is not a secondary source at all because most peer-reviewed articles are acts of unique scholarship and interpretation. Data are not sources, at least not in the sense that we're using that word in this discussion (I think that is causing much of the confusion). And even in the instances where the data are unambiguously primary sources, if the article provides a unique interpretation and understanding of those sources then the article itself is (probably) a new primary source. ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is this the best forum for discussing this? RSN is best suited for discussing the use of specific sources in specific articles. This discussion seems oriented at general policy/guideline interpretation, or even changes to the Verifiability policy. The talk pages of one of those might be a more appropriate place for some of this discussion.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Will Beback's point above. This discussion has grown beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I suggest that this be resumed at WP:V and perhaps an RfC opened up as the result of this discussion may have far-reaching implications across Misplaced Pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will Beback's comment of 04:53, 20 July 2010, as a good summary, and with the above point that this page is better suited to individual sources rather than setting new principles. Papers evaluating and summarising other published research are secondary, the original published research would be primary and can be used with care not to introduce any new evaluation, in my view. . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. Crum375 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes this discussion is far outside of the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course one should only discuss specific sources for obvious reasons. Some secondary sources can be misleading, for example an article on a scientific subject written by a journalist. One the other hand, an original article by the best expert is frequently the best source. The division to primary and secondary sources can be helpful only as a rough guidance, rather than a strict policy enforced by Arbcom.Biophys (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question posed in the header (admittedly without reading any of the comments that followed, so please forgive me if I repeat a point that has already been made)... Is a "typical" article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal a primary source or a secondary source? The "typical" article published in a peer-reviewed journal will contain both primary and secondary material. So the answer is... "It depends on the specifics." We certainly consider the "typical" journal article to be a reliable source (for both types of material). Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to extend this, but I believe there is one important point missing from the above. The race and intelligence issue at ArbCom concerns explanations for the different IQ scores achieved by different "races": is it mainly genetic or what? One side say they are using secondary sources which review the current state of knowledge (sources which consider various studies, including responses to those studies). There is a claim that the other side highlights results from individual studies in order to provide an undue emphasis on the role of genetics. Thus one side uses "secondary" sources (reviews of multiple papers), while the other uses "primary" (including individual research papers). Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, summaries of studies should be given more weight than individual studies. Summaries should be used to decide the weight of the individual studies, even if WP's use of primary and secondary is funky. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion

Is this book a suitable source to verify the work done at Surfacestations.org? This is the intended use This text us currently unsourced and the book talks in detail of the project mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a reference directly in front of the removed reference. As this is a controversial article and a controversial source, can't we just avoid the drama and use the source already included? Over sourcing doesn't help. Have you tried to address this on the article talk page? Verbal chat 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look instead of reverting, the ref currently there is not about surface stations it`s to the NOAA Handbook mark nutley (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith of the reference. The entire unsupported text should be removed. The Hockey Stick Illusion is not a RS for a BLP. Verbal chat 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not being used as a source for BLP information, it is being used as a source for the surface stations project. mark nutley (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just used Google/Amazon to search within the book, and regardless of the state of RS for the book, the text it is supposed to be a reference for, is not supported by text in the book. So No, it isn't a suitable reference for this. (more specifically there is no mention about whether they use the NOAA handbook or not) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And again your wrong, it is being used as a source not for the NOAA stuff but about the poor quality of the station siting. as in grade them for their compliance with the standards published in the organization's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook. And it does cover that mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And that is not in the book either. The text doesn't mention anything about "grading"/"compliance" or anything like that.. in fact the name surfacestation(s) is not used in the book even once. Watts is mentioned.... once ... in passing. Its a passing mention that Watts had created a website (unnamed) to survey weatherstations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides that the section in the Misplaced Pages article does not mention anything about bad sitings, only about a project to assess the quality of the siting. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is the entire text about Watts in the book: "Meanwhile, another close associate of the Climate Audit website, former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, began a volunteer effort to survey the hundreds of weather stations that were the basis of the land record for US temperatures. The poor quality of the siting and maintainance of the majority of the stations again raised questions over how reliable the instrumental record really was.". As you can see there is nothing in it about what methodology Watts was using, how he did it, or when the site started, or what the name of the site is. All in all - its not a reference for the text in question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s being used to verify the surface stations project, jesus christ how hard is that to understand? mark nutley (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You gave a specific usage example in the intro text to this. And the book can't be used to verify the text that it was supposed to be a reference for. How hard can that be to understand? The book can't even be used to verify the existance of surfacestations.org - since it doesn't mention it at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Get some common sense, is there another project involving surface stations in the us watts is involved in? mark nutley (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is your best guess, maybe there are. How do you know? And that is why the correct use of reliable sources is important. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PLease read Misplaced Pages:Truth and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth to get an understaning why common sense is not a particularly good argument in discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I know because i looked on his website, that`s verified mark nutley (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Verified is something else than Verifiable. Verifiable means that every reader of Misplaced Pages can verify for him/herself based on the sources given in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They can, surface stations is linked to in the main infobox mark nutley (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Caroty

IS this RS for information about its founder and trainer ]? In a related note do these two sources establish this text "Foster established and headed schools in the USA which became part of the U.S. Chito-ryu Karate Federation. "]](actuall text from source is "During this time Sensei Foster headed many karate schools which were part of the U. S. Chito-ryu Karate Federation. " but the page dose not want to be sourced, loom for history page) Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To which Misplaced Pages article are you referring? Dlabtot (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This one Michael G. Foster. Ther are some very bad issues over sources contradicting each other as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Information available on demand

The organisation INFORM is based at the London School of Economics. It is supported by the British Home Office and Britain's mainstream churches, and founded by reputable scholars. It has compiled information for the general public which is available to anyone who asks for it, either per e-mail or photocopy (see "Enquiries" on http://www.inform.ac/ ). The material is not to my knowledge published in book-form, nor is it available on their website. Can this material be used as a source for article content per WP:V and WP:RS? --JN466 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That probably would depend on the nature of the specific "information". If it's a research report that's dated, identified as to authorship, cites sources, etc., it might be a suitable source for some types of Misplaced Pages content. However, if it's an anonymous pamphlet or an opinion essay printed on plain white paper, it would be no better than an anonymous blog. It would be helpful to have some examples of the materials you have and how you would like to use them. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The one example I have at the moment runs to 2300-odd words, cites 7 sources, but is undated and does not name an author. Some phrases appear to be copied from Misplaced Pages. The example I have is information on Prem Rawat; an editor there has proposed we could use it as a source. --JN466 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ombudswiki has posted some excerpts here. --JN466 19:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That sounds extremely suspicious as it seems to be Misplaced Pages citing Misplaced Pages, and Wiki articles are by our own guidelines no reliable sources.

In general I think it is essential to have an idea about the quality control that is in place with INFORM. With scientific papers it is peer review, with newspapers it is the editors, with books the publishers have a look at it. So who is checking these sources at least nominally. Arnoutf (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From looking at the website, I would presume the staff. They have two research officers, and an assistant research officer. ("Who we are" on their website.) --JN466 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the INFORM article on Misplaced Pages sheds some light on this movement and their motives. It seems to particularly focussed on sects. So I would be carefull to use it in any articles not on sects, and even in article on sects a certain level of caution is always (and I mean always also when people quote Nature or Science) a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They apparently don't have anyone "fact checking" basic mathematical inconsistencies. This was the first fact on their "facing the facts" page -- "Fact: A study of 104 participants in Unification Church (Moonie) workshops showed that 71 dropped out within two days, another 29 dropped out between two and nine days and an additional 17 dropped out after nine days. Only nine workshop participants actually stayed over 21 days to join the Unification Church." The organization is run by well respected sociologists, and the research staff have advanced degrees, but that's doesn't mean that they are not sloppy with the information that they put out. If they are using Misplaced Pages as a source I'd say its not worth using as a source. Track down the sources they use instead ... if they are reliable then that's great.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a school in sociology not interested in numbers ;-) But indeed if simple additions are too complex that indicates little internal quality control. I would go for the source materials as Griswaldo suggests. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I have been worried from the start with their claims of support by "professors, London School of Economics, British home office and mainstream churches". I maybe a cyncial Dutchman but I think one of our proverb "Goede wijn behoeft geen krans" (Good wine does not require awards) would be well used here ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow ... it takes some effort to start with 104 participants and have 117 drop out. Those Moonie workshops must be boring as hell! Blueboar (talk)

And keeping nine participants in the workshop on top of that..... Bistromatics in my view Arnoutf (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Eileen Barker, a widely-respected and eminent sociologist, both founded and still actively runs INFORM. Any incidents of text shared by a Wiki article and materials from INFORM may as likely be due to sharing a common source(s) or the Wiki editor using material from INFORM. Regardless, INFORM does have a good reputation for fact-checking. It also has a sterling reputation in the academic community, and based on how I've seen this source treated in other work, I would regard it to be just as RS as a publication from the Sociology of Religion department of most universities. • Astynax 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would accept their official publication readily as those of a university. I would accept their webpages, unpublished work and working papers readily as the webpages, unpublished work and working papers of universities. With the utmost caution and suspicion. (but I do apologise for the unjustified jokes which may shed bad light on their undeniable competence on their topics) Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Eileen Barker is one of the most reputable sociologists around, as are people like James A. Beckford, who is also involved in INFORM. However, the passage "The primary criticisms of Prem Rawat since the 1990s have been for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses and for allegedly leading an opulent lifestyle" in the report is very clearly based on the last sentence of our lead in Prem Rawat. Moreover, this sentence in our article mostly cites sources from the 1980s. The sentence has been much the same in our article since at least December 2008 February 2008. --JN466 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That, to me, indicates the same amount of sloppiness that the mathematical inconsistency I pointed to does. We have no idea who maintains these pages and who compiles these reports. With all do respect I highly doubt that the organization has a "reputation for fact-checking" on their web publications. Says who? I agree that they are a well respected organization run by competent and well respected sociologists (as I already said), but just like the webpages of a university department, sociology or any other, there are no guarantees at all of fact-checking. In our department the admins (who have no qualifications) maintain the websites. I've also come across tons of "reports" hosted on departmental webpages that are collaborative undergraduate projects. Webpages affiliated with institutions of higher learning are not de facto reliable, and I would strongly caution against believing they are.Griswaldo (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the editor at Prem Rawat did not suggest citing INFORM's website, but the information texts they e-mail or mail out in response to private enquiries from the general public. The passage I quoted is not from their website. --JN466 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

INFORM supplies background information to the British government and other governmental bodies, a function which is mirrored by similar organizations in other nations. It is also consulted by others in academia. Caution or suspicion may be justified, though that does not make it anything less than RS. That the sentence quoted is very similar to the last sentence in the lead does not mean that they didn't do a fact-check (indeed the sentence is based upon other sources which use similar language, and those actually are criticisms). If there is something in their information which conflicts with an equally RS source, the simple solution would be to explain that there are 2 views and cite both. If they are way out on a limb and disagree with many and better references, then cite the other sources. If there is no conflict with other, equal RS sources, then I guess I don't see the problem: INFORM is an RS reference. • Astynax 22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm struggling with is whether something sent out to private correspondents upon personal request is a published source per WP:V. --JN466 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Many sources are only available upon demand, or by visiting the publisher. Most dissertations, for example, require a special request or a visit to the host library. The circular reference issues are a big concern, but the "available on demand" doesn't appear to be a problem in and of itself.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The crucial issue is the meaning of "published". "Publish" comes from the Latin 'publicare' to ‘make public’. Has this material been made "public", I don't think so. One definition of "publish" is - to prepare and issue (a book, journal, piece of music, or other work) for public sale. This material hasn't been "issued". The idea I assume is that something is considered substantial enough to warrant the expense and effort of "publishing". If this is "publishing" then any letter written by INFORM would be "published". And, of course, the other issue is, is this material "self published"?Momento (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument. This brochure is available to the public upon request. How is that different from a dissertation?   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't normally use a dissertation either, at least that is what I've understood from previous discussions. Also, with a dissertation, or an article in a journal, we know that it will be the same each time we look at it. Is this the case here? I might have a COI here, as I have two postgrad qualifications from LSE, but hopefully this doesn't affect my attitude towards this. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IRS and WP:RS do allow dissertations to be used with care. Not all would be allowed (unfinished or failed dissertations, for instance, would not), and they must be used with care so as not to give undue weight. • Astynax 08:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller has a good point, but I don't know if we have an answer. I gather than some folks here have received their brochure(s). If they looked as if they came from desktop printer then it'd be different from if they'd been professionally printed. If there's a date or edition number that might help the issue of referring to the same version. (Even printed books may have multiple editions over the years).   Will Beback  talk  10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I still have not seen any indication that a brochure produced by this organization (for what reason btw?) should be considered reliable based on "a reputation of fact checking and accuracy". Where does this reputation come from vis-a-vis said brochures? If their web content is any indication I'd say no way. I mean no offense, btw to LSE or the very qualified individuals associated with the organization, or indeed to the work they do, but until I see some evidence that their webpages, emails, fliers, and brochures have the afore mentioned reputation its status as an RS remains completely dubious. What's the problem with hunting down their sources? They aren't publishing research studies but supposedly using other sources to put together this information. Those sources are either reliable or unreliable and its best to use those.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources are reliable by our standards, others (allegations from ex-followers' private websites) are not. --JN466 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've made INFORM aware of this discussion; they have acknowledged the error on the website and fixed it. They also say they don't use Misplaced Pages as a primary source of information; whilst they may check the references given here, they don't quote directly from it. I may find out more about how the information is compiled in a couple of weeks' time. --JN466 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your opinion regarding their statement about not using Misplaced Pages based on the evidence that you presented that they really seem to be using it? Just curious. Also, they have not fixed the number blunder yet, but I'm sure they intend to.Griswaldo (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at the "Facts" page before my last post, it was changed (I had to switch browser to see it; the old version was still in my browser's cache). Now, the one sentence I quoted above definitely owes its existence to Misplaced Pages -- the combination of those two particular criticisms, and that particular wording, leave me in no doubt – but I have no reason at all to disbelieve their statement about the way they generally work (which, as they say, sometimes includes looking at our sources here). I'm still inclined to think that their reports are not published sources in the meaning of WP:V, but I am interested in what they do, and they have expressed an interest in what I do here; I'll pay them a visit in a couple of weeks, where they'll be able to tell me more about how they generate their information. I'll let you know and report back to you. --JN466 15:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Darned cache! I'm a Luddite what can I say? I think the discrepancy you mention above (as well as the numbers problem) might be a sign of lax editorial control over some of the content by organization higher-ups. I hope this helps them tighten up ship.Griswaldo (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A few final thoughts before I quit this particular discussion:

• There are many services which offer vetted summaries of information aggregated from their databases, most with some sort of limitation as to access. That would include major news services such as Reuters, government agencies, etc. And those summaries seldom come in the form of a glossy brochure (nor have any of the theses I've received from universities). So this question isn't limited to INFORM.
• There is a difference between "information on demand" sources. Some spew out raw data, which in my view would only be RS here in a very limited way at best (i.e., as backup reference for a statistic or statement published elsewhere). Others aggregate snippets from published works on a particular subject. And yet others do offer edited and vetted summaries of information.
• Misplaced Pages's constraints do not apply to third-party sources which editors may use. It is ridiculous to challenge a RS based upon a demand to know what are its own sources and how their authors or editors have used them. The resources we cite may themselves synthesize, make extensive use of primary sources, do original research, etc. Demanding that editors know or speculate about who, how, why and with what motivation for references makes policy unworkable.
• I'm not an editor of the article in question, nor have I used INFORM as a reference. But I would not like to see this and similar sources to be disallowed as non-RS. And again, whether or not they looked at (or have been influenced by) Misplaced Pages is irrelevant if they fact-checked that information. In the example provided, the statements are been well-supported. Moreover based on a quick search, phrases such as "opulent lifestyle" (c.f. and "lack of intellectual" (or analogues such as "quasi-intellectual" or "lack of theological content") appear in other sources noting criticisms. So, neither the wording in the article, or in the INFORM report, are unique, though I can certainly see why the question arose.
• INFORM is a respected organization composed of people with solid, even exceptional and outstanding, academic credentials, despite what seem to be thinly veiled slurs here. Their materials are backed by the organization, and I cannot imagine why they would not be viewed as RS in the same way we would hold materials from Reuters, the CIA, etc. They seem to fit well into WP:V's: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas." as well as the explanation found in the Reliable source examples essay: "the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." Despite its eminent scholarship and credentials, INFORM is not infallible. Nor is any other reference we accept as RS here, and the usual caveats apply. I would think in an article with such a contentious history, how a reference is used is going to be more important, i.e., some material which may be suitable in articles such as Elan Vital may not be suitable for inclusion in the BLP for Prem Rawat.

I apologize for being so long-winded, but I cringe at the thought of setting another precedent which will be dragged into future debates attempting to constrict our use of academic sources. • Astynax 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In the snippets provided there are four obvious mistakes. They call Maharaji "the Maharaji" and "Maharishi". And they say his father called what he taught "the Knowledge of the Divine Light and Holy Name" which is incorrect. And this "prohibited for most premies" is also incorrect. Not a great testimony to fact checking..Momento (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He is called the Maharaji nowadays - his old name was Guru Maharaj Ji. "Maharishi" does appear to be an error, but a minor one. I don't see the error regarding the teachings. Divine Light and the Holy Name appear to be, or have been, part of the movement's teachings.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you bother to write these things? He is not called "THE Maharaji" any more than you are called "THE Will Beback"! "Maharishi" doesn't appear to be an error, it is an error. Whilst knowledge of the Divine Light and Holy Name may have been part of the movement's teaching, Hans Ji Maharaj only described what he taught as either "the techniques of Knowledge" or "Knowledge" as per his article. And, for good measure, Rawat's father's title is not "Shri Hans Maharaj Ji" but "Shri Hans Ji Maharaj". And he spent the majority of his time teaching in North India not in "Sindh and Lahore in what is now Pakistan". It is "the Houston Astrodome" not "the Huston Astrodome". Rawat's "mother and brothers returned to India" is also incorrect, one brother stayed in the US. And, of course, "prohibited for most premies" is also incorrect. So that makes eight obvious errors in less the thirty sentences.Momento (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of what your pointing out is nit-picking. "Maharaji" isn't a name, it's a title like "professor" or "king". Whether it takes a definite article or not is as more a matter of local usage than anything. "Ji" is a common honorific, and tossed in wherever handy. "Huston" is just a typo. Two brothers went to India, even if another stayed in the US, so that statement isn't wrong either. Premies in the 1970s were strongly encouraged to turn over their inheritances and other assets to the movement, as has been widely reported. The source may or may not qualify as reliable for various reasons, but your list of so-called "errors" isn't among them.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct your last points Will Beback. Title or not, in English we say "Good morning Professor", "Good morning Maharaji", not ""Good morning the Professor", "Good morning the Maharaji". Even the INFORM document says "known as Maharaji". Yes, Huston is a typo and that is an error. And the statement - Rawat's ""mother and brothers returned to India" is incorrect because not all of them did. The correct description is his "mother and two of his brothers returned to India" and therefore it is an error. So they are errors, "so-called" or not.Momento (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right that we wouldn't use an article when addressing someone by title, but we would when referring to them. "The professor went to market" instead of "Professor went to market". The matter of the brothers is not an error, it just omits a minor fact. Aside from Prem and Satpal, the other brothers are not-notable.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So you have dropped your previous argument "Whether it takes a definite article or not is as more a matter of local usage than anything". And now saying what counts is when we "refer to them". In which case you're still wrong since Rawat is referred to as "Maharaji" not "The Maharaji" as in "Maharaji was born in 1957" as per every other source in the world. And, of course, omitting a fact that creates a false impression is an error.Momento (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammatically, Indian honorifics such as Maharaji work like nicknames; like "Sting" for example for Gordon Sumner. If you read in an Indian newspaper that "The Sting gave a concert in London", you'd think it a bit odd, too. However, Western publications do struggle with Indian honorifics. I still remember an early academic book by Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley, where they erroneously assumed the honorific "Ji" was Rawat's surname, and formed sentences like "Ji then travelled to the United States". Marvellous. --JN466 02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, that may be true, but it's not universally practiced, even in India. This issue came up regarding Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He is referred to both as "Maharishi" and "the Maharishi". I've found the latter in many Indian publications, while the former is very common in movement literature. In any case, I don't see sufficient significant errors to discount the publication for that reason, though there may be other reasons to do so.   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi just means "great seer", and there have been many of those throughout history; hence you will find "the Maharishi" as well as "the Maharishis" (all those who have occurred in history). But I agree that intimacy also plays into it. A daughter will say, "Dad came round". Someone who is not a member of the family will say, "The dad came round". I think this colours the Western English approach to such names. It may mean nothing, but when Khushwant Singh wrote that article for the NYT, the picture caption stated "Maharaj Ji receives a devotee's homage", where I think a Western journalist might have plumped for "The Maharaj Ji ...". I agree it is a minor issue though, and INFORM are certainly not unique in using "The". --JN466 03:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Emunah magazine and Matzav.com

Is Emunah magazine (http://www.emunahmagazine.com/) a reliable source? The issue has come up in particular regarding this article, which appears to be an abridged an unacknowledged copy of this article in the Brooklyn Eagle. Jayjg 00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As a related question, is Matzav.com a reliable source? It has done the same thing, barely re-written the Brooklyn Eagle article into this: http://matzav.com/brooklyns-oldest-shul-led-by-rav-yehoshua-fishman-celebrates-141st-birthday - basically changed a few words into Yiddish, like "shul" instead of "synagogue". It seems to credit the Eagle at the bottom, but should this source be used? Jayjg 00:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Emunah, it's a bit hard to say, as the "About" page is not really very forthcoming. The print edition appears to be free: . Have you been able to find anything on the publication's editorial staff? I don't know whether I've missed something, but based on what I found on the website, reliability cannot be confirmed. As for the matzav article, it would seem rather more appropriate to cite the original article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle instead. --JN466 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll stick with the Brooklyn Daily Eagle then, and not use Emunah magazine or Matzav.com. Jayjg 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your inputs requested on an opinion article written by an anonymous writer in an occasional newsletter for friends and family of the "Monarchist League of Canada"

Hi, could I please have your inputs on whether an opinion article written by an anonymous writer in an occasional newsletter for friends and family of the "Monarchist League of Canada" can be ruled out as a reliable source for information that is not about themselves, but rather to:

• Add a layer of criticism and doubt onto reported public opinion polls presented in a Misplaced Pages article
• Contend that the cited polls were wrong to use the term "British monarchy" in their poll questions

Examples (more examples can be found in this recent previous version where it was used even more extensively throughout the page in this manner):

• "The Monarchist League of Canada found the wording of the question in these polls to have been the least biased of any survey taken on the subject of the monarchy from 1993 onwards."
• "the exact type of wording the Monarchist League of Canada felt skewed later polls."
  
• "the poll's question referred to "formal ties", alleging that it implied that the monarchy was both perfunctory and restraining; that the reference to the Canadian monarchy as the "British monarchy" implied the institution was foreign; and that the entire question was worded to favour a response that was negative towards the Crown, only a negative response to the question bringing a favourable result for the monarchy."
  

The link to the source in question is here: "British Monarchy Ties Wording Skews Angus Reid Poll on Crown Four Ways" from the monarchist.ca site, on page 3 of the newsletter. The article it is being used in is Debate on the monarchy in Canada under the section Polls. A past discussion which included objections to the use of this source is here.

I see a number of significant strikes against this source being considered reliable:

• The piece is by an anonymous writer ("Reporting, analysis, and commentary by Senex"). According to WP:RS, sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors." An anonymous "Senex" does not meet the WP:RS requirement of a reliable author.
• The article is indicated as opinion ("... commentary by Senex")
• The title of the article ("British Monarchy Ties Wording Skews Angus Reid Poll on Crown Four Ways") also indicates an opinion piece.
• The article contains non-professional, non-neutral, non-journalistic opinion and content: the anonymous writer bemoans the fact that Conservative party supporters, which it sees as "historically most natural supporters of the Crown", are not more supportive of the monarchy and exhorts: "Messrs Harper and Kenney have some work to do in their own back yard!"
• The article is in a newsletter. According to WP:SOURCES: "Self-published media" (including "newsletters") "are largely not acceptable".
• The newsletter is an "occasional" one.
• It is further self-described as being for "friends and family", "an occasional newsletter for friends and family of the Monarchist League of Canada".
• The Monarchist League of Canada is a lobby group that "actively lobbies ... the media, and others ... This is often in the form of organized letter-writing campaigns or through behind-the-scenes manoeuvring."
• According to WP:SOURCES, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

I request the assistance of your input - the more voices and the more weight the better - because there are a number of tendentious editors that will otherwise edit war to keep this anonymous opinion article as a source for the two POV purposes listed above. Thank you in advance for your time. 65.92.212.35 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable. An anonymous article from an obscure publication. Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If we could use that, we could use almost anything. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It in no way satisfies WP:RS. Jayjg 06:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Hansard

I would like to include in the article London Victory Parade of 1946 a direct quote from Hansard. The quote is found here. It is a written answer by the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and is quoted from verbatim (there is no interpretation whatsoever). However, the quote has been deleted by an editor who introduced a version of events stating "A few Polish fliers were belatedly and grudgingly invited to march." (the answer from the Sec. of State says "25"). The said editor has deleted the quote three times in 13 hours, claiming "PPOV", "PPOV" and then "PPOV, WP:PRIMARY" . The figure of 25 fliers is supported by a secondary source, one by Władysław Anders, “An Army in Exile” (MacMillan & Co., London 1949. page 299)

The use of Hansard as a source has been discussed here before () and it seemed then that the consensus was that Hansard can be used, with care, especially when what it says is supported by a secondary source. The question is whether the specific statement linked to above can be quoted from verbatim in the article given above despite the concerns that it is PPOV (whatever that is) and a primary source? Varsovian (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A few is a weasel word and should be avoided if at all possible. However, this seems to be an ongoing content dispute for some time, and it is much more complicated than simple removal of sourced material by an uninvolved editor. I am not sure this is the right place for that larger discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"A few" is directly from a reliable secondary source. It is also pertinent to the topic. Yes, this is an ongoing content dispute. A content dispute when one party has repeatedly violated (perhaps unknowingly) pretty much all content related Misplaced Pages policies (including OR, POINT, POV, and SYNTH). Normally I would be fine with the use of a primary source in such a way but the guideline does say it needs to be used with caution. I am not seeing this caution being exercised here. Rather, an attempt is being made to use this primary source push a particular POV. So yes, larger context matters.radek (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources about WWII related events normally manage to correctly state the date on which Britain and France declared war on Germany. The reliable source you speak of (and which contains weasel wording, as is pointed out below) doesn't manage even that. Varsovian (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. The word "few" unfortunately comes from the secondary source which is quoted in the article. But let's leave the discussion about the article to the article's discussion page. The matter here is whether the above quote be included on the basis that, when backed with a secondary source, Hansard is an RS? Or do the constraints of PPOV and WP:PRIMARY mean that the quote can not be used? Varsovian (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hansard is a verbatim transcript of the proceedings in question. It is (in the days before the UKParliament tv channel) the most reliable source available for what a politician on his hind legs in the House said. If Hansard says that the Foreign Secretary said it, there is unlikely to be a better source - and indeed the other source may just be quoting Hansard. However, I am taking it that the issue is with the spin on the thing. 25 is a number. Few is a criticism.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use the Hansard record to reference a quotation, even one which contains a great deal of "spin", so long as it is attributed (e.g., "MP Henworthy stated, 'All Americans are pigs.'"). Where the "spin" can fall into WP:OR is when an editor uses the transcript to back his/her own conclusion or synthesis, which must instead come from a third-party reliable source. • Astynax 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hansard website is not a verbatim transcript of the proceedings in question. The hardcopy Hansard is a verbatim transcript, but due to time and labour constraints the website has been scanned from the hardcopy version and has not always been corrected. If anyone wishes to disagree with that they are welcome to do so, but His Majesty's Farces should obviously be His Majesty's Forces. O Fenian (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been put thru an OCR scanner, hasn't it. The current stuff uses one feed for the print and electronic versions, so it is error checked, but they've probably got work experience trainees generating the archive stuff (I once, a long time ago, worked in a similar role for the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments, transferring information from cards to microfilm for £30 a week)

Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Information in a footnote

Can information in a footnote (in a peer-reviwed science article) that elaborates on a specific issue be used in Misplaced Pages? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say, yes, usually, treat it as if it were in the main body of the article. Footnote text is read by the academic reviewers. Just take care that it is not an aside comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the source? What article is it proposed for? What statement is the source going to be used for? Which talk page has this been discussed on?   Will Beback  talk  11:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anything in a footnote is typically as reliable as anything in the body of the article. That said, I too would be interested in knowing the specific issue here. Jayjg 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, everyone. The question was hypothetical. TimidGuy (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just piping in as an academic. Anything in footnotes or Appendices should be considered as reliable as the main text. Statements are sometimes put there because of presentational issues, not because they are less accurate (or anything like that). LK (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LK. Good point. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Article in Peer Reviewed Journal by a member of a Religious movement on the Religious movement

A recent WP Peer Review of the Article Twelve Tribes communities expressed concerns about the source. "Swantko, Jean (2000). "The Twelve Tribes' Communities, the Anti-Cult Movement, and Government's Response". Social Justice Research 12 (4): 341–364."

A Revised version appears in Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe edited by James T. Richardson by

Relevant literature in google books uses the journal article. as well as relevant literature Both source are published in "Springer" publications.

Specifically where the article is cited is:

The final deprogramming in Chattanooga was conducted in January 1980 by Ted Patrick and was assisted by one of the Chattanooga Police Department's detectives in falsifying charges in order to perpetrate the "rescue" of member Rebecca Westbrook.

Swantko is a member of the Twelve Tribes as well as their lawyer and married to A Church Elder. The question Is the source reliable and verifiable enough to make this claim despite COI of Swantko? Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No I would not, assuming (and at this time I see no reason to not to) that this is RS. The source does not say that Mr Patrick was involved in the de-programming, just that he was a de-programmer (but that might be reasonable assumption) nor that (as far as I can tell) this was any kind of final programming. Nor sloes the source say that the detective was involved in any de-programming, just the kidnapping. I would also like to see what contact your suggested edit fits into.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That a paper is used does not mean the author agrees with it. One of the most cited papers in the 1990's was the paper on cold fusion, mainly because many scientists tried to explain the flaws in the original paper and how it may have happened.

In this case we have to analyse the original article on its ow value. So let's first look at the journal. Social Justice Research. Published by Springer, so a decent academic publisher. No reason to doubt reliability there. It is indexed by the large indexing machines for science (including Web of Science ISI) and it is the official journal of the International Society for Justice Research . The journal has not yet received an impact factor as it is a recent addition to ISI

Now to the article itself, it has been cited 4 times (which is not very often considering its publication in 1999, the more so as it has been used 3 times in 2001 by one single author). For the author himself this is the only publication in the Scopus database (Scopus on this author - no free access), so it is likely this is the only peer reviewed paper published by him.

When skimreading the article, it becomes apparent that the author is arguing against prosecution by governments. This is perfectly fine in the scientific discourse and is called position paper. A position paper however is explicitly intended to advocate a specific point of view and is therefore in general not neutral.

Taking this altogether I would say that this is a not very notable, but reliable and verifiable source that nevertheless should be used with the utmost care since as a position paper it is best treated as a primary source. I hope this helps Arnoutf (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps thats because there is persecution, well documented persecution. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider also that this is a negative BLP claim that is being made with the source. I think when that consideration is taken into account there is no reasonable way you could use a shaky source like that.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well as the topic is very narrow the citations are narrow too, however in the New Religions Studies where the Article cited by the right people where it is appropriate twice by Massimo Introvigne, James T. Richardson in two articles in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion about NRMs in europe. Sociology of Religion, 2006 by Richardson. Considering that this article is cited by these two Top Scholars in the Law in New Religions studies is no small feat. An unpublished Manuscript by Swantko is used in a source in the most recent publication on them (Palmer 2010 in Nova Religio). Timothy Miller Also Reccomends the artilce in another recent Artilce also in Nova Religio. And perhaps there is a hints of persecution in the writing becuase there is well documeneted persectution of many NRM especially in Europe and the US. I borught it here not becuase i question its reliability but becuase i knew others would and have.Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The original publication in which the article appeared, and its presence in Regulating Religion by James T. Richardson, speak in its favour. Richardson mentions the article in the introduction, and just gives a factual summary of its content. Now, the Times Free Press article says that Rebecca Westbrook was abducted in 1980. Swantko mentions the abduction of Kirsten Nielsen in 1981, also by Patrick. Does this not mean that 1980 as the date for the last deprogramming may be wrong?
• Note that in Westbrook's case, the police officer complicit in the deprogramming actually was her father, according to Swantko; the matter concerned, in Swantko's words, "a falsified arrest warrant to get his 27-year-old daughter into protective custody". I think if the statement were kept, the family relationship would be worth mentioning in any event, for context. However, the big question is, was the protective custody arrest warrant ever found to have been improper by a judge? I don't have much time for literature research right now, but I was unable to find anything in google news or newspaperarchive about the case. Without corroboration by other sources, I would not write the statement as we have it, as it makes it sound that her father was found guilty of a crime. Swantko's religious affiliation, just to address that point, is of no consequence here. --JN466 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that both Swantko and the Times Free Press seem to have the name wrong. It appears to be Westbrooks, not Westbrook or Westbooks. There is background on the case, recounted from the daughter's point of view, here. Her father is now deceased, according to that article. --JN466 19:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is clear from this that she didn't press charges, so the matter did not go to court. It seems a rather sad story all-round, really. I think it should be phrased somewhat more sensitively in our article. Another possibility might be attribution, either to Swantko or Swantko and Westbrooks (Swantko cites her). --JN466 19:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do that I brought it here I had the Peer Reviewer wanted it checked a source. I consider it highly reliable but can understand people concern about COI but this is Peer Reviewed journal as well not a hachet job on their website or in Freedom magazine. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is RS all right, but it offers an opinion on matters of law that weren't tried in a court. Also, knowing that the detective in question was the woman's father casts a somewhat different light on the Chattanooga Police Department. And I think the 1981 Nielsen case was in Chattanooga as well. Perhaps something like this: "One of Patrick's last deprogramming cases in Chattanooga occurred in 1980; it involved a police detective who, according to Swantko, had his 27-year-old daughter arrested on a falsified warrant in order to facilitate her deprogramming, with the support of local judges." --JN466 22:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Social Justice Research journal does not appear to be peer-reviewed based on the policies on their website for submission of manuscripts. If it were peer-reviewed the personal background of the writer would be irrelevant. The facts would have been checked, and errors that did appear could be detected by subsequent writing. TFD (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Springer website for Social Justice Research, under "Submission of Accepted Manuscripts", it says "After a manuscript has been accepted for publication and after all revisions have been incorporated, ...". Also see : "Reviewers: Please click the 'Login' button from the menu above and log in to the system as 'Reviewer'. You may view and/or download manuscripts assigned to you for review, submit your comments for the editors and the authors, and track the progress of your manuscripts through the system." The journal is described as peer-reviewed on numerous university websites, e.g. , , , . Even without this prior review, a chapter in an academic book edited by someone like Richardson and published by Kluwer Academic (Springer) meets RS. --JN466 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion whether this is a peer reviewed journal. It is. ISI and Scopus will only list peer reviewed journals. Springer has it in its normal review process.
However, as I argued above, the article is in the form of a position paper, advancing the ideas of the author by careful combination of facts. This is what you would call a 'scientific opinion paper'. Therefore we should use it as a primary source and only pick up (1) undeniable facts or (2) analysis phrased as an opinion of the authors (Swantko claims: "quote from article". Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how its position paper, all of the stuff in the paper is pretty basic stuff when you study this group. Its cited in approppriate literature, and was later Republished in a very respectable acedemic book. Swantko is not trying to make an arguement about anything, she is merely laying facts out. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you can pick up the undeniable facts; which are presented in any position paper otherwise no position would be even considered as remotely relevant in any scientific journal, but be aware the author may have handpicked facts to come to a conclusions about governmental conspiracies against the sect (which makes it a position paper rather than a case study or review). So be aware that not all relevant fact maybe presented and that the facts that are presented are used to their full potential to reach the conclusion the author wanted to draw. As I said, nothing wrong, but treat it in that context (btw experimental papers also tend to handpick experiments to support the authors favorite theory and are indeed explicitly considered a primary source by Misplaced Pages). Arnoutf (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think thats quite accurate with this, she is not trying to argue any conspiracy theory.... Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The author is neither a third-party nor independent from the subject. Peer review does not ensure neutrality, only that the basic facts are correct. This paper should be used with caution, and it should be mentioned that the author is a member of the movement. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Already done, disclosed explicitly in Text Per Jayne466 suggestion several months ago, thus the reason Peer-review picked up on it and expressed concerns. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the paper by Swantko is cited as a source on the movement's difficulties by top academics, writing for top publishers: The last one of these has an attribution style that we could emulate. --JN466 21:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides to my understanding, our source need not be neutral, only our presentation of them Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Sources are rarely neutral. Almost all sources state some sort of POV (be it political, religious, academic, etc.). When we call for neutrality, it means we remain neutral, and accurately present what the sources say, giving each source its due weight and without letting our own biases skew how we present what they say. Not always easy. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Weaponbb, would you consider rewording the sentence roughly along the lines I suggested above at 22:06, 21 July 2010? --JN466 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can do, this is my pet project article so I want it to be accurate as possible. I have no problem altering text along your advice Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Spirit Level

I've already posted on WP:NPOVN about this article, which relates to a book written by academics for a wider audience. This post is in order to ask just about blog references on the article. There are several references to a blog by a certain Tino Sanandaji, described as the CEO of a thinktank, Captus. The blog also says he is a PhD student. I'm finding it difficult to find my way around the blog and to see what is simply a blog post and what is a reprint. Our article currently says (unsourced) that Wilkinson and Pickett (the authors of the book the article's about) responded on the blog to criticisms. I can't find that. I can find that they wrote on the website of the organisation they established, a rebuttal of criticisms made by a sociologist, Peter Saunders, but nothing responding to Sanandaji. Sanandaji and others did publish a piece in the Wall Street Journal, which I would consider RS, but my current thinking is that the blog posts aren't appropriate for this article. I'd appreciate more eyes on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this blog should be used unless it contains a direct reply to Sanandaji. As far as using a blog to host reprints of comments originally published in other venues... no. Cite the original WSJ piece, not some blog that reprints it. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Behindwoods.com

Is Behindwoods a reliable source for articles such as Vada Chenna? It's used quite a bit . Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

http://abernethyhighlandgames.co.uk

This website has been added to Nethy Bridge and challenged as a self-published source on the associated talk page. The website contains information about Abernethy Highland Games but does not appear to source the information, or be recognized as an official website. Some independent views would be welcome on this site being used as a potential primary source of information. Fæ (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the representitve to authenticate that it is indeed official. A news paper article is not a good enough source, however I will leave this up to Misplaced Pages to decide its authenticity, through my own user name. If you wish to challenge the website I suggest contacting the Abernethy Highland Games to authenticate. Thanks.

Allmovie biography section

The last time this was brought up the discussion seemed to deviate and wasn't clear whether allmovie is a RS for its biographies. In this case I am specifically wondering for the statement in Styles and themes of Hayao Miyazaki that his films have an environmental theme. 陣内_Jinnai 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would consider it generally reliable, especially in the absence of any dispute. However, since the Allmovie biography simply says that his works "often reveal humanist, ecological themes", it doesn't really support the sentence as written. Not the extra details. However I wouldn't be surprised if it is accurate. It probably just needs better sourcing. Dlabtot (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of reliability needed at this AfD

I can't get a response to my analysis from the page-watchers: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Time Cube (4th nomination). Please comment on whether you think the sources discussed are reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Time Cube article lists four sources. PC Magazine and The Maine Campus pretty obviously are reliable sources as they are used. I would say that and pretty obviously are not. I've removed them from the article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That was more-or-less my conclusion too. I'm wondering, however, whether two reliable sources are enough to establish notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's for the AfD to decide. I don't really have an opinion. For what it's worth, both sources describe the extreme nuttiness of the website, not the theory, and the article is about the website, not the theory (if you can call it that). I would also say that both mentions are not trivial as defined by WP:WEB. Dlabtot (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MIT and Georgia Tech aren't reliable sources? These were schedules showing his lectures, which were used to back up the statement that he spoke at those schools. They may be primary sources and wouldn't weight heavily for notability, but there's no reason to remove them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at primary sources such as schedules, announcements and other ephemera and drawing conclusions from them is the essence of original research. That an editor could spend any significant amount of time discussing sources and still not grasp such a simple, basic concept truly boggles my mind and illustrates why so many of the obviously wrong comments made repeatedly by the same editors on this noticeboard receive no response. In this case I made an exception. Dlabtot (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion being drawn here. MIT has him on a schedule of speakers. The article says he spoke at MIT. Aside from a remote possibility that the speech could have been cancelled, I don't see a material leap of logic here. Now I think I understand where you're going with this, you're going to say that mentioning these speaking engagements might cause some readers to assume he's more mainstream than he really is. I personally wouldn't read it that way, maybe some people would, some wouldn't. But we're not responsible for original synthesis that occurs in our reader's heads. NOR is about original synthesis that's in the pages of Misplaced Pages. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As you point out, the schedule doesn't say that he spoke at MIT. It's just a schedule. That he did so is the conclusion drawn. Again, it boggles my mind that such a simple concept could escape someone with aspirations to edit an encyclopedia. "Now I think I understand where you're going with this" - no, you don't. Because I'm not 'going anywhere with this'. Anything you think you know about me or what I think, beyond what I have actually stated, is wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to question whether it is correct to describe this as a "lecture". The source describes him as a guest speaker (a short talk, followed by questions). Mentioning this talk (especially giving it its own section) gives it UNDUE weight. MIT has guest speakers all the time. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot is correct here. Jayjg 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(@Dlabtot), OK, if that's all it is, I understand. I wouldn't have a problem with using a schedule to say somebody spoke at an event, but if we want to remove every vestige of doubt, that's easily solved by changing the wording to "he was listed as a guest speaker at XYZ". I also don't have a problem with "lecture" in the colloquial sense, though I would avoid titles like "guest lecturer" as that means something specific in academia. I also wouldn't have a problem with a section on his speaking engagements; there was more than one. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bose References

This discussion is surrounding two statements

In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems.

There have been sources provided showing publishers that claim or talk about Bose as having products that are considered by the general public as high end.

CNet

Forbes Magazine

Popular Science

PCMag.com

The Register

These have been removed because apparently they "support a larger, general statement about Bose being a manufacturer of high-end audio equipment is WP:SYNTHESIS." But a Google News or a simple Google search reveals many such statements. As I said before Personally I believe that the High-End statement is a bit weak, but it does show what a lot of people on the street believe and is personified by not only one link but multiple sources. It was talked about before Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High-end: arbitration? Talk:Bose Corporation/Archive 3#High end citations.

These is also another debate about:

Today Bose products can be found in Olympics stadiums, The Broadway Theatre, the Sistine Chapel and the Space Shuttle.

The below references are to verify that these are correct statements.

Cisco NASA Publication

MIT Inventor of the Week Archive

They have been removed not because they do indeed verify this is a true statement but because "The passing mention does not help the reader understand anything about the product." Which is not the intent of the verifying process.

Can someone outside of this article please shed some light on this issue? Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is already an active and detailed discussion of these sources, and of the article's various issues, at Talk:Bose Corporation#CNET reference and below that at Talk:Bose Corporation#Discussion of challenged references. Two editors, myself and Mattnad, have weighed in regarding the unreliability of these references, or about the inappropriate use of reliable refs to support a general statement synthesizing a number of off-hand remarks found in sources. One editor, Phoenix79, has not been able to establish that these sources are reliable or, if reliability is not questioned, are used appropriately. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Many of the these sources qualify as reliable (in that they are published) but the issue is not one of reliable sources, but how they are being used. Typically, these are being cited to support a broad claim that Bose is a maker of "high-end audio" products rather than focusing on their respective niches. If you look where Bose operates, they go after low-end niches like clock radios and iPod speakers and develop products that are relatively high-end within that segment, but not high-end for the industry and overall market. Since the citations are NEVER from publications that are expert in audio, there's a further perpetuation of this misunderstanding. There's an effort on the talk page (on my part at least) for more specific explanation about where Bose is high-end (not the general audio market) to avoid continued over-generalization.Mattnad (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that—having more eyes on the problem is a good thing. To me, it looks as if you did not appreciate being the lone voice against two editors describing your favorite sources as unreliable, or their use as synthesis, so you called for reinforcements. My expectation is that your rallying cry will bring a greater number of opinions weighing against the use of the dubious sources and against the construction of a synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; I think that most of the sources above are reliable and support the broad assertion that "Bose is considered high-end." I sympathize with you that the statement is flawed in the sense that the only thing high end about Bose is their marketing but to deny that Bose is perceived as high end by many, many people is futile and disingenuous. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a reliable source state, plainly, that Bose is considered high end by many, or that Bose is a manufacturer of high-end audio products. You have not brought such a source to the argument—instead you brought an opinion based on personal observation. Certainly, it would be interesting to discuss why Bose's marketing has succeeded, but I cannot find a source ballsy enough to tackle this subject. Bose's legal department is heavy handed, making objective discussions of Bose very scarce in mainstream publications. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bose is definitely considered high end. I used to sell electronics, and we had a saying "no highs, no lows, must be Bose". Still, customers thought it was a fancy, high quality brand. I don't think it's that controversial of a statement, so it doesn't require the highest quality peer reviewed source from academe. Not sure which of the above is the best, or if there is a better one, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that some editors are loosing focus on the point. There is a general perception with the average man on the street that Bose products are High-end. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You yourself have lost focus. The phrase under discussion is "high-end audio systems" or "high-end audio", not just high end by itself, which can mean high end of a market segment. You brought this notice here to this forum to discuss the following sentence: "In some consumer-level publications, Bose is regarded as a producer of high-end audio systems." That's the focus. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Try using the word "premium" instead, I'm sure there will be no shortage of sources that could be used to back that up. I agree that without straying too far into syntheis, we should impart to the reader that while Bose may be high-end, it's more associated with "lifestyle" products like tabletop radios and luxury car audio, as opposed to studio or audiophile component systems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that accurately represents how most people view Bose. Further, I suspect that some of the editors involved in this are more interested in presenting The Truth and ensuring that everyone knows that Bose is overpriced than presenting the actual viewpoints of others as substantiated in reliable sources. I sympathize because I personally agree that the common perception that Bose is "high end" is a mistaken belief supported primarily by Bose's (fantastic) marketing department but this is not the place to right that wrong. ElKevbo (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

While you are viewing our policies correctly, I'm not so sure that those sources are inadequate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying to ElKevbo, Phoenix brought this here to forum shop since he could not realistically defend obvious OR/SYN issues. The issue is not one of reliable sources, but whether the sources say what he wants them to say (I would guess) so he can overstate the case for Bose. So for instance in this earlier version favored by Pheonix , references 5 and 6 make claims that bose provides equipment for "high-end automobiles" even the the sources only refer to "luxury" cars. And then citation 37, which says "Forbes Magazine – describing Bose as a producer of high-end products" where the actual reference is much more reserved and speaks only of high-end headphones among other products. There are more examples of this attempt to manufacture a case for Bose as being broader in it's market position than represented by the sources. Hence the real debate on the talk page.Mattnad (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that I was Forum Shopping, but if you believe that I do not think you understand what places like this are for. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Caller

An editor is objecting to the use of The Daily Caller on the basis that it is not a reliable source. There is widespread use on WP of other such ideological sites as a RS--but they tend to lean to the left, such as The Huffington Post, Salon.com, and even the progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America. Drrll (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Note BLP/N also. Note also that the Washington Post has also published much of the material, and I doubt anyone would call it a radical right wing source <g>. It should also be noted that WP does not disqualify sources because they are liberal or conservative - only whether they have editorial controls over the posting of facts. To the extent that no one contests the facts, the source is certainly reliable. Collect (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideology isn't the problem. The problem is that The Daily Caller is more akin to Newsmax than the Huffington Post. The Daily Caller is a lurid partisan tabloid whose reporting is almost universally disputed by the subjects of their reporting. To use their "facts" on Misplaced Pages would be to basically throw out RS and BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you actually have that The Daily Caller is so dodgy? Such a dodgy operation does not merit an interview about the site by the Columbia Journalism Review. As far as it being partisan, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote, "The Caller has tapped a number of down-the-middle journalists, including executive editor Megan Mulligan, who was the Guardian's Washington editor. Conservative politics "is not my thing," she says." In addition, The Daily Caller broke a story about a scandal at the Republican National Committee--hardly a partisan move. Drrll (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that comparison between Newsmax and the Huffington Post. I'd have to opine that they're equally partisian, and both have a certain "tone" in their reporting. But that aside, there's nothing wrong with us using partisian sources as long as we keep our articles NPOV. These specialized sources bring depth to our articles. At any rate, if this is about that Journolist story, the Daily Caller is pretty much a primary source so it would be citable regardless. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideology is irrelevant, as is the 'luridness' of content. That said, this Noticeboard does not generally make blanket statements of reliability. What is the exact url of the specific citation or citations in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article or articles that the source is supporting? Where are the relevant talk page discussions, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The refs are here and here and here. The articles involved are Jeffrey Toobin and Spencer Ackerman. The material that was in the articles is here and here. The current discussion is here. Thanks for looking over. Drrll (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Try to make it simple for me.

This citation: is used to support what text in which article?

This citation: is used to support what text in which article?

and

This citation: is used to support what text in which article? Dlabtot (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This citation is used to support "He wrote concerning Jeremiah Wright,

Part of me doesn’t like this sh*t either. But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals...It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically. And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

in the Spencer Ackerman article.

This citation is used to support "Upon the election of Barack Obama as president, Ackerman wrote, "YES WE DID!" and added , “'…we may not get there in one year or in one term, but America I promise you, we as a people will get there.' HOLY. F***ING. S**T."" in the Spencer Ackerman article.

This citation is used to support "Regarding the pick of Sarah Palin as running mate to John McCain, Toobin remarked as follows: “what a joke...I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale" in the Jeffrey Toobin article.

Drrll (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything non-RS about those cites, although it seems obvious that the intention in putting them in Misplaced Pages is to make Ackerman look bad. Even though they don't actually make him look bad. These partisan disputes are pretty tedious, imho. Personally I think everyone who is here with a political axe to grind, left or right, should be banned without fanfare. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd never actually heard of The Daily Caller before this RSN question. Considering the CJR piece and Carlson's place in the center of the mainstream of American news media, there's no way this source could be 'generally disallowed'. It's certainly usable in particular instances. But... I looked at one of these cites in depth. When McCain picked Palin, liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack. This piece contains numerous quotes from the forum concerning McCain picking Palin as vp nominee. What is conspicuously absent, however, is anything that even remotely suggests the conclusion that is trumpeted by the headline of the piece. There is absolutely nothing supports this - whatsoever. So based on this, I would have no problem with citing the article for a fact - ( "John Smith said that water can quench thirst.") - but conclusions, opinions, and so on ("John Smith engaged in a plot to convince people to buy more bottled water") - would have to be cited as the opinion of the author. Dlabtot (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the headlines and some of the analyses in these pieces are a stretch. As far as "liberal journalists coordinated the best line of attack", most of the participants weren't straight journalists, but opinion people. But there does seem to be a little coordinating with "Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”"

I wasn't going to use any of their analysis, just the quotes (and actually less of the Ackerman quotes than I gave above). Drrll (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source in any sense of the word, especially on the only subject anyone other than Tucker Carlson's mother will read the caller: the Journolist mailing list. Multiple sources have shown that the Caller has exaggerated (at best) the nature and extent of the emails on that list in order to maximize impact and incoming clicks. Using even pull quotes as though the underlying information isn't a lie is unhelpful for our readers. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Multiple sources have shown that the Caller has exaggerated (at best) the nature and extent of the email"

Um, you cited one source, and that source said it couldn't determine if they were exaggerated because they haven't seen the full emails. Saying it's inconclusive is pretty far away from showing that they lied. Anyway they seem like a reliable source to me in the sense that I'm sure they posted the correct quotes, why don't you just state that more of them haven't been made available so context cannot be fully established instead of trying to remove the quotes in their entirety?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

John Hagelin

Two editors disagree on whether or not these sources are reliable enough to support this sentence in the Politician section of the BLP on John Hagelin. Please give your input, thanks.

• "He is considered by some to be a "public policy expert" and was endorsed by members of congress such as Kara Anastasio, Dennis Kucinich and Jeffrey E. Graham."
• Sources: Our Campaigns, Hagelin Bio , Shift In Action, Hagelin Bio, , International Conference bio, , LA Yoga, Interview with Bob Belinoff, Feb 2006, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob neglected to mention two issues:

1. The biographies on these websites appear to be copies of Hagelin's self-published biography. So "Considered by some to be a 'public policy expert'" really means he calls himself that.

2. The ourcampaigns.com website is listing people endorsed by Hagelin, not the other way around. That website is a reliable source for that info, but the proposed text has it backwards.

It is common in politics, entertainment, and other fields for people to have their own official biographies. Those are often reprinted, or even trimmed down to use as introductions to interviews. So the real question here is this: do self-published biographies become more reliable and more independent if they are plagiarized (copied without attribution) by other sources? Or, do they become less so since the publications using them apparently have low standards? Finally, if we did use these second-hand sources, how do we attribute them? "According to websites that reprint Hagelin's biography..."?   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to comments from un-involved editors. Some points to keep in mind. My fellow editor says that it "appears" to be copied. So it is only a guess. But even if this were true. Sources do research and check facts, they don't publish text blindly. Also, many reliable sources access information from other sources and when they reprint info from other sources it means they have either checked the facts or feel confident that the information is true and accurate. This is what a news editor/company or book editor/publisher does when publishing an article or manuscript from a writer. Some facts are checked and some are evaluated as obviously true and accurate and show the endorsement of that editor/company when published.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't say they copied it. They'd have more integrity if they did. It doens't take a linguist to see that the text is the same. Unfortunately, sources do not always check facts. We can't automatically assume they do, which is one reason why this noticeboard exists.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

These sources appear to be essentially reproducing a biography supplied by Hagelin. This is very common, and it's unusual for such sources to do any sort of significant fact-checking on the material provided them. They would be reliable only for non-contentious information. Jayjg 06:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Steven Milloy criticism

A reference to the work of a notable advocacy group was removed from the Steven Milloy article. The report criticizes Milloy, and was being used to support a summarization in the lead that basically describes Milloy receiving criticisms from various groups.

The work removed can be viewed here: and has quotes like, "The irony of the involvement of tobacco disinformation veterans like Milloy in the current campaign against global warming science is not lost on close watchers."

Is this a reliable source that a notable group has criticized Milloy? BigK HeX (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say plainly yes. The UCS is a prominent and widely cited organisation. The item you mention is on its website.

Of more concern to me are some of the other sources used in the article, in particular , a web publication of the Center for Media and Democracy. Has anyone come across this before? Does it seem like a reliable source? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for commenting but as an editor involved in the disrupted field, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through 600 edits on that article, and don't see a single one from User:ChrisO. So ... ummm ....?? BigK HeX (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The UCS document appears to be a primary source and unless there are other sources to support this criticism, it is a questionable source for contentious text in a BLP. I would say, for sure, that it doesn't qualify for a mention in the lead on the basis of this source alone.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Under what definition is it a primary source? It appears to clearly be a secondary source. As to its appropriateness, the UCS is a notable and high-profile organization, albeit one with a clear agenda for which it advocates. Under those circumstances, the report seems useable as a statement of the UCS' opinion, with inline attribution (e.g. "According to the Union of Concerned Scientists..."). MastCell  20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a very mainstream published wikipedia reliable source to me, and its in the archives? I don't know about this thread it seems dissociated from the edit war that started this, and how is it possible to discuss citations without also an offer of what content the user want to support with it, anyways this was what the user added...

User added this citation to support another citation that was supporting this content... Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html

user added this citation and removed a citation required template for this content ..When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-arctic-climate-impact-assessment/

user added this citation and removed a citation required template for this content...as well as by climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who criticized Milloy for taking "one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy."http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The UCS is an adcovacy group, and is not a good source for a BLP mark nutley (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

] is obviously a reliable source. Whether it is an appropriate source in a particular BLP is a question for the BLP noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Mastcell What makes you think a privately run adcovacy group is suitable for a BLP? Were is their editorial control? What makes them a reliable source for a BLP? mark nutley (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I called it a primary source because it appears to be self-published. Is that true? Or has the document or excerpts been published in secondary source?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is at the wrong noticeboard. The question is not whether UCSUSA, PR Watch and realclimate.org, which were taken out of the article here, are reliable sources, the question is whether these sources are in line with our BLP-related policies and guidelines. If this were presented at BLPN, I would say that these are very clearly not appropriate sources to use in a BLP, per the following policies and guidelines:
  • "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below);" (WP:BLP)
  • "Avoid self-published sources: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources as long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." (WP:BLP)
  • "Further reading and external links: External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail." (WP:BLP)
  • "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." (WP:SPS)
  • "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." (WP:ELBLP)
• The question whether these sources are reliable for anything else is a moot point in this context. However, if the press releases and other claims made by these sources about Milloy have been reported in multiple press articles or reliably published books, any such press articles or books would be acceptable sources for this BLP, subject to WP:NPOV. For example, there is this book, this article, and there may be other sources like that. --JN466 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would dispute those policy criteria, but how do they relate to what is being discussed here? RealClimate is a self-published source, agreed, but I'm doubtful of whether PR Watch would fall into that category and the UCS certainly would not. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The UCS document is a press release reporting on their own research. Good BLP practice would be to look for any press or book publications that have covered the story. (Also, unless I am mistaken, the press release does not even mention Milloy, which makes its use in his BLP WP:SYN. This report I would classify as a WP:SPS.) --JN466 00:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a USA Today review of a book commenting on Milloy's involvement with ExxonMobil. Both the review and the book, which likely contains further information, are unequivocally suitable sources for this BLP. I believe this Inter Press Service article, which likewise comments on Milloy's links to tobacco and oil companies, would be a suitable source as well. It directly references the UCS report. Here is another press article in the Waterloo Region Record that will pass muster under WP:BLP. Here another source that I think could be used without falling foul of BLP concerns. --JN466 01:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The UCS document is a press release reporting on their own research."

Actually, I linked directly to the paper containing criticism of Milloy from the UCS at the beginning of this thread (and even quoted from it). I've asked a specific question on a source (as other sourcing questions have other solutions); I hope to hear whether the UCS publications are regarded as reliable sources as far as that the UCS is critical of Milloy. BigK HeX (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not an acceptable BLP source, in my view, per "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" (WP:SPS). But this Inter Press Service article, which reports on the UCS report, is absolutely fine to use, as are the other sources I mentioned above. The IPS article contains the following passage:

Indeed, according to the report, even some of same individuals involved in the tobacco industry's efforts contributed to ExxonMobil's campaign. Steven Milloy, for example, whose Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (ASSC) was created by tobacco giant Philip Morris in 1993 to raise questions about the link between second-hand smoke and cancer, has served as a member of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which ExxonMobil helped create in 1998, and run the Free Enterprise Action Institute to which the company has contributed 130,000 dollars - or almost two-thirds of the group's total expenses.

I would have thought covers what you wanted to put in the article. --JN466 18:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahya.org

Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas is heavily referenced from ahya.org. I wanted to know if it counts as a reliable source. —  Hamza  06:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, the ahya.org biography of Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqqas is also word-by-word mentioned in N.K Singh's book. I don't know who copied from whom.—  Hamza  07:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, kindly also tell whether i can use the N.K. Singh source if ahya.org is not reliable.—  Hamza  07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear that ahya.org is not a reliable source. The N.K. Singh book is published by Global Vision Publishing House looks at first glance to be a reliable source, while not written by this N. K. Singh. On second glance, I suspect that this N. K. Singh actually owns the publishing house. (note the "published by Dr. N.K. Singh.." ) . In order words, the work is to all intents and purposes self-published. I would suggest finding other sources, if possible. Certainly if other more reliable sources contradict the information here, they should be given priority. Slp1 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Icon Group International/Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases

There is a persistent problem with the use of 'books' by this 'publisher'. Icon Group Publishing is run by Philip M. Parker, a man who computer generates 'books'. In the case of the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series, these 'books' put together snippets from other sources that use individual words, and much of the material for this derives from Misplaced Pages. Using these 'books' is circular referencing. Even when the origin of the text, in rare cases, is not from Misplaced Pages, these source are still not reliable as there is plainly no fact checking being done by Parker when generating these 'books'. The name "Webster's" is confusing: people think of it as connected to Merriam-Webster, when in fact it has been a public domain term since the late 19th century: Webster's Dictionary#The name Webster used by others.

I've previously removed uses of these 'books' and I have again been recently checking for articles that cite these 'books', and I have been leaving a note for those who have added these citations:

Hello. In you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Misplaced Pages (most entries have by them to indicate this, see e.g. ). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Misplaced Pages articles is Alphascript Publishing.

I removed maybe sixty uses in articles a couple of days ago, and there are maybe eighty uses left. Is there a way to set up an edit filter that warns editors who add the text strings "Icon Group" or "Webster's Quotations" to articles, or to flag this up in the edit summary? Fences&Windows 14:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the proposal, but I think the problem with Icon goes beyond these Quotation "books". I would support an edit filter, or even a spam blacklist-type listing in order to catch any and all uses of material "published" by Icon. As you say, they are circular references of zero value, and in fact have the potential to legitimize false facts. Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So how did Icon Group wiggle its way into the google book search anyway? Active Banana (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've removed all uses I could find, so Misplaced Pages should be clean of this source (for now).

Google ain't fussy, that's why this sort of book clogs up their searches. And for someone who does indeed want to know all the uses of the word "Rounding" in Misplaced Pages and other sources (there will be such people), this book could be a wonderful resource! I just noticed Books, LLC also reusing Misplaced Pages's content, thousands of their spammy books have been added to Google Books this year. Groan. I've added it to the list of mirrors.

I think we should prohibit "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" as a source as the bulk of uses are to recycle Misplaced Pages content. Additionally, the inherent lack of fact checking makes all of their content suspect. "Icon Group International" is actually another matter as they also produce dictionaries etc. that seem legitimate, and they produce versions of books that some people use. I'd just add a warning for "Icon Group International". Fences&Windows 12:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps talk to the copyright people; they know how to have blocks for certain sources. User:Moonriddengirl might be able to point you to someone who can help you further. --JN466 07:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I share the concerns about Icon and Alphascript—we had a WP:CP listing just a few days ago where an article was flagged as a copyvio of an Alphascript book, and Icon pops up occasionally—and I myself used an Icon book as a source some time back before somebody pointed out the problem. We've previously used the spam blacklist for copyright issues, but an edit filter might work here, though I would imagine it could be tricky to configure, since it relies on their identifying the publisher. Those who know how to cite books will get the message, though, which is better than nothing. Could we not via that route create an automated warning that explains that these publishers are not reliable sources because they reproduce Misplaced Pages text? --Moonriddengirl 13:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest blocking Alphascript/Betascript/VDM too: we're good at filtering out Alphascript as the awareness is higher, but I just removed an example from Christian apologetics, and sometimes people don't put "Alphascript" in so "Frederic P Miller" (the "editor") should also trigger a filter, e.g. I just removed one as further reading from a featured article. Should we also filter for "VDM Publishing"? Some of the theses they publish are used as sources, I suspect those are also not reliable sources. Yes, we should be able to trigger a general warning about why to not use such publishers. I will think of appropriate text for a general warning and then go to the edit filter people. Fences&Windows 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A featured article? Oh, my. :O Yes, I would think an edit filter for VDM would also be appropriate. In terms of Icon and Alphascript, it's great that people are reusing Misplaced Pages's content - what we wanted, after all - but I wonder if anybody foresaw this problem back in the day. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a solution for this, but anything that can be done would be helpful. There's an AfD currently running on what is clearly a hoax article, where, with the best intentions, an editor added to the article a "reference" consisting of a link to the Google Books page of a "Books, LLD" work that is clearly just a (prospective) compilation of all the WP articles in Category:1875 deaths, including the hoax. Since the reference was added as a bare URL, I don't see how any filter or blacklist could have caught it. Any such measures are doomed, therefore, to only partial success, but I suppose anything is better than nothing. Could a warning about these "publishers" be placed somewhere where the average editor is likely to see it? Most of the information I've seen has been buried on the reliable-sources noticeboard or in other obscure places. Deor (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

EDL

is one, and another RS for the EDL being a political organisation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but. :-) They're local papers, which would be sufficient for reliability as such, if we didn't have better ones, but in this case it seems we do, there's no shortage of national coverage. The English Defence League don't really seem to stand candidates for office, or even lobby candidates as such, so calling them political seems misleading. They seem to go in for protests rather than elections. I'd look for what larger papers call them. Here: The Telegraph: controversial right-wing group. The Guardian: chaotic organisation based largely around existing football groups and hooligan networks (Whoah! That's pretty strong there.) The Times: far right group. Looks like we'll have a better article without saying "political". --GRuban (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think it is a shame that "far right" is applied as a label in the lead when it is disputed. What is wrong with qualifying it in 1 or 2 lines down in the lead? "Political" and "far right" are both things sources say and might even be true but if it is disputed (not only by the group but actual secondary sources) then why force it into the first line like that?Cptnono (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All the major national newspapers call it Far Right, which secondary sources were you thinking of? --Snowded 09:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already provided them for you and you chose to ignore them or focused on any part that did mention far-right only. And I a still perplexed that it has to be done as a label in the first line instead of an attributed line receiving tons of weight in the second line. It makes no sense. And completely ignoring claims by the subject (especially when reported in secondary coverage) makes it even worse. My favorites are the video where the guy flat out says it is not known if they are or not or the article that says they have been infiltrated by the far right.

Your line right there would even work "Major national newspapers call it Far Right" if "but the group disputes this" could be added.

I can see by the recent lock and the numerous complaints on the talk page that you are still filibustering and ignoring WP:LABEL.Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single citation which says they are not far right, other than primary sources. All the third party sources say "Far Right". If you have them list them here for comment. Also please WP:AGF, the lock had nothing to do with me and the complaints are coming from two EDL apologists. Most editors are working towards a consensus --Snowded 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we have more imput please. Are these two local papers RS (and more RS then this ]Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning DissidentVoice.org as outlet publishing writer

Here DissidentVoice.org as an outlet that regularly prints Gilad Atzmon articles has been removed yet again. Despite the failure to address arguments for keeping it at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Dissident_Voice_60_plus_wikipedia_mentions. As of today there are 71 mentions in search, a great many of this relatively innocuous sort. (See past WP:RSN discussion of it at discussion.) And this by same person who thought it was reliable to mention that David Duke published him, despite no evidence he asked them to! So obviously a POV deletion. Opinions here or on the talk page section welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A POV deletion in an Israel debate? Geez, that's never happened before on WP. And in an article about the author, too. Revert it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. Now that I know 3rr actually means reverts and not any and all edits, I'm just going to have to keep doing it!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that's a joke. Fences&Windows 11:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Songfacts.com

Can we please get a final ruling on whether or not Songfacts is useful? Most of the content appears to be user submitted and therefore unreliable. One user, Pvae (talk · contribs) has gotten blocked for a week for constantly spamming this source within articles, despite multiple whacks with the cluebat. I don't wanna keep going around in circles, so let's finally get a final ruling, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not reliable, in the same way that all wikis are. At Songfact's legal page, it says: "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site. Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors." There it is. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Content generated by anonymous users, website disavows accuracy of content. Doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. Jayjg 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Looks like each page at Songfacts has an initial section that's written by the staff, and might be reliable, and a separate section of user's comments, which is not RS. From their "about us" and "staff" pages, this was initially something created by professional radio DJs out of Hartford, who then took their database online. They have professional writers and occasionally interview the artists. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No site guarantees the accuracy of its content! That's a standard legal disclaimer, and these legal disclaimers should not be used in judging the reliability of a source. The important part is "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site." If they have parts of the site that are written by professional staff, those might be reliable. Material like interviews written by these people are probably OK to use as a source. Fences&Windows 12:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd steer clear of it, it's very difficult, there's little attribution for some of the 'facts', they could be written by anyone. --neon white talk 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends which kind of disclaimer. "Not liable for errors or omissions" doesn't disqualify. "You are entering a comment area and this is user-submitted" does. This disclaimer has both. But there's a very obvious tearline on each song's page separating the editor's facts from the user comment facts. It may meet RS, but I would encourage our editors to see if we can't find those facts in a book or magazine. It's always good to continually improve sourcing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Marc B. Shapiro on the Seforim blog

Marc B. Shapiro is an expert on Jewish religious thought and writing. The Seforim blog is a group blog where a number of authors post relatively scholarly pieces on Jewish religious books and thought. I'd like to use this article by Shapiro (specifically the material in footnote 22 about Isaac Bunin). Is this reliable enough to be used in a Misplaced Pages article? Jayjg 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this would qualify as reliable under the expert exception clause of WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar; WP:SPS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, 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. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." and since Marc B. Shapiro looks like an etablished expert with published papers (I assume since he has an Phd.) this can be used in this/these article areas. And it can be used in his own bio per WP:SELFPUB as long as it follow the requirements given there. Nsaa (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As long as we know it was posted by him. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayjg 23:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Random Musing

I have been presented with what on the surface looks like OR, but I could verify it (note there is no contorversy this is in the way of a general nose about). So my question is, If something can be physicaly checked out by you (such as the colour of a towns bus livery) Do you need Third party RS or is saying, "I saw one" RS becasue it can be verified?Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on the case in point, Steven. If it's a fact of crucial importance to the article which is unlikely to be disputed then fine. If the article can survive without it though, the question is: why should WP note it when reliable sources haven't seen the need? --FormerIP (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A photo might verify it, except that "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". I suppose you could include a picture of the bus and not comment on its color! Saying "I saw it", "I know it", etc. is never a reliable source because we don't know whether the person making this statement can be relied upon. This is the core reason for WP:V. Fences&Windows 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

But what if you can check it (and perhaps do), ohh and it might be worth noting that the text that raised this can be sourced to RS (well a local paper), would that constitute verifiability?.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Think you might need to lay your cards out a bit more, Steven. Is stating the colour of a bus the actual thing you want to do? --FormerIP (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly its not something I want to include, its something else someone else put in an article (in this case that a mechanical land mark is now working when before it was not). Secondly I have no objection to the edit (as I said this is just a random musing). I was just intrigued by this idea that if something (like the exsistance of the Earth) can be verified by personel observation then is it RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In general no. Take some LSD and observe some fairies (or monsters). It can be verified, but a reliable source for their existence..... In your example, it may be that the mechanical landmark (let's call it a windmill to make it more concrete) was 'working' as part of maintenance only, or in the context of a one-time historical study. So it really depends and caution is the best way forward. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK seems fair enough. Personel observation cannot be considerd RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ::::::Think that example would need a source, otherwise the fact that the structure is working fails WP:V and WP:N. You mentioned that there was a source, so that should be okay then. I was imagining the statement might be something more like "Manchester United's home shirt is red", which could be sourced, but is so widely-known that I don't think you would really need to. --FormerIP (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's something as simple as describing the color of a bus, there shouldn't be any problem with captioning a user-submitted photo of the bus and citing the caption. If the color can be described without adding any art or judgement on the part of Misplaced Pages, then we're not introducing original research. If it can only be described as "red" we should be cool. If it's an odd color and editors are debating between "chartreuse" and "lemon" we should probably avoid those. If its something where the perceived color itself is up for debate, perhaps it's a photo of some astronomical phenomena that might be beyond the color gamut of the camera, then we should find a published source to describe the color. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

A current case at AN/I relates to the appropriate use of MMfA (a self described "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media") as a WP:RS. Several editors there pointed to the absence of consensus on the matter, so I have opened this thread in the hope that consensus can be determined.

There have been six earlier discussions on the topic on this board, to my knowledge. If you know of others, please add them here:

• 24 January 2008
• 22 May 2009
• 10 December 2009
• 1 March 2010
• 5 May 2010
• 14 July 2010

My notes from the above, which I think are representative of most views, are here

I'd like to propose this as an appropriate use of MMfA:

MMfA synthesizes the product of news outlets and draws conclusions. Its opinions and conclusions may be cited, with inline attribution, if they conform to WP:DUE. Cite MMfA's sources for facts. Where, under fair use, MMfA hosts relevant video footage which is unavailable elsewhere, they may be cited and linked to.

Anthony (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• No I found this source used in a BLP, and used for pretty damning edits. It ought to be blacklisted as a highly partisan and untrustworthy source. mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Being highly partisan does not automatically make a source unreliable ... it means we should present what is said as being an opinion. It is similar to an editorial or op-ed piece in a major news outlet. When it comes to presenting opinions, sometimes we must present them (per WP:NPOV)... and sometimes it is not appropriate to do so (per WP:DUE). Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is, moreover, debate as to whether strong opinions even belong in BLPs, especially if thay are in any way contentious. WP:BLP is much more stringent than other policies. Collect (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is disruptive for the same small group of editors with an obvious political motive to repeat their arguments against MM ad nauseum. The assertion that sources that are 'biased' or 'partisan' should not be used has absolutely no basis in WP policy. They should all be permanently banned from posting on this Noticeboard or from the project altogether. Dlabtot (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is my obvious political motive then? The fact that such a highly partisan source should not be used in BLP`s is common sense, not political mark nutley (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to an egregious misuse of MMfA in a current BLP please Mark, that isn't a violation of WP:BLP or WP:DUE? Anthony (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that is? Or do you want me to search BLP`s for a good usage of it as a source? mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think MM is a good source for this? He credited his prayers for steering the course of Hurricane Gloria in 1985, which caused billions of dollars of destruction in many states along the U.S. east coast. He made a similar claim about another destructive storm, Hurricane Felix, in 1995. in a BLP? mark nutley (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard to tell without an actual link somewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue for certain editors is not with the source, but with what the source says. For example the Hurricane Gloria and Hurricane Felix things are true. O Fenian (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That it is true is besides the point, the way it is written here is the problem. Look in this BLP Pat Robertson controversies so far i have removed blog refs, twitted ref`s, loads of SPS refs, and media matters is in there a lot. Tell me what you think of it`s usage mark nutley (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(after EC w/ MN):Yes, and both statements are cited elsewhere (as you have just demonstrated). That is the point I am trying to make. Horologium (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The issue with Media Matters (and all of its cousins, on both sides of the partisan divide, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center (and the related Newsbusters) and Accuracy in Media, is that they usually wildly violate WP:UNDUE. If something really is notable, it will be discussed in a mainstream source, and generally in a format which is better suited to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Every time MMfA is discussed, people point out that they are often cited by newspapers, news channels, kagazines, and NPR. Great! Stick to newspapers, news channels, magazines, and NPR citing MMfA. If it's not picked up by another source, it's a good bet that it violates WP:UNDUE and should not be used. FWIW, I suspect that one of the reasons that there are so many discussions on MMFA is because of the number of links to the site from controversial subjects on Misplaced Pages, compared to the others: FAIR has 593, AIM has 178, MRC 58, Newsbusters 22; many of the links are from talk pages or project pages. Special:LinkSeach is having issues with MMfA for some reason, perhaps because of all of the edit warring, because it's finding only 21 links, none of which are the links which LAEC and Badger Drink edit-warred over. I *know* that there are many more; perhaps someone who understands LinkSearch's internal workings better than I can take a look at why it's missing so many MMFA cites. Horologium (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding 501 links in article space to MMfA, but I use a handwritten extension to Special:Linksearch to filter the results by namespace, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. Did you put *.mediamatters.org in the search box? MastCell  20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! I forgot the wildcard thing. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly Media Matters is an acceptable source to use when citing reactions or opinions, though I'd be reluctant to use it as the sole source of a pure matter of fact. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you be reluctant to use it as the sole source of a pure matter of fact? Dlabtot (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question! The fact will be immediately challenged anyway by partisans or genuinely skeptical editors and we should be using sources that are as solid as possible, so we should just cite the same sources MMFA does. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That isn't a reason to not use it, we can see that it is widely cited, we can see that Columbia Journalism Review looks upon it favorably, that they have expert contributors and that in most cases they provide video excerpts and transcripts. WP:theydontlikeit shouldn't be a reason to discount it as a source. Personally I find that particular attribution is a sound practice though, but for me it doesn't matter if it is National Science Foundation or Media Matters for America. Unomi (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's is an entirely circular argument. You haven't given any reason why it is not a 'solid' source other than that it will be challenged by partisans. We should not be cowed or intimidated by partisans with no valid argument. Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some category errors are being made here. MMFA is a news watchdog site on the left side of american politics. As such it has counterparts and company--in terms of partisan leanings. Newsbusters is also nominally a right-leaning media watchdog. Consequently we might be tempted to argue that MMFA and Newsbusters (or MRC) are partisan sources, which is true so far as it goes. But we cannot make the additional assumption that both sites are just as accurate because they are equidistant from the political center. MRC and Newsbusters are unrepentant shams, devoted to badgering the ref. about media bias and focused on "liberal media" control. A perusal of either of their front pages will show the nature of their coverage: verbatim reporting of favorable commentators, hyperbolic exaggeration of quotes from traditional news sources and general distortion. Apart from the tone, the substance of the sites are completely different. MMFA has a slant, but the articles are quote heavy from the sources. Most of the utility MMFA provides is literal transcription of talk radio and television. Look at the content in the research section, which is the most likely section of the site to be cited. Take one recent example. MMFA lays out the claims by the right wing sites, then compares them to stated claims by officials. The bulk of the article is actually quotes from right wing media. Only the titles and the end are devoted to debunking the specific lies.
• Generally I feel that MMFA is a fine source for the subjects it usually covers: what has been said on a particular radio station or television show. Or what has been written on conservative websites: often MMFA can provide corroboration for a claim that a website has redacted a document or deleted a page (e.g. the Tea Party response to the NAACP letter). Protonk (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  "MRC and Newsbusters are unrepentant shams, devoted to badgering the ref. about media bias and focused on "liberal media" control. A perusal of either of their front pages will show the nature of their coverage: verbatim reporting of favorable commentators, hyperbolic exaggeration of quotes from traditional news sources and general distortion". Can you prove this, or prove that they are any different than MMfA? Or is this just a case of you preferring their bias over another? Newsbusters does exactly the same thing as MMfA only in the opposite direction, and until partisan editors come to grips with this fact there will be little movement towards a consistant standard that doesn't result in edit warring. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Are you telling my you really feel both MRC (or Newsbusters, if you please) and MMFA are just diametric opposites along the dimension of american partisan politics? That there are no other relevant differences between them? Protonk (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I am suprised that so many pro MMfA people seem to think that their POV and presentation is superior. Arzel (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  No difference? Not in how the material from the opposite side is presented? not in underlying accuracy? Not in the nature of accusations? Note I'm not a "pro MMFA person", whatever the fcuk that means. No dog in this race, just came here because I saw the matter on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is often used incorrectly since editors mirror the tone and add weight to articles that are overly critical (ie: extended controversy sections). I don;t know if it is reliable or not but it comes up a lot. Editors opposing it need to find evidence of the group's neutrality is negatively impacting their honesty if anything is going to happen. Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture there isn't single byte of "news" that isn't "spun" one way or the other by these partisan groups. Are they occasionally correct and even citable under WP:V/WP:UNDUE? Of course they are...but the vast majority of content from these "watchdog" groups is PURE SPIN...and not the stuff of Misplaced Pages encyclopedic content. If the content rises to satisfy WP:UNDUE, then there must surely be reliable third-party sources to validate ANY proposed content from these sources. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• MMfA, MRC/Newsbusters and others are opposite sides of the same coin. As such they are all equally reliable or unreliable if you wish. If a standard was set when dealing with highly partisan sources it would go a long way to resolving NPOV concerns and general edit warring. Generally, editors that use these partisan sources have a political axe to grind, and thus their use should be viewed with extra scrutiny. If an event is notable it should have coverage from less partisan sourcing and that sourcing should be used instead. Events that recieve extraordinary coverage will often also have opinion from partisan sources. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to present their opinion. Except under very rare circumstances (if ever) should these sources never be used for factual information that is not covered by other impartial sources. By their very nature anything they present will be in direct violation of NPOV from the onset and their use should be limited as such. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Direct violation of NPOV? How so? Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These sites put their spin on an event for political purposes. By their nature everything they present is from a specific point of view, ie. not neutral. Presentation of their view as a factual representation of an event will result in their POV, thus a violation of NPOV. There use almost always results in article creep due to the opposite response to their POV. In general they don't improve any article, and create a hostile environment between editors as differing points of view are presented. Arzel (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All these sources should be removed entirely from Misplaced Pages on the grounds of WP:UNDUE. If someone really does make a notable mistake it will be covered by third party sources. Often all that's transferred from these sites to Misplaced Pages is irrelevant minor facts gotten wrong and their over-the-top opinion and tone concerning the people they discuss.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of whether MMfA is a RS generally, I have no opinion on that. WP:RS states, emphasis in original, "Proper sourcing always depends on context...." Also, "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." To me, that means each instance of a ref needs to be seen in context and not generally. I do not understand, given that Wiki policy, how any source, no matter how reliable or not, can be given blanket approval or disapproval. Oh sure, refs from one source are usually RSs and refs from another are usually not, but a blanket policy cannot possibly apply where WP:RS requires that each ref be viewed in context. In other words, MMfA refs cannot be given blanket approval. They must be reviewed in context, like any other ref.

I am concerned that if a certain source is declared always a RS, that source may still be used in a manner that violates WP:RS, but WP:RS will no longer be applicable because such refs will have been declared always a RS.

For example, I have looked at MMfA refs in context as required by WP:RS and found many violate WP:RS. Only once have I received a substantive response to the ref in question in context as required by WP:RS. Most other times people just say MMfA has been found to be a RS source again and again on other pages and no longer should MMfA be questioned; they refuse to discuss the ref in context on the relevant page as required by WP:RS. (Sometimes they then launch personal attacks—that latter link is an MMfA ref instead of a FoxNews ref used to prove "Fox News also suggested that the summit was another step in Obama's outreach to the Muslim world seeing how its logo was similar to the star and crescent"—non-RS might not be the only problem.) In other words, people argue that because MMfA has been found to be a RS on a number of different pages, it is suddenly always a RS and there is no need to comply with WP:RS to determine if the ref is properly used in context on the one particular page in question as required by WP:RS.

The exact same reasoning applies to all other sources, such as the New York Times. Yes, it is a reliable source, but its use as a reference does not always meet WP:RS requirements 100% of the time as used in the various contexts WP:RS requires us to consider. (I do not know this directly but I believe it to be generally correct and common knowledge that refs are not always used properly, else why have WP:RS.) You should not be able to argue that NYT refs should never be considered in context as required by WP:RS because NYT refs have been found to be reliable over and over again on other pages or on the RS/N here and there.

The effort going on here is to declare MMfA is a RS once and for all. Given WP:RS, that should not happen. Instead, MMfA refs, like all refs, such as the NYT, should be considered in context as required by WP:RS. If this is not true, we need to change WP:RS to remove the requirement that "proper sourcing always depends on context", then we need to update WP:RS with a list of sources that will always be considered reliable no matter the context. WSJ, NYT, MMfA, Barrons, The TImes, The Guardian, Le Monde, The Times of India, Pravda, Canberra Times, etc., should go on this list. Similarly, we will need to change WP:RS to add a list of sources that are never reliable, such as WND, MRC, FoxNews, AIM, NewsBusters, CNSNews.com, etc. This is where we are going if we are to decide that any particular source is to be considered always reliable or always unreliable with no need to consider the context as currently required by WP:RS.

Looking at the specific proposal, we can see that MMfA is to be considered always reliable:

1. "MMfA synthesizes the product of news outlets and draws conclusions. Its opinions and conclusions may be cited, with inline attribution, if they conform to WP:DUE." This proposal would violate WP:RS's requirement to consider context.
2. "Cite MMfA's sources for facts." Again, no blanket approval currently exists in WP:RS, and it should not be added now.
3. "Where, under fair use, MMfA hosts relevant video footage which is unavailable elsewhere, they may be cited and linked to." No, we are not in a position to determine if MMfA's voluminous stores of copyrighted material used for political purposes and without appropriate intellectual property markings is indeed fair use, and WP:RS does not allow us to make the legal leap. And WP:RS does not say that if material is not available elsewhere you can relax Wiki rules to allow in the convenience ref.
4. The proposal ignores the issue of MMfA links containing disparaging material. For example, an MMfA ref was used to evidence someone burned money on a news show. Instead of linking the news show, an MMfA ref was used. And when you read the ref, MMfA pointed out that burning money violates the law and the Republican running for US Senate is the guy who burned the money illegally. Is Misplaced Pages to be used as a MMfA amplifier in such a manner? By the way, that's the one and only time someone (Melchoir) opposing my MMfA removal for WP:RS noncompliance actually provided substantive reasoning pertaining to the appropriate context as required by WP:RS. See Talk:Burning_money#Media_matters.

In summary, I oppose this proposal. Refs must be considered in context as required by WP:RS and not given blanket approval.

That said, the proposal's author, Anthony, has been extremely friendly, fair, honest, and effective in moderating various matters. I appreciate his help, including his effort here. It is a pleasure to work with editors like Anthony, for example, AzureCitizen who also disagrees with me on MMfA, only on a WP:LINKVIO issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are either genuinely misunderstanding the discussion or engaging in a creative bit of hyperbole here. No one is claiming that it is more than a RS, it would still be subject to our guidelines regarding RS.

1. No, it wouldn't, see above.
2. See above.
3. Considering that they have been posting videos under fair use since 2004 and seem to not have received a single take down order I think we should probably avoid copyright paranoia.
4. Yes, heaven forbid that we source to a site with factual information, Burning money states the conditions under which it is illegal to burn money, and he had in fact stated that he was considering running. The tone that we apply to our articles is our doing, you are presenting a non-argument.

Please to not hurt the strawmen. Unomi (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• An example of a hideous abuse of MMfA and FAIR sources was the subject of a thread I posted on the BLP/N last March. (Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive61#Coatrack? or valid criticism?) I have created a subpage (User:Horologium/BLP) with an excerpt of the article as it appeared on 8 March 2009, complete with a reference section displaying the links, and a key for the nine targets addressed in the BLPN thread. Notice how three press releases (one from FAIR and two from MMFA) have been turned into a vehicle for attacking nine separate individuals and organizations. Of course, none of this appeared anywhere other than FAIR and MMfA, which is why I think it is a classic example of WP:UNDUE. It is likely that similar examples have been created using AIM, MRC and/or Newsbusters, but I haven't bothered to look. Of course, there are 501 mainspace cites to MMFA and 286 to FAIR, versus 89 to AIM, 37 to MRC, and 92 to Newsbusters, which reduces the likelihood of inappropriate use of right-wing sources. Horologium (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have a BLP Noticeboard for discussing those issues, which are off-topic for this noticeboard. Reliable sources can be used inappropriately. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Dlabtot (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary and reformulation

Gamaliel thinks we should cite MMfA's sources rather that MMfA, because citing someone who is citing someone is not as solid as citing the original source. Horologium and JakeInJoisey make the point that if content from sites like MMfA and MRC/Newsbusters is not covered by reliable third parties, our use of it probably violates WP:DUE, and where it is covered by third parties, we should cite the third parties. Arzel agrees, and, with Cptnono, warns that such sources are used to import ideological bias into articles.

Wikiposter0123 proposes banning all such sites. mark nutley proposes banning MMfA. But LAEC counters that a blanket ban is not necessary, provided editors bear in mind that proper sourcing always depends on context.

Gamaliel thinks it is appropriate to use MMfA to report reactions or opinions. Arzel warns that uncritically parroting their usually biased opinion as fact would violate NPOV but that it may be appropriate to report partisan opinion of events that receive extraordinary coverage. Blueboar thinks that sometimes we must report opinion, but should make clear it is opinion. Collect questions whether strong opinion is ever appropriate in BLPs.

Protonk, while acknowledging MMfA is partisan, stresses its accuracy. Arzel says MMfA should rarely (if ever) be used for factual information that is not covered by other impartial sources. Unomi thinks citing MMfA for facts is fine. Protonk thinks MMfA is an RS for what has been said on a particular radio station or television show or what has been written on conservative websites.

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (LAEC) makes some sound criticism of my proposed formulation at the top of this thread. I have to agree with Unomi on it being reasonable for us to assume MMfA have done their legal homework on their use of copyright material, and appropriate for us to link to them for footage not available on the original site.

In light of the above I'd like to see if there is consensus for this:

MMfA specializes in reporting contradictions and inaccuracies in the conservative media. Though it puts an undeniable spin on its reporting, its reporting of sources is usually accurate. Its research conclusions may be used, in conformity with WP policy. Its opinion may be included in a Misplaced Pages article, provided MMfA's opinion is demonstrably significant per WP:UNDUE. When reporting facts, if MMfA's sources are available and they conform to WP:RS, cite them rather than MMfA. Where, under fair use, MMfA hosts relevant video footage which is unavailable on the source site, they may be cited and linked to.

Anthony (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about linking to something that claims to be fair use to know if it is acceptable or not but everything else you have written in that statement is perfect.Cptnono (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Should we link to MMfA pages containing video and audio?" is a straightforward question. Is there somewhere on Misplaced Pages we can go for a reliable opinion? Anthony (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was asked to weigh in here based on my work with Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. I'm offering my opinion on that aspect only. On the question of linking to something being used under fair use, it is acceptable to link to the page where the material is being used, but may not be to bypass it and link directly to the content. WP:COPYLINK gives an example of linking directly to a still from a film rather than to an article that uses the still in terms of critical commentary. Determining if the use is fair may be a little more difficult. We don't have to be lawyers here, but I think if it makes a good stab at fair use we're probably safe under our policies. The site is non-profit, which helps under point 1. I probably would not link if they are streaming, say, a documentary film without verifiable permission from the copyright holder, but a snippet of a news broadcast with accompanying critical commentary should be safe. --Moonriddengirl 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

" snippet of a news broadcast with accompanying critical commentary should be safe." No. The real answer is, it depends. It depends on a number of factors best determined by legal experts. Like the news broadcast that showed 8 seconds of a human cannonball's act. That was found to be infringement. When I look at MMfA's use of copyrighted material, I see it being used voluminously, showing substantially large portions of copyrighted material, I have never yet seen any attribution of copyright, I see it being used by authors identified only be their initials and even though some are identified on a staff page still some are not, I see it being used in a political fashion instead of an educational fashion, I see it being used to harm the pecuniary interests of the source that created the copyright, it is being used to increase the money donated to MMfA, etc., etc. Everyone stealing intellectual property in the form of copyright claims fair use, so assertion of such claim is not determinant by itself.

Misplaced Pages takes copyright issues very seriously, as Moonriddengirl's comment evidences, and thank you, Moonriddengirl. Just look at the warning message you get when you leave a comment: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." It is the first thing you see because it is so essential to Misplaced Pages for a variety of reasons. " snippet of a news broadcast with accompanying critical commentary should be safe" may not be correct given certain conditions, such as those I have identified regarding MMfA's use of copyrighted material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If they are not making a good stab at fair use, as I said above, that's a different matter. But note that what we're discussing here is a WP:LINKVIO, not direct import of this content...which is a different matter. While I advocate caution in this regard, there are those who note a lack of precedent for contributory infringement of this sort. See Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights#A bad light? and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive624#Continued contributory copyright infringement for some recent conversations on this. --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I discuss your comments here, FYI. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens! I had no idea you guys had discussed this so extensively. (I'm sorry you didn't get much feedback at MCQ. Usually linkvio questions do get response at WT:C or WT:CP, though not always quickly.) I had not previously examined the website, but looking at pages like their MMTv, I can understand the extent of your concern. On the first page of that alone, I see a dozen video clips offered with no sign of critical commentary. The individual pages offer space for viewer comments, but that's about as much "critical commentary" as you get with a Youtube rip of a popular video from MTV. If the base of that page is to be believed, there are 10,267 such clips. I looked around their website, but did not find any instructions for copyright concerns. In terms of linking to them, I suppose I should have asked: for what purpose? Is the link being used to support the information in their media excerpts or to discuss MMFa's critical commentary (should they ever actually have any)? There is a difference there as well, in my opinion. In the former case, we are piggybacking on them as a convenience to access material they may not be legally displaying; in the latter, their use or misuse of the copyrighted content is incidental. Their critical commentary is the true point of the link. --Moonriddengirl 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you called this a 'Summary' - what is that supposed to mean? A summary of what? Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My summary of the attitudes in the above thread towards citing MMfA in general, citing them for facts, reporting their conclusions and opinions, and linking to them for video and audio content, upon which I based the redraft of the proposed consensus statement.

I put it there so it would be blatant if I've misunderstood someone's stance in working out the proposed consensus statement. Anthony (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 18:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters has been discussed so many times and so repetitively with nothing new ever said that most of the regulars at this Noticeboard don't even respond to these threads, finding no utility in retyping the same comments over and over in response to the same discredited arguments. Simply summarizing the latest of too-many-to-count discussions shares, imho, this lack of utility. Dlabtot (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC) And since you didn't apparently include my viewpoint in this 'summary', I don't know whether you've misunderstood my stance or not. Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read all the threads on this board containing the words "Media Matters," and agree: there's been a lot of talk. I intend to put whatever we arrive at here to an RFC, inviting all the contributers to past discussions, and anybody else appropriate. I'm sorry I left you out of the summary, that was an oversight, though I had gathered from the above that you think MMfA is a reliable source, in context; and I've just seen this from 2 March 2010.

The noticeboard doesn't make pronouncements, neither are the perceived consensus of particular RfCs useful as editing dictates. Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis. Any of these organizations would in particular instances qualify as reliable sources and could be used with attribution.

Anthony (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. Dlabtot has been opposing efforts to apply WP:RS to MMfA refs claiming MMfA has been proven reliable elsewhere so it is now and forever automatically reliable on any page, while I have pointed out WP:RS requires an individualized review. That statement just quoted was by Dlabtot and is substantially what I have been saying! I am happy to see Dlabtot agrees with me and others, for example, that, "Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis." Houston, we have consensus! Thanks, Anthony, for finding that quote. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Dlabtot has been opposing efforts to apply WP:RS to MMfA" Of course I've been doing no such thing. I suggest you state your own opinion and allow others to state theirs. Falsely characterizing the positions of others is not helpful. The quote from March 2 - the whole quote, not any part of it in isolation - quite accurately reflects my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know and I did not say otherwise, hence the use of "for example". It is a remarkable statement given your actions do not align with your words. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from further personal attacks against me such as the comment to which I am responding. Use this noticeboard to ask questions about the reliability of particular sources in context, not to comment about other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Broadening the topic

I think we should amend WP:RS to address the usage of all hyperpartisan sources—not just MMfA, but those at the other end of the rainbow such as World Net Daily. They should never be used as a source for factual claims. If used for opinions, they should be used with great care and must be tagged in the article mainspace as "conservative" (WND) or "progressive" (MMfA). There are a lot of similar hyperpartisan sources out there, such as Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting and Media Research Center, that should be dealt with in the same way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the opinion of these sites should ever be included under WP:UNDUE. Their opinion is just whatever supports their side and it never adds anything other then their hyperpartisan group supports their political side.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I was told above, this is not a topic for RSN. I think that Anthony Cole's intentions were good, but this isn't going to be solved here, and obviously Dlabtot is upset that it has been brought up yet again. There really needs to be an RFC on this subject, because the watchdog groups substantially differ from mainstream news sources in both their coverage and their tone. There are two things stopping me from initiating it myself: I lack standing (as I have not been substantially involved in the debates and editing over MMFA and others), and more importantly, I have two term papers to complete, a test for which to study, and two final exams over the next week, and I really don't have the time to put together the evidence needed to properly present the problems here. The issue isn't reliability, it's a combination of other issues (BLP, UNDUE, NOTNEWS, and NPOV). Horologium (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is silly and counterproductive to characterize me as 'upset'. However, I do believe that endless hypothetical discussions that can not by their nature be anything but fruitless are a distraction from the purpose of this Noticeboard. If one wants to change the guideline to exclude sources based on their perceived bias, the place to discuss it would be the talk page for the guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think any guidelines or policies need changing, to deal with MMfA or similar sites, Dlabtot, or are the existing guidelines and policies clear and comprehensive enough? The few disputes I've seen involving these sites were all due to a misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, rather than the policies themselves. Is that your experience? . Anthony (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to pre-declare my position in any future discussion as a default defense of the status quo. However right now the guideline does not mention 'bias' and I don't think it should. In fact it seems that our WP:NPOV policy requires that sources with disparate 'biases' be included, if they represent a significant viewpoint. Dlabtot (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm studying the policy and guidelines; and a bit more "case history" involving MMfA and such sources on the various noticeboards and will get back. There is no point in continuing this here if it's the wrong place or process. Anthony (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

TruthOrFiction.com

Says here "Every story on TruthOrFiction.com has either been personally researched by the TruthOrFiction.com staff or, in some cases, is known to be a classic rumor or urban legend that has stood the test of time. As much as possible, the sources of our information are included in the stories." - Would there be any reason why this wouldn't be a reliable source? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about the reliability of TruthOrFiction.com? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Russia Today

• Is Russia Today considered qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS?
• Does this Russia Today video qualify as a reliable source? It was removed by User:Bdell555 from The War Logs with the edit summary change source as per NPOV section of Talk and eliminate claim data not verified because that was essentially the job of NYT, Guardian, Der Spiegel: to provide some ind verification Is the removal appropriate?

Smallman12q (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RT isn't quite like the old Pravda but it is a source with a strong POV on this issue. Some of what they reports is opinion, like saying there was a coverup. In those cases, it'd be best to attribute the view, for example, "A broadcast on RT calls the leak proof of a coverup." It might even be appropriate to identify RT as state-financed media.   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reporters sans frontières note that RT was set up by Kremlin at about the same time that ABC News was denied accreditation, according to this link. See also this CBC News story: Journalism mixes with spin on Russia Today: critics. The New York Times has said it was created to promote "pro-Kremlin views." Der Spiegel minces no words, describing Russia Today as a "Russian state propaganda channel". The Guardian calls it "the Kremlin's 24-hour English language TV channel" and elsewhere quotes a former RT employee who says "It's North Korean television. They have a large budget and massive resources. But it's not really journalism. It's a third-rate channel which produces Soviet propaganda."

The Moscow correspondant for The Independent described RT's coverage of Russia's war with Georgia as "obscene" and "extraordinarily biased". During Russia's war with Georgia, RT claimed that "At least 2,000 people, including many children were killed within the first 48 hours of the conflict (i.e. by Georgians before Russia intervened in force) yet subsequent investigation found this figure to be massively inflated. English speaking reporter William Dunbar was censored by his employer, Russia Today: "I had a series of live, video satellite links scheduled for later that day, and they were cancelled. The real news, the real facts of the matter, didn't conform to what they were trying to report, and therefore, they wouldn't let me report it."

The authoritative Economist calls RT "propaganda" and gives some examples that support the thesis that RT is not a reliable source. Are Wiki editors seriously going to claim that "They used the NGOs, the American Aid, the International Monetary Fund, the George Soros Organization to try and actually infiltrate and destroy Russian society from within. Today, the US government is building 13 secret bases in Afghanistan for the forward push to an eventual war against Russia" and cite it to RT?Bdell555 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Eventual war with China, surely. ;) Unomi (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple other gems for you: New 9/11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside. See also what "Crosstalk" host Peter Lavelle says at 22:15 of this clip: "The people that perpetrated 9/11 are not fundamentalists at all". By RT's own account, they are "an alternative to mainstream media" and thrive on controversy. That doesn't mean they are necessarily routinely unreliable, but it does mean they are closer to tabloid than to authoritative.Bdell555 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Using such allegation of bias to bar RT would mean the CNN, BBC, NY Times with proven failures of oversight are flagrat POV then. Particulatly the latter 2 who even admited as such. RT is similiar to France 24, and a govt media just like BBC and Al Jazeera that is used on here.Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. There are serious, credible claims of state interference in the reporting of RT, which makes it different from BBC, F24 or Al Jazeera (which I don't think is state funded anyhow - edit: okay, I see from its WP page that it has received a state loan). In many cases RT will be RS, but it is clear that there will also be cases where its impartiality can legitimately be questioned. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, having taken a quick look, I don't see why RT should not be considered an RS. However, the edit that removed it did not change any factual information, so why is it worth worrying about so much? --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"The spies who came in from the art sale" article from Creative Loafing

Could someone verify the reliability of this source article.

http://clatl.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Creative Loafing is a newspaper from Atlanta. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And the writer John Sugg is a seasoned journalist:. This is for Art student scam, right? Fences&Windows 11:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is for "Art Student Scam."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is FearNet a reliable source?

I want to add that Seth Grahame-Smith is going to be writing the script for Tim Burton's Dark Shadows, sourcing it to http://www.fearnet.com/news/b19590_seth_grahame-smith_enlighten_dark.html. Is this a reliable source? I think it may be more reliable than http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/20913 Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume at the very least, you could say "Fearnet.com reports that Seth Grahame-Smith will be writing the script," if not actually just say "he's gonna write it." Or, you could cite both, and definately just say "he's gonna write it". Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Er... why not just use the Variety article that is their original source, and cut out the middle-man? Did you not notice that both posts linked to Variety? Fences&Windows 11:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. No, I didn't notice that. Thanks.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Family Security Matters

This site is so not a RS. Just count the factual errors here: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6857/pub_detail.asp

So nobody will object when I purge them, right? Hcobb (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us? Most editors at RSN may not be familiar with the subject matter. Its possible this could be an RS, albeit with a POV. It has staff and appears to be sponsored by the Center for Security Policy think-tank. Advocacy organizations can still be RS, though we can debate whether it's a good source for naval aviation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic site placards

I'd like to work on an article about a historical site I visited. One of my main sources would be the many placards that were displayed around the site. This is a provincially registered historic site, and the placards all have the Government of Saskatchewan logo on them, so I assume they would be considered reliable sources. Questions: A) Is my assumption correct? and B) How would I go about citing these placards? I've taken photos of all of them so could upload them to Commons for verifiability, but would prefer not to if possible (I'm lazy). Sasata (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Think these would probably be RS, although I am not familiar with them. Assuming they are sober in style ("a great hero" might be problematic). The normal test is that they are in principle accessible by editors who want to check them. Think you could do the world a service by uploading your photos onto flickr or something, which would make verification easier. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The plaques are probably reliable sources. What you do at Flickr is your/their business, but posting photos here or at Commons may violate copyright policy. Like you can't take photos of all the pages of a printed, copyrighted novel and post that, you also cannot post photos of a copyrighted plaque's text. In some cases Wikipedians have pursued getting release of copyright for all of its plaques from a U.S. state or a local government or other entity. When i visit a historic site i certainly take close-up photos of the plaques for my own reference, but I don't post them. Sometimes the plaques are readable within larger scale pics of the place that I do post, though. --doncram (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Portrait Magazine.

Is the magazine http://www.portraitmagazine.net considered a reliable source for reviews? -- ipodnano05 * 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Trade Arabia and Leisure Opportunities

I currently have an article up at FAC with the following two sites used as a reference and have been asked to prove they are reliable sources. This is my first FAC so I'm not quite sure what to do. Can anybody help me with this process? The two sources are;

• a reliable source? Trade Arabia
• Leisure Opportunities

Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Free Press

Hi everyone,

Hawaii Free Press is a twice-monthly, independent, locally owned alternative newspaper published in Hilo, Hawaii since January 2005.

In the article, Colleen Hanabusa, it is used as a source of allegations against Hanabusa.

1. Link to source in question: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/978/Cayetano-Hanabusas-Broken-Trust-connections-lead-to-Ko-Olina.aspx
2. Article where it is being used: Colleen Hanabusa
3. Statement in the article it is supporting:

   According to former Governor Ben Cayetano, Hanabusa acted against Bronster at the behest of Henry Peters, Hoaliku Drake, Jeff Stone, Dickie Wong, and Larry Mehau. Hanabusa admits to meeting with Wong and Mehau, but could not remember whether Bronster's confirmation was discussed.

4. Relevant talk page diffs:
   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Colleen_Hanabusa&diff=362372854&oldid=362368309

      The source is a one man newspaper who has engaged in rumor mongering against politicians he opposes.

   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Colleen_Hanabusa&diff=375686983&oldid=362535233

      ...the Hawaii Free Press is nothing more than a one man extreme right-wing blog, therefore not a reliable source.

With this edit and this edit, I've asked people with comments on Hawaii Free Press to discuss the issue here.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It should absolutely not be used in BLPs. It is indeed a right-wing blog. I've taken it to AfD in fact, after searching for everything I could find out about it. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I think the first mistake it made was calling itself the "Free Press"; most news publications with that title tend to be anti-authority. The "about" section also exposes itself as clearly right-wing, and thus unsuitable to reference anything regarding Democratic politicians. The links make me facepalm too; anyone who still thinks Breitbart's opinion is worth anything is either retarded, right wing, or both. Sceptre 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Bollywoodworld.com

Is (whose webmaster is evidently one of our editors) a reliable site? See for the articles where it's linked. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Source used for Del Taco's history

This source is being used to provide an extensive history of the restaurant chain Del Taco. Is it reliable?Griswaldo (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It says it is from a volume in this series . It looks as though it is. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a good sign. I'd like further input on that type of publication. I know it claims that part of its audience includes "historians" but I'm pretty skeptical of that.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mangalore Today

Is Mangalore Today a reliable source for articles related to Mangalore? Mangalore Today is basically a magazine, and www.mangaloretoday.com is the authorized version of the magazine. The site has coverage in reliable third-party sources . Deccan Herald is a popular newspaper. 115.184.18.225 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we know who the editor of the magazine is?... or who publishes it? Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: 90% of sources are Christian theologians and/or Christian Presses

Historicity of Jesus

• The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted.
• Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis, but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach. For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time, comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese. As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".

• 105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith.". The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith". The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." .
• Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". It is out of date.
• 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity
• Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
• 108 is a theologian: James_Dunn_(theologian). Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted.

Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life. Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image found in the gospels."

• 111 is "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984) was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective."
• 112 is D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing: ""Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." . Dunn is a theologian.
• 113 is William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. This is by far the highest quality source here. However, it's not clear that it supports the text. For example, Arnal writes: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates". (p. 5) That doesn't sound like a clear assertion that it's all about the historical method.
• 114 is Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York: HarperCollins. 2007. Marcus Borg says: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life.". NT Wright is a bishop in the Church of England.

Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death. A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus." (emphasis added)

• 118 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 119 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 120 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian
• 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher
• 122 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"
• 123 is Marcus Borg & NT Wright, same as 114 above

Christ myth theory

• "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians..” The footnote contains four sources. The first is a theologian , not peer-reviewed. The second is a theologian, James H. Charlesworth; the publisher is Eerdmans...."Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." . The third is interesting, just because the expert self-describes as recently agnostic--after a life of evangelism. Unfortunately, the original publisher is Fortean Times, a popular magazine focused on science fiction and the paranormal.. The 4th source is George Albert Wells; he doesn't support the historical Jesus theory, and so is misrepresented as considering its opposition a fringe theory.
• "The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.” The source is Craig A. Evans. The publisher is "Theological Studies: A Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology"

This pattern of sourcing violates neutrality, definitions of reliable sourcing, and principles of systemic and cultural bias. Noloop (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider WP:TLDR amd Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Whether you are right or not mainstream view has it that a historical Christ existed, and indeed Misplaced Pages, as is Western mainstream is biased by Christianity. You may even be defending the WP:truth but that is not going to help you. My suggestion would be to let it rest, this is a battle you cannot win. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would advise Noloop to expand articles like Radical Criticism and to write biographical articles about the red links there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Please discuss the topic, not me. 2. Please document that this is defensible "Misplaced Pages ... is biased by Christianity". It is true; it is not proper. 3. If it is "mainstream" then why are 90% of the sources Christian theologians? Noloop (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream view among current historians is probably that the issue cannot be decided. They have lost interest in the issue. So the only academics publishing about this nowadays are conservative Christian theologians. And they will "win" on wikipedia by volume (also called "consensus"). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your initial assessment, and it reminded me of an article I came across today by a conservative Christian. Check out this article. In short, it is accusing recent library acquisitions of selection bias against the recent Evangelical publishings, in favor of the non-Evangelical/nontraditional ones. I'm not sure I agree with Ingolfsland's methodologies or premises, but it is still interesting to note, giving you think the only ones publishing about this nowadays are conservative Christian theologians. Sorry if this is off topic, but I wanted to share :) -Andrew c  17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First of all... 90%? Stop making up numbers. I could ask "why are 90% of African American studies professor's African American?" or "why are 90% of queer theory academics gay?" or "why are 90% of feminist scholars women?" or "why are 90% of biologists Darwinists?" Can you start citing me what part of WP:RS you feel is being violated by citing these scholars? -Andrew c  17:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not discussing you, but giving suggestions how to better use your time. And indeed the bias is there, both in the people publishing on the topic, as well as in Misplaced Pages editors. Fair: No. Can it be helped: No. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good sources don't exist, but these meet the letter of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and there's plenty of people to revert changes, so there isn't anything to be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In The God Delusion, which is about as non Christian Theologian as you can get, Dawkins says that you could build a case that Jesus never existed but that it isn't 'widely supported' and that 'Jesus probably existed'. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, its statements like that that we're arguing about on the talk page. That seems like a pretty typical representation of secular history, that there isn't enough evidence to say for sure, but there is some. Nobody (with the possible exception of Noloop, arguably on the same 'side' as myself and several others) takes the position of claiming Jesus never existed in the article, but that statements sourced to Christian Theologians that the view he existed is 'universally held' and a certainty should be identified in the article as statements from, well, Christian Theologians (along the lines of 'Dr. Whoever, a Christian Theologian, states that the view is universally held.') -- ۩ Mask 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote from The God Delusion: "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all...." If it were up to me, I would use Dawkins as the source, and say something like "The argument that a 'historical Jesus' never existed isn't widely supported". This would be a less strong statement than the current "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree", but it would also be harder to challenge (I think). I would have preferred to see stronger evidence, particularly for an issue that obviously hits an emotional bone on both sides, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty robust. --RSLxii 20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would love to use that. I would probably modify it slightly, to include more of the information in the quote, something like 'While there is evidence available to propose a serious theory that Jesus did not exist, the view is not widely held'. I dare say though that there is a branch of editors in the dispute who would argue he does not qualify because he is not a biblical scholar. -- ۩ Mask 20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, although it probably won't fly with enough editors to stop its use. I think that Dawkins would be a good source, not for stuff about Jesus, but for what other religious scholars think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"The view is not widely held" does not mean much. Dawkins is not discussing evidence, only the view. In a majority Christian society any views negating Jesus will not be widely held. The view of historians/archaelogists (theologians deliberately not mentioned as these tend to take holy books as evidence) of first century Palestine, and of those only these with a neutral view are scientifically relevant. Good luck finding those. Arnoutf (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposal on the articles talkpage to gauge editor consensus on using the quote. Since we are quoting him for the current consensus, and he was the Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, I feel we can use him as a reliable source for explaining current thinking of those in the field, it's exactly his area. -- ۩ Mask 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is you are slightly overinterpreting him in this case, and Dawins is frequently complaining that his opponents quote him out of context.

Not the not widely held can also mean that the people who care whether Jesus existed are convinced he did, while the others really don't care much. There were a lt of Jewish mystics around 0 AD and Jesus may, or may not have been one of those, or may have been compiled from several stories. In any case interesting to see how the editors respond to the suggestion to name Dawkins a reliable source on religious issues ;-) (Note that Dawkins is biologist by training, neither historian nor archaeologist, or even theologian). Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, thank you for doing the research on all of these sources. The claim "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" clearly is not properly sourced. The fact that there are a number of scholars (such as in the Christ Myth Theory article) who question the historical existence of Jesus proves that this claim is simply false. As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old CMT FAQ, 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. Anyone who thinks religious indoctrination has no impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence with respect to that religion's truth claims is naive or delusional. That being said, I have tended recently to resign myself to the same conclusion that Peregrine Fisher has made. My sanity is more important than the integrity of a couple of Misplaced Pages articles. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Democracy Now source

I know Democracy Now has been determined to be reliable on this board in the past, but another user has questioned the reliability of this.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/8/cheering_movers_and_art_student_spies

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AHRQ and Transcendental Meditation

A review and meta analysis for transcendental meditation was published in 2007 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality:

• Ospina MB, Bond TK, Karkhaneh M, Tjosvold L, Vandermeer B, Liang Y, Bialy L, Hooton N, Buscemi N, Dryden DM, Klassen TP. (June 2007). Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research (PDF). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M; et al. (2007). "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) (155): 1–263. PMID 17764203. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

As this is one of the only independent analysis of TM research ( along with a 2006 Cochrane collaboration review ) a few of us feel that it and Cochrane should be exclusively used to summarize the healthcare outcomes in the lead of the TM article. A number of TM practitioners disagree stating that as this is a government report and not formally peer reviewed it is biased. Could people comment on how best we should summarize the research on health care outcomes?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909559107, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi= 10.1073/pnas.0909559107 instead.
2. U.S. Yoshukai History
3. Chito-ryu US History: 1950 - 1970

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution