Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:14, 16 July 2013

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

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

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

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

Here is the disputed section:

Use of arsenokoites

This enquiry concerns sources cited in the article The Bible and homosexuality for the meaning attached to the Greek word arsenokoites (plural: arsenokoitai; abstract: arsenokoitia; verb: arsenokoitein) by writers of the 1st to the 5th centuries.

A. Is John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1981 ISBN 978-0-226-06711-7), pp. 350-351 a reliable source for the three unattributed statements:

1. "It historically was not used to refer to homosexuality."
2. "The word is used by Aristides of Athens (c. 138) clearly not for homosexuality and possibly for prostitution."
3. "The word is used by Eusebius (d. c. 340) who evidently used it in reference to women."

For quotations of the words of Boswell on which these statements are said to be based, see this edit.

B. Is Robert A. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-42673078-8) a reliable source for the attributed statement: "Robert A. Gagnon states that 'in every instance where the arsenokoit- word group occurs in a context that offers clues to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list) it denotes homosexual intercourse'. He cites instances of its use by (eight Greek writers of the 2nd to 5th centuries)"? Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on A. Of the three statements said to be based on Boswell, the second and third (preferably shorn of the editorial adverbs "clearly" and "evidently") have a basis in Boswell, but should be presented not as clear fact but as what Boswell says, since even Boswell does not claim scholarly consensus about what he is arguing for. However, the first statement, even as a statement of Boswell's view, has no foundation in the phrase on which it is said to be based. In that phrase ("The word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers") Boswell speaks of a single 1st-century writer. In a strong contrast, the statement in the article ("It historically was not used to refer to homosexuality") is far more wide-ranging and is presented as undisputed fact. (BTW, the lack of scholarly consensus about Boswell's view of what the word meant for Paul is evident, "with most commentators and translators interpreting it as a reference to male same-sex intercourse", as admitted even by the editor responsible for making Misplaced Pages say that "it historically was not used to refer to homosexuality".) Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Binksternet says I see two questions here. The first is whether Gagnon measures up to Boswell, which he does not. Boswell was highly respected, but Gagnon is sharply criticized for his practice of fitting the evidence to his preconceptions. The second question is whether Boswell is so authoritative that his conclusions can be assumed to be mainstream. I see on Google Scholar that Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality has been cited 1,434 times, an astoundingly high number for this topic. (Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice is cited 94 times.) This datum supports the idea that Boswell's pioneering work redefined the mainstream view. PBS Fronline says it "would be difficult" "to underestimate John Boswell's significance to the debate about Western attitudes toward homosexuals"... Catholic priest and scholar Daniel A. Helminiak writes in What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality that Boswell is a "top scholar" who has corrected the historically faulty translations of the Bible. Helminiak says "I rely most heavily on the work of John Boswell..." and two other scholars, gay theologian L. William Countryman and heterosexual theologian Robin Scroggs. Professor Guenther Haas writes that Boswell's book is a "major linguistic argument" which is supported by scholars Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, who agree that arsenokoitai cannot be a reference to homosexuality. Haas notes that a "devastating" critic of Boswell is David F. Wright, who agrees that -koites refers to fucking, but disagrees that the addition of the prefix arseno- means "man who fucks" Instead, Wright argues the word to be "man who gets fucked". The book The Boswell Thesis, edited by historian Mathew Kuefler, "brings together fifteen leading scholars" who discuss Boswell's work or use it as a platform for further research. The first four chapters are assessments of Boswell's great impact. After looking at the literature, I would gauge it this way: Boswell defines the modern mainstream, Wright is a minor viewpoint, and Gagnon is a fringe and reactionary figure. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • So Boswell's view is the present mainstream, something easy to accept, but it is not the only present view. There is also, for instance, that of Wright and his supporters, such as Gagnon. Even if Boswell's can be qualified as the mainstream view (Misplaced Pages may require for this some reliable source that says so rather than original research about Google Scholar hits - but I presume there are ways of getting around that), it still cannot be presented as the only view existing. And does Boswell's remark about St Paul, contradicted as it is by most commentators and translators, justify stating as undisputed fact that (not only in St Paul but down the succeeding Greek-speaking centuries) arsenokoites "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality"? Esoglou (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but here goes anyway. The "-koites" element, deriving from a verb, means "go to bed with" (not "fuck", though one undoubtedly implies the other). The "arseno-" element gives the object of the implied verb. So the whole word means, as clear as day, "going to bed with a male or males."

In the abstract, the subject of the verb (the governing noun of this adjective) can equally be male or female. Since Paul didn't give a noun, but used this adjective as if it were a noun, his meaning is, as clear as day, "those people who go to bed with a male or males". There is clearly room for argument about whether Paul meant "those men who go to bed with a male or males" exclusively, i.e. whether Paul meant same-sex coupling exclusively, but the word itself doesn't specify. Andrew Dalby 11:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The questions asked are neither about the meaning of the word arsenokoites nor about what view is mainstream, but:

A. whether the cited pages of Boswell are a reliable source for the absolute (not attributed) statement that the word arsenokoites "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality"; and

B. whether the cited pages of Gagnon are a reliable source for the statement of the existence of a view different from that of Boswell. Esoglou (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

For A, yes. Boswell was a truly heavyweight scholar, and his book is a academically reviewed scholarly work published by a real academic press. Whether you agree with him or not, it is hard to argue that his scholarship was anything other than top-notch. Full-professor at Yale at the age of 35.

For B, no. Gagnon, while nno slacker, has nowhere near the stature of Boswell, and his book is primarily an apologetic work published by a popular religious press without the benefit of academic review. Skimming through the work, it's clear that Gagnon himself considers his ideas a minority within the academioc community, and scholarship clearly takes a back seat to apologetics.

To put Gagnon's opinion on the same level as Boswell's would violate WP:GEVAL. You would need a heavy-duty academic work by a heavyweight academic scholar in a real academic publication to represent any position opposed to Boswell's. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents: A) - No. Boswell is certainly reliable, but that statement needs attribution.; B) - probably not. There's got to be somebody more influential than Gagnon to supply the alternative (or is it mainstream? What makes something "mainstream" in a case like this?) view. What about Wright? Sorry, I don't really know much about Biblical linguistics, my father and grandfather have had more training in this area.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dominus Vobisdu and 3family6. However, the question is not whether Boswell is a reliable scholar, but whether the citation from his work is a reliable source for the unattributed statement that arsenokoites "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality". The quotation on which this absolute statement is supposedly based is Boswell's "The word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers." (Also, the unattributed statement supposedly based on Boswell is not about Biblical linguistics, as Boswell's quotation seems to be, but more about the various post-Biblical writers who used the word.) Esoglou (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is reliable for the unattributed statement. It's pretty obvious, since it's the first instance of the word we know. What the word specifically meant to Paul and his readers is unclear and will probably forever remain so. What is abundantly clear is that Paul's understanding of same-sex relationships, and that of his readers, was very different from the modern concept of homosexuality. Ditto for the religious apologists and translators who followed Paul. Boswell's claim is therefore not at all surprising, and represents mainstream scholarship on the topic. He's not going out on a branch here, as Gignon clearly is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Back again to the question asked. The question is not whether Boswell was going out on a branch. The question is whether the Misplaced Pages editor who wrote that arsenokoites historically is not used to refer to homosexuality (she indicated that she meant homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation) had a reliable source for her broad statement in what Boswell said about Paul and his early readers. (Boswell was not stupid enough to imagine that Paul and his early readers had the modern concept of homosexual orientation.) Esoglou (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just so I understand, the unattributed statement is referring to use of arsenokoites by writers other than Paul? Because that is true, though I don't know any specific sources. This doesn't really refer to Paul at all - Paul's use of the word is unique (I have my own belief as to why, but that's irrelevant.) Does Boswell make a claim about the general historicity of the term? If he does, he would be reliable for that. If he makes a statement about what Paul meant, that opinion is also reliable. But let's be careful not to conflate the two, unless Boswell makes that conflation. If he does make that conflation, then that should be attributable to him, unless it can be backed up by others.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A mere three of the specific post-Paul sources are given in the article as it now stands. Of the many more that exist, the Gagnon source gives at least nine (certainly more, since some pages are not available on Google Books) in which he and Wright think the context shows that they refer to homosexual activity. No claim by Boswell about the general historicity of the term has been adduced by the Misplaced Pages editor in defence against the charge of making the conflation. So it should be clear that the answer to the question is that the citation (and quotation) from Boswell that she gives is not a reliable source for her statement (covering both Paul and the later writers - "historically"), even if she gave the statement as attributed to Boswell. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, if your position is defensible, you should be able to defend it on its merits without inaccurately presenting the content of the sources or my own arguments. I provided you with a quote from a reliable source that explicitly states "the word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese, for intervening here. Then give us a citation from Boswell that is not limited to Paul but covers what you describe as "historically" - and not just the three post-Paul writers that you mention in the article: Aristides of Athens, Eusebius, and John the Faster. Esoglou (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So this isn't a question about sourcing at all, but rather about whether "historically" accurately describes a period of five hundred years after the word's coinage? Then why don't you suggest other wording? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a question about the sourcing of your statement that "historically the word was not used to refer to homosexuality", for which you claim that Boswell's "The word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers" is a reliable source. Boswell's phrase is not a reliable source for your statement, which a) is not limited to Paul and his early readers alone; and b) is presented not as the view of an authoritative scholar, but as absolute fact. Esoglou (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There's also a difference between "connote" and "refer to". Here's a statement that is precisely based on Boswell: "to Paul's first readers the word did not connote homosexuality". In the contested statement quoted by Esoglou just above, "historically" is too vague and "refer to" is too imprecise. The word didn't connote homosexuality -- women, too, can go to bed with men -- yet Paul's readers may still have reasonably thought that, in Paul's use of this word in Paul's context, men going to bed with men were principally in view. Andrew Dalby 14:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify whether living and writing in the sixth century would still place someone among "Paul's first readers"? I'm referring to John IV, who, as we've said, also doesn't use it to connote or refer to homosexuality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was suggesting a close paraphrase of Boswell. So the question we'd need to ask (if it's relevant) is whether Boswell counted John IV among Paul's early readers. My assumption would have been that he meant much earlier readers than those of the sixth century ... but I haven't read him.

I'd say that whatever form of words we adopt, it should be attributed in the text as Boswell's opinion. There is clearly insufficient unanimity for a blanket statement about what this word connoted to readers at that period. (The one early use of it outside a Christian context -- that I'm aware of -- does refer to homosexuality, but adds another word to make this crystal clear: unluckily, from that meagre evidence you could argue either way about the connotation of the bare word.) Andrew Dalby 09:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of proposing a doubtful synthesis, Roscelese, who has read the non-Internet pages of Boswell, will provide actual evidence that among Paul's "early readers" Boswell included the various writers who used the word down to the sixth century - and beyond, since "historically" doesn't end with the sixth century. Then the article can state this as Boswell's view. As things stand, the statement said to be based on Boswell's quoted phrase and presented as absolute truth lacks a reliable source. Esoglou (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Boswell is a reliable source, even if you personally disagree with him. I'm not sure why you're asking me to prove something I've never argued and for which I've in fact argued the contrary - I think Boswell is obviously saying that it wasn't just Paul's early readers that didn't use the word in this way, and that the later evidence he provides proves it. I'll repeat my earlier comment. "So this isn't a question about sourcing at all, but rather about whether 'historically' accurately describes a period of five hundred years after the word's coinage? Then why don't you suggest other wording?" We've established that there's no sourcing issue, so I recommend that you stop dragging out the conversation here and try to make productive contributions to the discussion by suggesting another way of phrasing the reliably sourced information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware that anyone has denied that Boswell is a reliable source for statements truly based on what he wrote. The question here was whether the Boswell citation adduced by you was a reliable source for the statement that you were insisting on. The discussion here seems to have reached agreement that the citation is not a reliable source for the statement. If you do not oppose that agreement, I can return to editing the article from which you there told me to "take a rest". Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds do you disagree, Roscelese, with what Andrew Dalby says: "Whatever form of words we adopt, it (the statement that you have formulated as "historically the word arsenokoites was not used to refer to homosexuality") should be attributed in the text as Boswell's opinion"? Please explain here, instead of just reverting the application of what he says. And explain why you at the same time removed the tag that registers the fact that Andrew Dalby (and I) question your claim that the statement formulated by you is reliably based on the statement by Boswell, "the word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers". Yours isn't the only opinion among Wikipedians. Esoglou (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Andrew if my attributing the statement to Boswell goes against his advice, instead of assuming everyone agrees with you? Based on this discussion, that is a very foolish assumption. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my rushed misreading because of shortness of time before going on a long journey today. Well, Andrew, do you think that Roscelese's already much improved (because no longer absolute) statement, "John Boswell states that it (the word arsenokoites) historically was not used to refer to homosexuality", has a reliable source in Boswell's "the word did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers" taken with his claim (contradicted by others) that three post-Pauline passages used the word for something other than homosexuality? (You, I notice, are someone who is aware how the word is used in the Greek Anthology 9.698.) I think that an improved wording suggested by you would be more acceptable to Roscelese than any proposed by me. I would be grateful for your help. Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a very hard question, because every word is being made to count here. "Connote" is not the same thing as "refer to". I know (and Esoglou saw my reference to this) that outside a Biblical context, but in the same language and at about the same period, this word was used to refer to male homosexuality. Just once; but that, I think, is our only external evidence. I'm quite sure Boswell knows it too (though, as I say, I haven't read him) and I'm sure that's why he words his statement the way he does.

And notice, Roscelese, how when I paraphrased from "Paul and his early readers" to "Paul's first readers", you came right back at me -- perfectly reasonably -- to ask how late a readership that would include. And my phrase was merely a last-moment attempt to vary the wording slightly before I pressed the save button ...

That -- and the whole discussion resting on our heads here -- strongly suggests to me that we shouldn't try to vary the wording at all. So, quote verbatim. So, I would say 'John Boswell states that it (the word arsenokoites) "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers"'. I think that's the best I can offer. Andrew Dalby 11:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been silently watching this discussion, and I agree with Andrew Dalby: 'John Boswell states that it (the word arsenokoites) "did not connote homosexuality to Paul or his early readers"'.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Policymic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a continuing dispute at War on Women regarding the use of Policymic.com as a reliable source, especially in regards to BLPs. Its editorial standards are somewhat lax, using more of a crowdsourcing model, and their standards for writers seems overinclusionary. It's never been discussed here as far as I can tell, so it would be nice to nip this in the bud. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The site seems indeed to have some kind of crowdsourcing policy, which is interesting. WP:IRS mentions editorial policy/oversight repeatedly as a criterion to be used when assessing sources and this kind of site up very well in that regard, although some contributors may be reliable in their own right. The material sourced from Policymic seems to be sourcable elsewhere quite easily, such as here. The NYT is reliable for the information in that article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For this specific usage, the attempt is to link the material to the War on Women, not so much that the material itself is bad. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a crowd-sourced website. As such, it not considered a reliable source generally speaking. At best, WP:SELFPUBLISH would apply. In this particular case, the author, Audrey Farber, doesn't appear to an established expert previously published in the relevant field, and even if she was, SPS's can't be used to make claims about third-parties, especially living people. The content itself looks OK at a glance, and you may be able to use this source which includes the quote.

However, WP:SYNTH may apply as this source doesn't mention anything about the "War on women". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article mentions the War on Women. The website has an editorial staff and it's not going away. Condoleezza Rice has contributed. The content is not contentious in a way that would violate BLP. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple politicians have posted on Daily Kos. What's your point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And Daily Kos is also a RS here. Notable individuals don't usually contribute to non-RS. When they contribute, they give the source notability. It all comes down to how a source is used. If the content is especially negative, then there might be BLP issues. Otherwise not. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Kos is not a reliable source, especially for BLPs. It's the definition of self-published, lack-of-editorial content. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's about as reliable as Fox News... They both represent different opinions and are RS for documenting them. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(reply to Brangifer) Are you crazy? Daioy Kos is a reliable source in the same way that Conservapedia is a reliable source. Equating it to Fox News is asinine. Fox is certainly biased to the right, in the same way that MSNBC is biased towards the left. Both, however, are reliable sources. Daily Kos is not, Conservapedia is not. Horologium (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Horologium, my should have cued you to not take my comment too seriously, but I can see why you missed it. I was actually just showing my disdain for Fox News, where the now-common joke ("Is that the truth, or did you hear that on Fox News?") is becoming more and more true every day. Hopefully Murdoch will soon be imprisoned in the UK and/or USA.

Daily Kos, for whatever reason, is deemed a RS for some purposes by many (you're in the minority) and is used widely here. Whether it is being misused would have to be determined on a case by case basis, but an overall ban (or deletion) on its use, just like such an action against Policymic, would be wrong. If the content is accurate and is backed up by other sources, we should be able to use it. In other cases it might be totally inappropriate to use it or Fox News. This all comes back to Misplaced Pages's rather esoteric use of "reliable" in RS. We obviously don't always use "reliable" as a synonym for "true" when quoting Fox News, at least a large part of the time. (According to WP:V we aren't concerned about "truth".) We mean that it's going to be there tomorrow and is notable (even if for its extreme bias and twisting of facts which keeps fact checkers in business), among many other shades of meaning we include in "RS". Regardless of this, I still use Fox News as a source when necessary. I will also use Daily Kos, MSNBC (which I never watch), CNN, Policymic, and Salon when they are appropriate. Each is usable under certain circumstances. Our RS policy is flexible in that manner. As for Conservapedia, I wouldn't use it for the same reasons I wouldn't use Misplaced Pages or SourceWatch. Their POV is irrelevant to the matter, but the manner of their creation is very relevant. Some of Policymic's and Daily Kos's articles seem to be of a much more reliable quality, and are attributable to one author, not a crowdsource. The quality of the individual article determines whether we can use it or not. The one in question hasn't been questioned by anyone on any noticeboard, thread, or talk page in this debate.

The current discussion is about the title of a Policymic article which ties Governor Nikki Haley to the War on Women for actions similar to those which have gotten other Governors and politicians tied to the WoW. She has shown that she's no different, and it has been noticed. There is no BLP violation because the content is not unduly negative, and it's covered elsewhere as well. The only possible reason for not wanting this same information from Policymic as found elsewhere not included in the WoW article is because of a desire to protect Haley. That's unwikipedian POV whitewashing. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, but some wish to tear it down through censorship. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: What makes you think that this Policymic article is a reliable source? Policymic appears to be crowd-sourced. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only does it appear to be crowd-sourced (if you get enough "mic's" for your comments you can get promoted to publish your own opinion) there is no apparent editorial control. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Do either of you have proof that these accusations apply to this particular article? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:Accusations? Excuse me? I'm not involved in this dispute. I'm simply responding to a question in good faith. What I said was that this source appears to be crowd sourced and as such is not considered reliable generally speaking. If I am wrong, then you can simply explain why I am wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please excuse me. No offense intended. You (unlike some others) have always been civil with no apparent political POV to push. The way PolicyMic works applies to the comments. We're not quoting them. Comments are never RS. We're only quoting the article. I have seen no evidence that Audrey Farber's many articles are anything but her own work, and they are serious and quality work. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a "Pundit level" user can have comments up to 750 characters. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I understand that headlines are not to be used even from RS articles. Headlines are problematic for a variety of reasons. So even if this crowd-sourced site were reliable, this would still not work if the body of the article doesn't contain the "War on Women" verbiage. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

When one questions a source, one should mention the article in the source and the edit it is meant to support, since both are necessary to determine whether the usage is consistent with rs policy. It helps to focus the discussion. TFD (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's about the repeated removal of this content by GOP supporters. It's been in the article since at least June 20:

• "In July 2012, South Carolina Governor ] vetoed funding for ].<ref name="Policymic">{{cite news|last=Farber|first=Audrey|title=Nikki Haley and Jim DeMint Wage a War on Women in South Carolina|url=http://www.policymic.com/articles/15541/nikki-haley-and-jim-demint-wage-a-war-on-women-in-south-carolina|newspaper=Policymic}}</ref> In a letter response, she said that the funding distracted from the state's "broader mission of protecting South Carolina's public health."<ref name="Policymic"/>" diff

It's two sentences, without anything of a BLP-problematic nature. It simply states the facts in a neutral manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely there must be better sources for this factual content? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it would be better to find another source. Using a crowd-sourced source, even if high quality, is a bit of an issue for WP (as we also crowdsource, but we aim not to just reproduce other crowdsourcing). Concerning the fact that Condoleeza Rice contributed I would remind that a "source" has several dimensions in WP. One dimension is the individual author, and another is the publication. Condoleeza Rice might be notable even on her personal blog, but that does not make all blogs RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Policymic.com is precisely a "blog" site. makes no claims as to editorial controls or fact checking whatsoever. "Terms of Service" requires the blogger to be at least 13 years old, which is not really a sign of an RS site, as far as I can tell. "You are solely responsible for the activity that occurs on your account" tells us that the site assumes zero responsibility for anything published by any account. " All Content added, created, uploaded, submitted, distributed, or posted to the Services by users (collectively “User Content”), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such User Content" is also explicit. This site does not meet WP:RS at all for anything.

IN NO EVENT SHALL WE, NOR OUR DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, PARTNERS, SUPPLIERS OR CONTENT PROVIDERS, BE LIABLE UNDER CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE OR ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICES (I) FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, DATA LOSS, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, COMPENSATORY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES (HOWEVER ARISING), (II) FOR ANY BUGS, VIRUSES, TROJAN HORSES, OR THE LIKE (REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF ORIGINATION), OR (III) FOR ANY DIRECT DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF (IN THE AGGREGATE) OF ONE-HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS ($100.00). SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

Need anything be added to this discussion when the "all caps" part of its ToS is so clear? Collect (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Crowdsourced websites are not usually considered reliable, and I don't see any reason to make an exception for this one. That said, any source can be reliable in specific instances. If someone like Condoleeza Rice posted to policymic, her posting might be covered under the "expert exemption" of WP:SPS (where we allow for personal websites, blogs and twitter posts under very limited circumstances)... However, that exception is author specific, and does not carry over to the postings made by others. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why there is even a dispute, as the site is obviously not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Would someone here please stop throwing around the word "crowdsourced" without providing evidence? Maybe some part of the website which I haven't seen is crowdsourced (please show me where that content exists), but does anyone have any evidence that this article is crowdsourced? Comments are not RS, that's obvious, but the article itself....what about it? No one has yet objected to it. The author has many articles of high quality.

The objections above have often been (without using the words) about the comment's section below each article (something even major RS websites have, with similar disclaimers as above), without making it clear the objections could only apply to the comment's section. That's deceptive, and people have been sucked into believing the objections applied to the website or article. Let's have some evidence. The reliability of an article must be determined by its quality, not whether comments or other parts of the website are not reliable. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's treat the website, as in so many other cases, as an online politics/current affairs magazine. The articles are signed and the qualifications/standing/expertise of the authors vary. They are generally of the nature of essays, so it is difficult for us to evaluate the reliability of factual statements made in them. "The reliability of an article must be determined by its quality, not whether comments or other parts of the website are not reliable." Is there a reputation for fact-checking? I can't see one at the moment but please feel free to present evidence on that. At the moment we have to come down to the credentials of this author. If you want to say that she is an expert, please make your case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Judith, thanks for a thoughtful and balanced reply. You ask reasonable questions. I had never heard of Audrey Farber before this article. I still know little about her. What seems apparent is that she is a serious writer of quality work. Does she have to be a highly notable journalist before she can be cited at Misplaced Pages? We have no such rule. As far as real blogs goes (in 2008 Daily Kos was rated above Huffington Post by Time magazine readers), our policies that mention blogs (which previously completely forbad the use of blogs back in the day when all blogs were the rambling post-it notes of just about anybody) have now been updated so that we have been allowed the use of quality blogs since the blog format is now used on a nearly equivalent basis as other major websites, including blog formats being used as the main websites for businesses, politicians, and news websites. Therefore the above use of "blog" as a derogatory term is no longer justified. It's based on an unnuanced and antiquated understanding. Blogs must now be evaluated individually, and when it is discovered that the article in question is quality work, then it should be judged on its own merits.

Here are links to some of her works. Scan them and you'll see she's a hardworking journalist:

• Her articles at PolicyMic, currently 65
• Her articles at Mondoweiss, currently 12
• Audrey Farber responds to proposed loyalty oaths

I'm just interested in this being judged on its own merits, not some political attempt to protect Governor Haley. Some of the editors behind this attempt at shoddy wikilawyering have a track record miles long of editorial actions designed to promote and protect Tea Party and Koch brother interests. They often do it by deleting opposing POV. That's not a good motivation for deletionism. It violates the spirit of NPOV by removing opposing POV. If the case for using this particular article to tie Haley's actions to the War on Women is too weak, then so be it, but I'd like it weighed by more neutral observers. Since her article is factual and backed up by many more notable writers and websites, I see no objection to its use. If there were any doubt about its accuracy, or if it made libelous statements, we wouldn't even have this conversation. As with all such matters, sources are about opinions with which we may or may not agree, but that should not matter for inclusion here. If an opinion presents one side of the political spectrum in a quality manner, we often use it to document that POV. We may not like it, and we may not think it's true, but we still use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Which editors are you accusing of "shoddy wikilawyering" here? The fact is that blogs are quite rarely allowed as sources for claims on any articles - and the claim "but this blog is well-written" is not found as an exception in any policy or guideline at all. Now unless you manage to rewrite WP:RS, I rather think the preponderance of opinions here is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write "but this blog is well-written". The preponderance of opinions by known right wing supporters is obvious. I'm interested in more neutral opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pray tell us who is a "known right wing supporter" that you so blithely disparage? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My contribution was specifically solicited. Farber (2012) "Nikki..." Policymic here is not reliable for the claims as: no editorial control, op-ed being used to source facts, no fact checking evidenced, public wiki. The content should be immediately removed as a BLP violation, or sourced against an appropriate article (not an op-ed) from a real media outlet with a reputation for accuracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at this page, and it clearly shows a policy of editorial control. It's not just a self-published blog. That said I think the more significant issue is going to be that of bias. The cited Audrey Farber article makes no real pretense to neutrality. The matters cited are not inaccurate (I verified them against a dozen other sources) but the reporting voice is conspicuously on one side of the issue. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, our sources and the authors we quote are not required to be neutral. In fact that's what makes our articles interesting. We document reality, including controversies. If we required neutrality from our sources, we'd have to delete a large part of Misplaced Pages and it would be "duh" reading, boring as hell and totally uninformative.

Neutrality is required of us, as editors, in the way we frame the content we add to articles. That does not apply to our sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The ultimate test of any source is that we have confidence that it tells the truth. It is one thing for sources to hold positions about an issue, but if adherence to that position obviously skews their reporting, then they are not reliable. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

BullRangifer is correct on this point. This is covered in WP:RS#Biased or opinionated_sources. The examples I like to give is that MSNBC has a liberal bias and Fox News has a conservative bias, but their both considered to be reliable sources generally speaking. (BTW, I'm referring to straight new reporting, not talk shows hosted by political pendants whose job it is to stir up their constituents and get ratings). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:49, July 11, 2013‎ (UTC)

AQFK is correct. On this point we do agree. We include differing opinions on all significant issues, and NPOV requires that we do so. Obviously people on each side are going to regard the opinions of the other side to be untrue. Big deal. That's life, and we document it. The issues in this article are obviously opinions, like much of the content at Misplaced Pages. Politics is definitely a playground for opinions, be they good, bad, or indifferent. Except for hard scientific fact, it's helpful to consider ALL sources as "opinions", not "truth". We're NOT about "truth" here, since that is a matter of opinion, and editors aren't supposed to make that kind of judgment call, except where scientific facts and theories exist. I'm rather shocked that Mangoe, who's been editing as a registered user since 2006, doesn't understand this. It's very fundamental. Even where hard scientific facts exist, we still include opinions about them, including some pretty false opinions.

Per WP:RS, Biased or opinionated sources: "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." -- Brangifer (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Just to clarify, we don't necessarily include all POVs in an article. Per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be in an article. Tiny minority and fringe POVs don't belong in an article unless, of course, that article is about or related to that POV. But I'm getting a bit off topic, since NPOV is the purview of another noticeboard. Getting back on topic, I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source. Even if it were borderline, BLP requires that insist on high quality sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are totally correct about NPOV and weight issues. They aren't a problem here. As to fringe POV, the POV expressed is the one which justifies inclusion in this article. This is THE POV described here. It's not a fringe POV, but a POV held by the majority who voted Obama into office, thus it's a majority POV. As far as any BLP issues, no one has proven that there are any BLP issues here. There is nothing unduly negative or sensational, and the content is professionally written and fully inline with similar content in mainstream media describing Governor Haley's actions. Even editors in this discussion have agreed on that. Governor Haley has used the term "war on women" many times and has gone on record as denying that it even exists, while at the same time doing exactly the same things which have gotten many other politicians included here. She has been conspicuous by her absence, since her actions are no different. This article ties her in by using the exact wording we need here. The article expresses the majority POV which is so disliked by those who oppose inclusion here. I can totally understand why they object to the POV, but that is not a legitimate motivation for exclusion. They know that, so they are seeking other reasons. That's called wikilawyering, censorship, and deletionism, all unwikipedian actions. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest not reading into the motives of your fellow editors. My issue is with the use of the source, not with the claim. If a mainstream, reliable source links Haley in on it, then I have no complaints with the addition. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Brangifer: We're getting off-topic here, but let me clear up something regarding WP:NPOV. NPOV is not determined by popular opinion (such as voting results) but by published reliable sources. WP:WEIGHT specifically says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this matches up with any sort of cohesive journalistic editorial policy, it appears more to be about getting college credit for writing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That this appears on Policymic adds nothing with respect to WP:RS, it is not a newspaper with an editorial policy that would be recognized as such on WP. The ability of a submission to generate "buzz" does not qualify; in newspaper terms that would be like including letters to the editor as WP:RS if they attracted over 100 comments online. The WP:RS of the submission is entirely on whether the author, and their opinion is regarded as a notable expert on a subject; in this case the issue seems to be "what comprises this alleged war on women?". That the question of credentials or authority to declare this "war" is being discussed points to far greater problems with the article itself than with this reference. No, her opinion piece would NOT be considered an authoritative opinion meeting WP:RS on a similar article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I just want to be clear, is the consensus that Policymic not RS because it is a crowd-sourced site that explicitly states that it does not engage in editorial oversight? If so can this be closed? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Those words have been thrown around, but without any evidence. No one, even after I've asked for it, has presented any evidence that this article is crowdsourced. We're not citing the comments section. It's a serious article by an experienced writer. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The majority opinion here disagrees with your position on this. Collect (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but no one has yet provided any proof that the article is crowdsourced. Not a shred of evidence. Unless you're using some special definition of crowdsourced? Please provide a wikilink to your definition. IF that definition is relevant and also applies to Farber's article, then maybe we can have a meeting of the minds. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, I offered evidence in my initial post on the matter, the one that launched the discussion. Multiple unrelated editors of various stripes agree with the assessment. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, neither here nor in a court of law. Accusations and charges are not evidence. Show me some evidence that Farber's article is crowdsourced in any manner. It is signed and authored by one person who has a good track record for serious journalism. Here are links to some of her works. Scan them and you'll see she's a hardworking journalist:

• Her articles at PolicyMic, currently 65
• Her articles at Mondoweiss, currently 12
• Audrey Farber responds to proposed loyalty oaths

She's a well educated women who is an expert on her subjects. Her articles are largely about women's rights, rape, abortion, contraception, and the current political situation. This isn't about rocket science or genetics. It's about politics and opinion, and she's expressing the mainstream, majority POV, the same one expressed in the War on Women article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Crowd-sourced means essentially self published. Put aside the crowd-source problem, and the lack of editorial oversight. Even if it were true that the author was an "expert", which is apparently not from the description above, the problem with this source is more profound. This source is being used for "War on Women". Only the headline uses the term "War on Women". Nothing in the article says "War on Women". It is the well accepted consensus on wikipedia and this noticeboard that headlines are not RS. Headlines are not reliable sources. A quick search through the archives for headline will confirm this. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, crowdsourcing does not mean self-published. It means what we do here at Misplaced Pages. No one has yet proven that her article is crowdsourced. She wrote it. Period. Lots of notable websites, including the New York Times, publish articles by various people who submit them. I suspect that we're looking at such a case, except that this series of articles seems to have been solicited by Policymic. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

And on the subject of "expert",("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") a search shows that she is a waitress/barista and freelance blogger with a BA in Middle East Studies. As such she would not meet the "expert" exemption for self-published sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear above that this is not about rocket science or some specific scientific subject. This is about political opinion, and one need not be a certified expert on an opinion. Such certification does not exist, but when a writer researches and writes about a subject quite a bit, they certainly do gain a sort of expertise on the subject, and her writings clearly demonstrate that. Otherwise, her current occupation is irrelevant. Lots of freelance writers have various other jobs. We get the point that you're trying to dis her. It's just a distasteful way to do it. We don't have any clearly defined rule that marks the dividing line between when a writer becomes notable enough to be considered eligible for use here. In fact, their notability is not a requirement. If we had such a rule, it would be easier to make this decision. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House

Are these two posts reliable sources?:

• Alaska Business News
• Denver Business Journal

I believe they are basically press release reposts being used in a very controversial area, where much better sources are available. Another editor alleges they are proper secondary sources. I believe that this source is indeed reliable. I have a disclosed COI.

Hoping to get more input. See related discussion here. Also note, I have annotated the article with Better source needed templates where I believe press releases are used as sources in the controversy, though I certainly know there are enough reliable sources to author a substantial body of content that are based on secondary sources.CorporateM (Talk) 01:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Many newspaper articles especially about business are based on press releases. While the press releases are not rs, the articles are because the newspaper has made a judgment on how credible the press release is. OTOH, we are supposed to use the best sources available, which would be business sections of major newspapers or national business journals, which often would have a legal correspondent who would have read the legal documents. If major news sources do not cover the case, then it becomes an issue of neutrality. Generally if these sources ignore a story then it is hard to justify inclusion for a story about a company with a high national profile. If you think that any of the information in the articles is inaccurate, then you can compare them with the written agreement, provided it is available. TFD (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

State press releases are not "best source" and the source you proffer is, indeed, a better source. The "written agreement" is, of course, a "primary source" on Misplaced Pages. I notice the NYT ignored this particular case. Collect (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the subject-matter expertise to contest the facts. I think you are right, that it is actually a neutrality complaint, because my issue is that the material is written from the plaintiff's point-of-view, since it is written on the basis of the plaintiff's press releases. The "more reliable" source certainly carries a much different (and more neutral) tone. And I'm sure press releases from PCH would be equally bias. It is also a substantial body of material sourced to mediocre sources, creating a very overt weight issue.

Anyways, I have proposed on Talk that the paragraph and five bullets should be replaced with a couple sentences based on the "more reliable" source. Does that seem like the right approach? CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the press may not be neutral and it is possible they cannot be neutral because they select which stories to cover or ignore, and whose opinions to include. But the neutrality policy only requires that we reflect what sources say. So any lack of neutrality in the media will be reflected here. I will comment further on the talk page. TFD (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• . I think its usable. They're not a RSf for notability purposes, but they're a RS for the material they include unless contested by better sources. But as CM says, there are probably better sourcesi n this area, so why not use them? DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, the lawsuit is very small ($3.5 million) and the only available sources are a few brief blurbs - that is for this 2010 lawsuit specifically - yet we have an entire paragraph and five bullets devoted to it, where a sentence would do. A few editors have pointed out that it is actually more of a weight issue, so I may have taken it to the wrong board in that regard. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the WP:RS aspect is just one component of several. Second is actual reliability with respect to the items which cited it. Actual reliability is a total different topic than being a wp:reliable source.....to its credit this noticeboard usually addresses that as well. Finally, two more question are whether the material is wp:undue, and whether it summarizes what in the sources. The two noted articles I believe meet the letter of wp:rs but, if as you say ( I did not immediately see that/ look into it) , they are basically based only on press releases from the plaintiffs, then I would consider their actual reliability in discretionary areas (wording, spin, choice of emphasis) to be low. The source that you provided at first glance looks pretty good. But I would also deal with this at a content level, not just source credentials. E.G. what is the statement in question? Is it a summary of what is in best available sources? Etc. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the content in question:

CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to respond to this, but this is a lot more simple to determine. If a press release is an RS, then these are fine sources. My general understanding is that press releases are not considered RS. Just because a media outlet decides to use a press release as an article, does not make it reliable if there is no original reporting involved. It is very easy to determine if it is just a reprinted press release, just take the first paragraph, copy it and google it. If you can find that on multiple sites, they did not even bother to do anything other than just print a press release. Which is the case in both of these sources. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail (UK): use in BLPs

There's been a large number of mass edits to BLPs by Hillbillyholiday and John. I've not reviewed or counted them, but Hillbilly has said its 50 or so. The purpose of these edits appears to have been to remove tabloid, especially Daily Mail, cites from the articles.

I've no problem with someone improving sources; it's what I spend the majority of my time here doing. However, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. The process seems to be Hillbilly removes all the Daily Mail cites and replaces with {cn} and then John swings by the next day to remove all unsourced claims (and any tabloid-supported points that slipped through the net).

In Sally Bercow these changes were reverted by Obscurasky who asked for an explanation. WP:BLP was cited, but no explanation was forthcoming as to why the Daily Mail was being blanket-removed. Instead, Hillbilly called John in, who said: "WP:BLPSOURCES is the place to look for guidance." One revert and a level-4 warning later, I found out that John was an administrator, but even then he seems to be unable to point to a discussion/judgment/pronouncement/whatever that says the Daily Mail is entirely unsuitable for BLPs.

It does appear that it is a RS for WP as a whole (of course, BLPs are a special case), albeit one that you need to treat with more caution than most (i.e. evaluate on a case-by-case basis). There have been a bunch of discussions around the subject, but this is perhaps the most pertinent (as it is relatively recent and had a vote):

• Time to axe the Daily Mail (Oct 2011) Support 4, Undecided 1 , Oppose 5.

John's expanded WP:BLPSOURCES point was this: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Fine, but the stress was placed on the wrong part of the quote. Contentious material is the key there; if there's material that's both notable and uncontroversial, and if the Daily Mail article is judged to be reasonable, then why not use it?

The result has been the removal of notable but not contentious points in the Sally Bercow article. Along with some points that shouldn't be there; I'm not pretending that everything they've done is wrong, just that the points have not been considered on their merits. If that's happened on the Sally Bercow page, it's likely happened somewhere else (i.e. Grandiose and Escape Orbit have questions about the changes to the Andy Murray article)

Other examples are John's removal of content because it had a Daily Mail reference, when 5 seconds of searching found a BBC cite to replace it and Hillbilly's removal of a source written by the person in question. These were examples I found quickly (i.e. they were both found in the first articles I looked at).

There seem to be two issues (please feel free to edit this if I've got the format/process wrong). Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay to use it for non-contentious statements?

Things like confirming middle names and other non-contentious material. Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, BUT - define contentious. The positive, neutral or negative wording is used to exclude material that may or may not be, in the public sphere, contentious (such as middle name, or something you might think is harmless), but which an EDITOR on WP may doubt is correct. The editor who removes has an obligation to state what they dispute, otherwise you are free to assume they have no such dispute. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it okay to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis for contentious statements?

Things like detailed interviews with the subject, especially when directly quoted, vs. Daily Mail statements about immigrants. Bromley86 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It is RS for almost everything other than likely slander or libel - thus almost all factual claims are pretty solid in the DM. It is not all that good for "Hilda Gnarph has secret love child by Prince William" or the like. Investigative reports on MP spending etc. have been shown to be accurate, and there is no real reason to disparage it as a source for such matters. Collect (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Collect. At the very least it will often be useful. As a general remark I would add that I believe there is wide consensus on WP for the fact that reliability in sources can be very context sensitive. Of course there can be special cases, but normally it is not going to be widely acceptable to delete things just based on the source being used and no discussion about the case. This newspaper is not quite that bad!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• It meets rs and should be treated no differently than any other newspaper. In general however one should use broadsheets and if they do not cover a story, then consideration should be given whether it is significant. TFD (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• In links to past discussions you will see me arguing the same position as Andrew and TFD here. But my view of the DM has shifted somewhat - after consulting it more frequently. It is a tabloid rather than mid-market. If apparently factual content is only in the DM then it is likely to be gossip, unless it is part of a major investigation. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)_

Agreeing with opinions given above, I'd put it like this: it is legitimate, and often a good idea, to replace a citation of the DM with a citation of a "broadsheet" such as Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian, Observer. It isn't legitimate to remove material sourced to the Daily Mail just because of the sourcing.

The Daily Mail has enviable reach (as shown by the fact that Judith is consulting it more frequently!) Which means that any worthwhile story it prints is likely to be taken up by those other papers fast, and their reports will make better sources in the long run. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• No - I support its wholesale removal from Misplaced Pages articles. We tolerate poor fact checking more than we should, but when newspapers move on to story fabrication (which we caught the Daily Mail doing in the past) that revokes RS status in my eyes. If something is worth mentioning then just find another source. Enough is enough. Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns Itsmejudith and Betty Logan, but keep in mind that asking for case by case discussion, and being against wholesale deletions, is not the same as saying we should in fact use the DM for any specific purpose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. We've "caught" even the New York Times in story fabrication (Jayson Blair); evaluate case by case for contentious material (though with a bias towards exclusion, especially of gossip). --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Totally agree with this. "Evaluate on a case by case basis" is a good rule for evaluating the reliability of all news sources. Even solidly respected news sources (BBC, New York Times, etc) can be deemed unreliable in certain cases... and even the least respected sources (National Enquirer, New York Post) can be considered reliable in certain cases. Sure, there may be more instances where the Daily Mail ends up being deemed unreliable when compared to other news sources... but that does not mean it is always unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

perezhilton.com

This site is currently used on a great many BLPs to state that a person is gay etc. Is this site generally to be regarded as a reliable site per WP:RS and WP:BLP for claims about sexual orientation of a living person? This came up at WP:BLP/N with regard to Mo Rocca. As a separate issue, where The Advocate attributes a claim about sexual orientation to a podcast, is such a source sufficiently strong to label or categorize a person by sexual orientation? (same discussion) Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolute violation of WP:BLPCAT to categorize or list someone, unless it is based on an unequivocal statement from the subject themselves. Perez is not a reliable source for inline statements of orientation. The advocate would depend on which podcast, and what their source ultimately was. If its a podcast interview with the subject themselves, then probably yes. Otherwise if it is someone commenting on someone elses gay-ness, i would say not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You're better off avoiding that source completely. Any big enough story will be covered by better sources. Andrew 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• perezhilton a WP:RS. NO. An easy call. WP policy insists statements of sexuality be either self-reported or both highly relevant and subject to the high standard of WP:BLP. Does not meet in any way.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous209.6 is wrong, there is no such thing as stating a source is not RS in EVERY case; but Gaijiin42 is correct, there are BETTER sources. A podcast interview of the subject themselves is a reliable source for what the interviewee says about themselves this has been clear unequivocal policy; an article that cites a podcast though may not be reliable if it can not be independently verified. The podcast itself can. Some podcasts are archived, as long as someone (not everyone) can theoretically verify the podcast, then citing the podcast is sufficient. Remember- verifiable does not mean EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME can verify something, it simply means someone could.Camelbinky (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about a CATEGORY designation, a very high sourcing requirement for WP:BLP, AND the reference to perezhilton is to perezhilton's REPORTING on what was contained in a radio show. Not known for reliable reportage EVER. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Are UN, EU, US etc websites reliable sources?

Please refer this discussion. Some users are arguing that United Nations Human Rights Commission, European Parliament, United States Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International websites are not reliable sources. They all state direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob in Gujarat train burning. But the users deny credibility of these sites and want "scholarly" book citations. I can't search google books because of browser problem. But are UN, EU government, US government, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch less credible than some book written by some Professor? neo (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I request volunteers to please comment. Your help may stop the issue escalating further. Thanks. neo (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a complete misrepresentation of the dispute. The dispute is that the content you are proposing is already present in the article, the issue is you wish to beat our readers over the heads with "muslim moobs" every few words. This is not an issue for this noticeboard. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

here you said that my sources are 'junk'. And here User:Maunus insist to use "scholarly books". What's misrepresentation? And I request other users to see this section of article. As I have explained in details here, you are giving multiple investigations to prove that fire was an 'accident'. Where are you talking that 'muslim mob' is directly or allegedly set the train on fire? If you have problem using 'muslim mobs' so many times, I have proposed on talkpage that you write one line about 'accidental fire' and I will write one line about 'muslim mob' angle. Agree and move on. neo (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I said the blog post, the three primary sources and the source from 2002 were junk, and I stand by that. I have told you repeatedly, every investigation into the Godhra incident has been given the exact same weight, one line apiece. The article already says that one of these reports said the attack was conducted by locals. The first line of the section says a crowd of Muslims were reported to have attacked the train, and the lede of the article says "The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, assumed by most to have been carried out by Muslims" So ya, you wish to duplicate content and beat our readers over the head with the "Muslim mob" meme. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please tell which sources are primary and "junk" so that others can decide. We can talk about contents on article talkpage or other appropriate forum. neo (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are unable to tell the difference between reliable secondary sources and primary ones you ought to find a new hobby. Look at the sources you have used in your proposal, can you not see which ones are primary documents? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

These sources are potentially usable, even for history, but may be primary sources, so use with great care. Academic sources are also reliable and should usually be preferred even to these official sources from the time. Consult WP:PSTS. WP:HISTRS should also be useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Be it United Nation, US state department, European parliament or Human rights watch, they consider primary sources like news reports, witnesses, their own network and give their conclusion. How exactly conclusion based on primary sources is original research? Does governments do less research than academicians while taking diplomatic decisions? neo (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"How exactly conclusion based on primary sources is original research?" This is not an appropriate question. Published sources that contain original research are perfectly acceptable sources for Misplaced Pages articles. It is Misplaced Pages articles that should not place original research in articles.

"Does governments do less research than academicians while taking diplomatic decisions?" The research by government agencies is sometimes just as good as academicians, but what the government ultimately publish is determined by the politicians, so may be biased and may contain deliberate lies. Of course this may happen with academic sources too, but usually there is less motive, and there are many academic sources to compare. The government is a monopoly. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliability depends on what it is supposed to support. Amnesty International for example is probably not a good source for off piste skiing. However the issue here appears to be WP:WEIGHT, how much if any coverage to be provided in the article to certain events. Incidentally, an academic source is not "some book written by some Professor." It has credibility because it has been fact-checked by independent scholars, provides sources and can be compared with other scholarly writing. Scholars will examine and compare contemporaneous reports and judicial inquiries and determine which version of events is most generally accepted and its signficance or importance. For an event that occured more than ten years ago, we should not rely on reports published at the time or inquiries that took place immediately after. The passage of time allows scholars to determine more accurately what happened and, if they chose to ignore these events, then it is difficult to argue they are of such significance that they belong in the article. TFD (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Current events are written up from news sources, for example the Bretigny rail crash. When the first articles and books by historians appear, perhaps about five years later, the news sources should be supplemented and eventually replaced by the history sources. See WP:RECENT for potential problems with news sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Is a footnote from a 1980 Supreme Court opinion in 1980 a reliable source for the Supreme Court's view of the law in 1980?

1. Source: the United States Supreme Court Specifically, in footnote 8 of United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 (1980)(6-3 decision; dissent did not dispute law in footnote)

2. Article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

3. Content: I want to say in the article:

The United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Lewis, 455 U.S. 55 n. 8 (1980) that the Miller case held "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Appellate courts from 1942-1997 concurred.

I've been told that I may not mention the Lewis case in the article in any context.

4. Context: United States v. Lewis , 455 U.S. 55 (1980) was a case in which the Supreme Court found a conviction of a defendant who had no attorney may still be the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by a criminal sanction. The court also found in footnote 8 that this legislative restriction on the use of firearms did not violate the Second Amendment.

Footnote 8 is provided in full below (emphasis added):

"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines , 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson , 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States , 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied , 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment)."

The debate over whether to include Lewis in the otherwise lengthy article comes in the context of the question of what the law was in 1980. I contend the Supreme Court believed in 1980 what they said they did, as did the 11 circuits of the United States Court of Appeals from 1942 to 1997 who said the same thing or used even stronger language. See, e.g.:

Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942);

United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1997); Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Johnson, 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1983); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1993); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1978); and

United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997)

The opposition to including this information claims the Supreme Court and these eleven appellate courts are unreliable sources. Instead they claim the decision was "ambiguous" in these years because some commentators (although no court decisions) say so. (I'm fine with including the commentators' opinions, as long as they are stated as opinions and not fact.) The opposition also claims that the Lewis case cannot be cited because it did not primarily concern the Second Amendment, even though some of the appellate cases did. They also contend that because the Supreme Court disavowed Lewis 28 years later in 2008 that the Supreme Court's holding in Lewis regarding the Second Amendment cannot be mentioned in wikipedia. I contend that in the context of an article purporting to be about the history of the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is OK to state what the law was in 1980 and for 60+ years.

We've reached an impasse. Please advise.GreekParadise (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court's comment in Lewis is relevant information on how the Justices of the Court viewed the Second Amendment in 1980. It is not completely authoritative, because as has been noted the Second Amendment was peripheral to the case (in lawyerspeak, the comment was dictum rather than part of the holding of the case). If there were a more relevant Supreme Court case from that era to cite about the Second Amendment one would cite that one instead, but (to the best of my knowledge there isn't). So I think it is permissible to mention the case, but the fact that this was a comment in a case primarily about another topic could also be mentioned. To call a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States an "unreliable source" as to what the law was as of the date of the decision would be to go too far. And to say that because the law has changed since 1980 means that the law as of 1980 can't be mentioned, would be to say that Plessy v. Ferguson is a candidate for deletion, which cannot be correct. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with Newyorkbrad's assessment, the concern that seems most salient to me in this instance is no RS but OR. Is there possibly a secondary source that makes note of this decision and the comment in question? siafu (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of them, including the American Bar Association here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/u_s_supreme_court.html, but they have rejected all my secondary sources including some I consider reliable such as the New York Times and the Library of Congress as "unreliable" so I thought the safest bet was to quote the decision directly itself.GreekParadise (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court Footnotes largely come in two varieties: citations and explanations. Citation footnotes simply cite a source that was referenced in the main text of a document and are rarely employed by the Court. Analysis of the modern court’s use of footnotes is difficult because most Justices do not write their own opinions. In the Lewis case footnote 8 refers to another case that supposedly refers to Miller. The problem is that quoting this footnote, as an excerpt of Miller gives a distorted view of Miller. The Lewis opinion did not argue the 2nd Amendment or Miller as this was not a 2nd Amendment case. As Scalia pointed out in Heller:

Miller was briefly mentioned in our decision in Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 (1980), an appeal from a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The challenge was based on the contention that the prior felony conviction had been unconstitutional. No Second Amendment claim was raised or briefed by any party. In the course of rejecting the asserted challenge, the Court commented gratuitously, in a footnote, that “hese legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller … (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’).” Id., at 65–66, n. 8. The footnote then cites several Court of Appeals cases to the same effect. It is inconceivable that we would rest our interpretation of the basic meaning of any guarantee of the Bill of Rights upon such a footnoted dictum in a case where the point was not at issue and was not argued.

The secondary sources, given by GreekParadise, do not comment on the case or its meaning but rather just quote the footnote. Trying to present it otherwise is OR. Grahamboat (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing a primary source is perfectly ok, a secondary source is never mandatory. All that needs to be done is to present the footnote as it is written without any explanation or expansion on what the footnote means. If it is stated in a neutral fashion of what the footnote says it is not a violation of OR. I don't know why some think simply using a primary source means its OR, to take a primary or multiple primaries and come to your own conclusion is OR. Simply stating what a primary source says is not.Camelbinky (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If an issue of law mentioned in a court case is essential to the decision then it becomes a precedent and is binding on future courts. If it is not, then it is dicta, and may have no effect on the interpretation of the law. If the winning party presents more than one argument any of which alone would make their case successful then it is not clear that any precedent has been set. Also, court decisions may be controversial. Since it requires original research to interpret court decisions, we should rely on secondary sources. Unfortunately this whole article relies far too much on primary sources, i.e., court cases. TFD (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

someone re-adding material from unreliable sources

I'm trying to stop short of an edit war at the Conan chronologies article. By all interpretations, the article has had problems with people adding information from widely popular, but still self-published and unreliable sources. (In this case "REHUPA -- the Robert E. Howard United Press Association. A group of fans devoted to the fanship of the author.)

I would appreciate a second or third pair of eyes on the article. As is, the article is sourced to primary and other sources affiliated with the author/fiction itself. We don't need someone to make things worse by adding fan theories. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Skeptic Dictionary - Deepak Chopra

Two editors believe this diff is unreliably sourced . Is the notable source Skeptic's dictionary (see to access specific pages 45-48) by Robert Todd Carroll reliable for the following text in that diff:

• 1. Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.
• 2. According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”
• 3. Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others.

IRWolfie- (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Claim 2 is clearly a personal opinion of the author, and citable as opinion of the named author and not as fact. Claims 1 is properly sourced as opinion. Claim 3 is not made in the source given, and thus fails entirely for that source. Collect (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Collect on this one; the Dictionary is an opinionated but useable source. The citations should include in-text attribution to make clear that they are opinion, per WP:ASF. MastCell  17:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(An aside, as an editor involved in this discussion ... I think the third use is to support the influence on Chopra of "others", since the Krishnamurti claim is sourced separately, and RTC goes into some detail on influences on Chopra - this probably needs to be unpacked a bit in the article). Alexbrn 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

John Wiley & Sons is a reputable publisher and the book has been received favorably by other reliable sources such as the The Guardian, Los Angeles Times and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And opinions in reliable sources are ... opinions. I did not call it "not RS" but only pointed out the normal BLP usage - that opinions should be labeled as such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@Collect: I don't think I was contradicting you (or at least that was not my intent). I'm just adding a comment that this source is reliable generally speaking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to impugn you at all -- just making my oft-iterated comments about opinions about living persons - I think I have posted pretty much the same wording several dozen times now <g>. Collect (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with collect and have made the appropriate edit, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobiliana.de forum

This query is linked to a BLP concern. The Ferdinand Soltmann section of Haemophilia in European royalty describes the medical status of an otherwise non-notable descendant of Queen Victoria and discusses his ancestry, citing a web forum post that is behind a subscription wall of some sort at Nobiliana.de. The forum post is by a royalty follower named Arturo Beéche, who is claimed to be an 'expert' , but as far as I can tell his only claim to expertise is self-publishing (web site and book publisher, eurohistory.com). It seems this may not be a WP:RS, and hence may be a WP:BLP violation. Agricolae (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. We don't use forums for a start - among other things, who knows whether the person calling himself Beeche really is Beeche? We certainly shouldn't use anything that isn't a spotlessly reliable source to call someone a haemophiliac. I've deleted the section. We still have Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but it is unclear (and I couldn't look to tell without subscribing) whether it really operates like a forum - the announcements forum required special status to initiate a thread, so it may be operated more like a team blog, with a group of privileged contributors making posts and subscribers only allowed to discuss them. That would provide more certainty of source, and perhaps allow us to evaluate the privileged contributors individually, my own evaluation being that Beéche isn't an 'expert' (as WP:RS defines it), and hence his contributions are not reliable anyhow. While it was most critical for the BLP implications, if the source is unreliable the whole section was doomed and that was bolder than I was willing to be without a second opinion. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard

As part of the SPA heavy deletion discussion for Platypus Affiliated Society, only active keep!v has argued that for purpose of notability the Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard (the only sources that have made significant coverage that meets the WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG criteria) as reliable sources.

I have argued repeatedly that it is not, but they insist they are.

My argument centers in that while as notable journals in their topic area they might be reliable sources for supplemental information, verifiability, etc, their limited readership, partisan orientation (both are the official newspapers of political organizations) and their limited topic areas make them unreliable as a gauge of notability.

The assumption of good faith is thinning out - specially in the SPA heavy environment that smells of socks, so some uninvolved assistance/commentary might be good.

Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for outside assistance. I agree this is needed. At issue is whether these sources are reliable for establishing notability as media sources which cover the organization. I was under the impression based on WP:RS that these sources are reliable in that there is evidence and a reputation of fact-checking and editorial control. While the sources are arguably biased, according to WP:RS, these sources are being used to demonstrate media coverage and notability as per WP:GNG, for which bias is perfectly acceptable, indeed "Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" WP:RS. It would be great if we could clarify whether these sources constitute media coverage -- because the question is not using these sources to attribute statements of fact. Uninvolved commentary would be helpful, here. Eulerianpath (talk) 2602:306:CD91:2220:A488:F0EA:D38C:83D8 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for notability of this group, because you would expect it to draw attention mainly in Left circles. More weight attaches to some of the other sources in the article, e.g. die tageszeitung. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The point of notability is that sufficient reliable sources exist to write at least a stub article. That a topic is covered only in a narrow section of the media is no reason for deletion. Local organizations for example may only receive attention in local media. The bias of the sources is not important either. If a source is reliable then we should be able to identify facts for the article.

The main question then is whether these two publications are reliable sources. That depends on whether they are staffed by professional journalists, have fact-checking and are considered to be reliable by other media.

Most of the sources used for the article are opinions and I think should be removed because we cannot establish their significance in order to meet weight.

It seems the decision will probably be "keep." If you want to continue with this, I suggest after the AfD removing the opinions and researching the reliablity of the two sources above.

BTW I have edited similar articles and have found that there are few sources for modern left-wing groups, except where they have elected representatives. But if that is a failing of the media and scholarship, it is not something we can correct.

TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

we can &should correct it partially in the customary way we handle cultural bias and difficult-to-sourcesubject, by being flexible in the sources we accept. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

YouTube source on a persons death

Emik Avakian died on July 11. May he rest in peace. The only source that I found was a YouTube video that say he died. The youtube video is uploaded by Stepan Partamian who was a leading researcher in the life of Emik Avakian: See here and his book [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ww1GmwEACAAJ&dq Yes, We Have Too: Contributions of American-Armenians to the United States of America] (Unfortunately its an offline source). Can we just go ahead and call it a RS? Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, the YouTube video - even if published by an expert - cannot be used for claims about a third-party per WP:SPS. If a notable person has passed away, surely there would be article at least in a local newspaper. If so, you can cite that. Also, non-English sources are acceptable. If there's an Armenian language newspaper that reports this, you can cite that. July 11th was just a couple days ago, so maybe just wait a few days for a more reliable source to publish this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of (positively) biased website

Source: "Professional EFT? or Easy EFT!" http://www.eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9206

Article: Emotional Freedom Techniques - proposed on the Talk Page

Content: [This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders; they say that EFT has the advantage of being both a simple self-administered personal growth tool, and a clinical tool for professional EFT practitioners.] This was originally proposed for the lead section, but is now being contemplated to be proposed for the "Process" section as a third party source.

Discussion:

The Argument Against Using: It is a sales/publicity type site. It certainly doesn't look like a reliable source for anything. WP:Refspam applies - "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced"

The Argument For Using: Website has a Books and DVD's (for sale) section; website has lots of information, a very pro EFT site. Per WP: Identifying reliable sources "Biased or opinionated sources: Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." WP:Refspam is not applicable. Petefter (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a reliable source - I can't see any information about the authorship of the site's content (other than it being owned by "Energy Psychology Group"), and it seems to have been created to promote this concept and market products related to it. I'd really question why there would be any need to use this as a reference - it's a pretty low-quality website. A quick search of Google scholar suggests that there are academic papers on this topic , and they should include some coverage of what this has been suggested as a treatment of. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source. I don't even think it would qualify as an external link as it violates WP:ELNO 2 and 5. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is a bogus argument because this isn't a reliable source. Both RS and ELNO would eliminate it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, totally unreliable and does not meet EL requirements, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Heraldica.org

Heraldica.org is a hobby site run by François R. Velde who may well be a reliable source for economics but I don't see this as meeting our criteria as a source for geneaology and heraldry. It's used quite a bit so if it's agreed it shouldn't be used will need cleanup. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it's OK as an EL? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a personal website, but people at WP:ELN might see it as acceptable. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw it used as a host site for images coats of arms, which I think is OK if the material is uncontroversial. Our clean-up campaigns haven't attracted as much attention as one would have hoped for, indeed none have been closed. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul Theroff

We've discussed Theroff before. . We use his site including his news site for a number of articles. Many of the articles, perhaps most, are BLP articles or include discussion of BLPs. He's extremely popular, but is that a good reason to use a self-published source, particularly in BLPs where it is explicit that we shouldn't? "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hog-dog rodeo

Would appreciate any attention to current issues involving sourcing. There is a discussion on the talk page involving a proposed move and some editing that I believe is not based on neutral sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Krulwich & Jablonski

Please advise whether this National Public Radio interview of Nina Jablonski by Robert Krulwich on the topic of human skin pigmentation is a reliable source for use on the human skin color and race (human classification) wikipages. An editor has argued that it isn't, and that the following wikitext sourced to it is unverifiable:

More recent research has found that human populations over the past 50,000 years have changed from dark-skinned to light-skinned and vice versa. Only 100-200 generations ago, the ancestors of most people living today likely also resided in a different place and had a different skin color. According to specialist Nina Jablonski, head of Penn State's Department of Anthropology, darkly-pigmented modern populations in South India and Sri Lanka are an example of this, having redarkened after their ancestors migrated down from areas much farther north. Scientists originally believed that such shifts in pigmentation occurred relatively slowly. However, researchers have since observed that changes in skin coloration can happen in as little as 100 generations (~2,500 years), with no intermarriage required. The speed of change is also affected by clothing, which tends to slow it down.

Jablonski is the head of Penn State University's anthropology department, and is one of the foremost authorities on the science of human skin pigmentation. She's written several papers on the subject, and received the W. W. Howells Award of the American Anthropological Association for best book in biological anthropology for Skin: A Natural History. This book and some of her other works are already cited as sources on the human skin color wikipage. Soupforone (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite probably RS, but, as with any academic and technical subject, it would be much, much better to cite her written and published work. It really is more easily verifiable, and it will include the nuanced arguments, the footnotes, etc., which a media broadcast necessarily omits. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was RS. I agree though that her written/published work would be preferable. Cheers - Soupforone (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is better to use a textbook or academic article. It is not clear btw whether what they are saying is a fact or an opinion. TFD (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wizard 1986 – The Michael Berk Collection

Is there any reason to consider The Wizard 1986 – The Michael Berk Collection a reliable source for details of the life and work of Michael Berk? (Not that I can immediately see any details that it even appears to support). Would appreciate the opinion of others before I remove the only reference to a poor article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a fansite of unclear authorship and provenance; I don't see any way we can regard it as a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. Does anyone have an opinion on whether it would pass muster as an external link (yes, I know this isn't the external links noticeboard). Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I'd say it's an acceptable external link. Andrew Dalby 09:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

'Human Rights Watch' source

I am giving Human Rights Watch as source about Godhra train burning which triggered 2002 Gujarat violence. There are two theories, 'accidental fire' and 'attack by a muslim mob'. 'Accidental fire' theory is well-sourced. I want to use this and other sources for 'attack by a muslim mob' theory. But verifying this first. This is 2002 report and this is 2012 article which quotes their 2002 report. 2002 report states and I quote, "On February 27, 2002, in the town of Godhra, a Muslim mob attacked a train on which Hindu nationalists were traveling. Two train cars were set on fire, killing at least fifty-eight people." The 2012 article writes and I quote, "The violence in Gujarat started on February 27, 2002, when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire, killing 59 people." :I am not stating it as fact in proposal. I am attributing it to HRW and I am directly quoting from sources but User:Maunus still accuse me of 'misrepresenting' source and also do not acknowledge reliability of source. Is the source reliable and am I misreprenting it? neo (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So is this the last forum where you will take up this line of argument? The the "muslim mob" theory is already in the article with better sources, the HRW source is not about Godhra and only mentions it in passing after which it goes on to describe the human rights violations against muslims in great length. You want to use it to cite a minor passage, that happens to be also at odds with its general point. That is called cherry picking and is a kind of misrepresentation of the source. The source is also not based on an independent investigation of the Godhra incident, here it just reports the conclusions of the Nanavati committee, and the research that it is actually summarizing is the research into human rights issues in the aftermath. It is not a source that can be used to source claims about Godhra, because it is not making points about Godhra. Now, why do you even want to include the source, when the Muslim mob theory is already mentioned in the article and supported by articles that can actually be used to support it?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I advised neo to come here, Maunus, so it's not forum-shopping. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, whats wrong in saying that the theory is supported by the sources already present in the article and also by Human Rights Watch? And here you say that this is not an independent investigation, but on the article you very happily support opinions of writers who are sitting in Europe/America who certainly haven't investigated anything but simply opined based on other's investigations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a problem that they didn't do an independent investigation. The problem is that they did do an independent investigation, just not of the Godhra incident, and by citing their investigation as supporting one theory of the Godhra incident it makes it seem as if their support comes from an independent investigation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I can't see any merit in the reasons presented by User:Maunus for considering the sources to be anything but reliable for the train at Godhra being "attacked by a Muslim mob", though I would suggest possibly seeking a less condemnatory wording for inclusion in the article ("... a crowd of angry Muslims ...", perhaps?). I note that the sources do not specify the cause of the fire, and do not support "two theories". They appear to state that (1) there was an attack by a Muslim mob, (2) there was a fire on the train, (3) there were appalling reprisals and (4) there was a reprehensible lack of action by the authorities. The source is very clearly partisan on the last topic, but not necessarily on the others. It clearly and explicitly refers to events at Godhra. Or have I misread it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not reliable. I am saying that there are other sources that can be used to source that statement and that picking that one statement about violence by muslims against hindus from a report that is entirely about violence against by muslims against hindus is cherry picking. The information Neo wants to source is already in the article and with other, better sources, so there is nothing to discuss here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

For Lovers Only (film)

At For Lovers Only, there have been attempts to add content about a related documentary film on the making of the Film. The documentary is entitled How We Made Love. The source presented is this, which does not seem to be a WP:RS as it is not even a secondary source, but rather a primary source. I have removed this type of content twice now, but want to be sure I am doing what is right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Gawker a reliable source?

Is Gawker a reliable source for the opinion given in the article on The New Inquiry? It doesn't look like an RS to me, but perhaps it is acceptable as a source of an opinion (not a fact)? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for comments on influence of Cyropedia

This is perhaps a question of relative strength of sources. In this edit, one source is being used to trump another source, in order to make a comment about the nature of the influence of the Cyropedia on the founding fathers of the USA.

• source 1. Cliff Rogers (USMA) as quoted in Kar, Cyrus (2006), Film Preview: In Search of Cyrus The Great, Spenta Productions http://www.spentaproductions.com/Cyrus-the-Great-English/cyruspreview_english.htm
• source 2. Rezakhani, Khodadad (2013). "Cyrus: the Tale of a Cylinder". Iran Opinion, May 2013. http://iranopinion.com/node/48

I request comments on whether such trumping is acceptable in this case. Note that a third option is available which would be to mention both opinions, but also in this case some guidance would be appreciated on appropriate weighting. Neither source looks great to me, and so looking for better sources is perhaps also part of the eventual discussion needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Elections polls" (in Persian). rasanehiran. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
2. "Results of the presidential poll". Akharin News (in Persian). 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
3. "2013 Elections polls" (in Persian). alborz news. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
4. ^ "2013 elections poll". ie92 (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "ie92" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
5. "vote online to your candidate!". Arna News (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
6. "Iranelect, first question: Who's the most popular between conservatives?" (in Persian). iranelect. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
7. "Final polls" (in Persian). kashanjc. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
8. "Polls" (in Persian). iranamerica. 18 May 2013. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
9. ^ "Polls" (in Persian). Alef. 20 May 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "alef" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
10. "Choise your candidate". fararu (in Persian). 23 May 2013. Retrieved 23 May 2013.
11. نظرسنجی انتخابات ریاست جمهوری
12. نظرسنجی
13. انتخابات
14. "Publishers Clearing House to Pay $3-5million Settlement". ChicagoBreakingBusiness.com. September, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
15. "State Reaches New Settlement Agreement with Publishers Clearing House". akbizmag.com. September, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
16. "Colorado gets $320K in Publishers Clearing House settlement". denvernews@bizjournals.com. September 9, 2010.
17. "http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/press/news/2010/09/09/attorney_general_announces_multistate_35_million_settlement_publishers_clearin" (Press release). {{cite press release}}: External link in |title= (help)
18. Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes Information Center

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution