Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:07, 23 September 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

Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

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.

Discussion is continuing below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stuck – No substantive problem has been presented for uninvolved editors' review or comment. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Commment: I don't think highly involved editors are supposed to "Close" discussions, are they? User:Carolmooredc 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC) The "Stuck" tag does not mean the discussion is "Closed", but it may serve to divert attention. As mentioned below, I do not think adding it serves resolution. I suggest you remove the tag, in which case I will hat my comments below. – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I am hatting hatted this "Stuck" tag and comments. Questions regarding the substantive problem have been presented, but not answered. The "Stuck" tag only serves to deflect attention from the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Hat was reverted by User:SPECIFICO. This comment has been restored and revised.21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Callahan, Gene (January 2, 2012). "Murphy on LvMI"
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#The Institute as a cult
3. Content:
   1. "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology."
   2. Later modified to read: "Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology." (Footnote 39 "Murphy on LvMI" remains))
   3. Context here: SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
   4. Full paragraph reads: "Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters. In the opinion of former Mises Institute Scholar Gene Callahan, "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time Bob and I got there" around 2001. Callahan states, "Rothbard, in the late 80s or early 90s, had decided that an appeal to racists was just the ticket for his movement. He published articles saying things like blacks weren't doing very well because they weren't so smart, got involved with Neo-Confederate causes, and so on. I think by 2000, Lew Rockwell sincerely regretted that time". Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology."
4. Article talk page thread: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as .22cult.22

– S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the only assertion I am arguing Gene Callahan's blog should be used to source is: in the opinion of Gene Callahan, a former Mises Institute Scholar, the Institute is a cult. This assertion is presented specifically as the opinion of Professor Callahan in the article; the opinion is notable because Callahan is a notable academic who for years worked closely with the Institute. I submit that his blog is a reliable source for presenting his view of the Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. We aren't a gossip rag, and his expertise does not relate to the sociological study of cults. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Steeltrap; what you need is a RS that identifies the fact that Callahan's opinion on this is notable. --Errant 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI, Callahan did not inititate the "cult" label. He is commenting on statment by Mises employee Robert Murphy, who wrote a blog post which denies that Mises Institute is a cult. I have no idea why Murphy denied it, presumably others uncited by Murphy asserted it. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • (By OP): Thus we have a blog by Callahan commenting on another blog, by Murphy, who is SPS and an expert commenting about third parties (the Mises Institute and the members of the Mises Institute "cult") in a subject outside of his area of expertise. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply by OP: Non-expert goes to the heart of the matter. If Murphy or Callahan are experts, they can comment as experts in their field of expertise. Either way their blogs are subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS. In this regard they are commenting about third parties and their opinions are not acceptable RS. (Are you defending the use of the Callahan (or Murphy) blog in this context? If so, say so. If not, please render an opinion and say the Callahan blog is not acceptable RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unreliable. The assertion should be picked up in a more reliable source to be repeated by Misplaced Pages. Let's see if it appears in a magazine or newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Time Magazine and National Review. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By OP: So?? Are you saying Time & National Review somehow justify usage of the Callahan blog as RS? Or perhaps the Callahan blog is no longer needed? Please clarify. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Misplaced Pages:SPS#Self-published_sources. User:Carolmooredc 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by OP: It is quite extraordinary that User:SPECIFICO should tag this RSN as "stuck". Specifico has been asked to render an opinion, and not done so. Specifico has been asked to clarify the issue as to added references, and has not done so. If there is "No substantive problem", why do we have editors/admins commenting, and opining that the Callahan blog is not RS in this context? Editors are encouraged to take another look at the article talk page (linked above). If I was not the OP, I'd remove this ersatz "stuck" tag. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich Please comment on content and not your feelings about me or other editors. I am an involved editor in this matter, having stated my comfort with the Callahan reference on the article talk page.

The purpose of this RSN thread is to hear from uninvolved editors so as to broaden the discussion. If you still believe, in light of all the additional material that's recently been added, that it's problematic for PhD economist and former senior Mises faculty member Callahan to question Murphy's statement that Mises Institute's pursuit of its "economic theories" couldn't possibly be cultish, you need to present a well-formed theory as to why the reference should be impeached. I've already responded above to your straw-man "non-expert" denial, which fails on its face because the question is the manner in which the Institute purports to discuss the area of Callahan's academic and professional expertise. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSPS says 'no' to Callahan's blog used to demean the easily identifiable individuals of an institute. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That fails the "judge judy" test. No person has been impugned by Callahan's rejection of Murphy. Murphy states that to no group which solicits dissent can be a cult. GC disagrees. So what? No statement about any individual behavior. Misesians know that such a statement does not entail any implication about any individual. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by OP. SPS says we cannot use blogs that talk about third parties. This restriction is not limited to individuals. – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich That is a direct misrepresentation of the SPS policy. The policy says SPS should not be used "as third-party sources about living people." Please be familiar with policy and take care to cite it fully and accurately. The policy you claim to cite has nothing to do with "talk about third parties" who are not living people. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason this thread remains stuck is that there is no identified policy violation related to the disputed content. When a series of inapplicable policies are raised, whack-a-mole style it doesn't lead to a convergence of interpretation one way or the other. Callahan states that just because an organization solicits dissent does not mean that it's not a cult. He's responding to his colleague Murphy. No party person or any other entity has been disparaged. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The disputed content is stated above – #3 Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology." (The new mole appeared when this sentence was modified, without any notification in this RSN. A note was added to the effect that Time and National Review had been added, and I asked for clarification – but no clarification was posted here.) In any event, the basic issue is whether or not the Callahan blog is acceptable as SPS. Since Callahan seems to be addressing (according to this new rationale) the question of cultishness raised by Murphy, perhaps both the Murphy and Callahan blogs should be removed. (Moreover, this assertion by Callahan is the first sentence of the "cult" section and is not put into context as "refuting" anything other than (now) alluding to Murphy (who is mentioned in the earlier section – without using the term cult). Whether or not the language is disparaging is not the issue. Any SPS which references third parties/persons/entities -- praising them or burying them -- is not acceptable. There is no misrepresentation of policy. See: WP:SELFPUB #2 "it does not involve claims about third parties;" – S. Rich (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are claiming that it's acceptable for you to mis-state WP policy on this board, as I demonstrated that you have just done, you are mistaken. This thread remains pointless and stuck. If you believe that the content is inappropriate as sourced, you need to relate the content to the policy which it violates and to state the basis upon which you assert that the text violates policy. In doing so, you need to be sure that you are accurately citing and applying the policy. Going from one inapt citation to another to another is not constructive and cannot lead to any resolution here. Clearly you have editors engaged and eager to hear you out but there is no grist for the mill. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that the Callahan piece is a blog, and thereby comes under the guidance of SPS. At the same time SPECIFICO says "He's responding to his colleague Murphy." But in so doing SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that by "responding to his colleague Murphy" Callahan is making a claim that involves a living third party – Murphy and whatever Murphy said elsewhere. (In other words, SPECIFICO does not seem to understand that the SPS claim does not have to be about a third party in particular. The policy applies if the blog seeks to refute or confirm something that the third party said or did.) SPECIFICO argues that the nature or issue of this RSN discussion was changed because he made a change in the article text – but SPECIFICO did not inform this notice board of the change, much less ask if a proposed change could resolve this discussion. (E.g., it would have been so simple, so open, so forthright to say "I propose that we change the content to read 'blah-blah-blah.'" And then ask the opinion of those who are following this thread.) Nor did SPECIFICO bring up the idea of a change on the article talk page. In the very line above SPECIFICO's latest notation I cite the policy about using blogs when making claims which involve third parties, but SPECIFICO says I am "mis-stating" policy. Just what policy am I mis-stating? Please state it correctly. Enlighten us. – S. Rich (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable in general and for the proposed use. A representative survey of the relevant literature shows that the issue of whether the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a cult does not exist, so the subsection cannot be said to place the Ludwig von Mises Institute subject in context. In addition, the extraordinary claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult needs to be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources, which Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not produced by a reliable third party. Also, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. See Identifying reliable sources - context matters. Only one person, Gene Callahan, could be considered to have engaged in checking facts, there is no indication of whether Callahan did or is capable of analyzing legal issues related to the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult, or that anyone but Callahan scrutinized the writing. There is no evidence that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com has received peer-review, has been vetted by the scholarly community, or has received any scholarly citations. Callahan's blog exist mainly to promote Callahan's particular point of view. The source fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gene Callahan is an American economist, not an expert on cults or scientology. Callahan has no work regarding cults that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Callahan is not an established expert on Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. The blog makes an exceptional claim about third parties and is unduly self-serving since it does not express a viewpoint but instead uses unsupported conclusions regarding Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF. The source is unreliable for use within Misplaced Pages. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "A representative survey of the relevant literature" - Please be specific and describe what survey and what literature? Remember the text only presents Callahan's view, it does not state in WP's voice that any group is a cult. There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement. You are mistaken as to WP policy with respect to peer review and the use of a blog only for the author's opinion, because Callahan is a noted academician and expert on Misesian thought. Please provide the information about your survey. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The survey is my search and review of a database of print media that I have access to. The survey was to determine the wider issue of whether the cult subsection belongs in the article. It does not, which, among other reasons, makes 'The Institute as a cult' claim an extraordinary claim, requiring that the claim be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. We both agree that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not a Misplaced Pages high-quality reliable source. The text presents Callahan's view on cult and Scientology, and we both agree that Callahan is not an expert on either one. You state that I am mistaken as to WP policy. However, that is just a conclusion not supported by an analysis whereas my post uses WP policy/guideline to review whether Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is an unreliable source in general and for the proposed use in Misplaced Pages. While we may come to different conclusions on that, what matters is the strength of argument and policy/guidelines, not posting opinion conclusion. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to place the subject in context through a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, fairly and without bias. The use of Gene-callahan.blogspot.com in the article does not do that. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Time and National Review pieces by Justin Fox and Jonah Goldberg do not use the term/phrase "to a cult" or "cult". That material, lacking verification, has been removed from the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those references are the subject of this thread. Did you mean to post this comment elsewhere? SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement." Why not specify which RS supports the notion that LvMI is a cult? The two items were citations supposedly supporting a description of LvMI as a cult. If there is non-blog RS that describes LvMI as a cult, we might be able to use it without using the Callahan blog. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee's excellent point that Callahan is not an expert in cults applies here. Even if he were an expert, the Callahan opinion is not accompanied by a description of what characteristics he is talking about, what made him come to the conclusion. The bit you wish to include is not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So would your concern be addressed by including article text which specifies the issue to which Murphy and Callahan refer? The specific characteristics are in the cited sources but not in the current article text. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, you say the Time & National Review references are not part of this thread. But just what article changes are there that address the issue of Callahan's blog as an appropriate or inappropriate reference? – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say/ask, but if this thread again goes off-topic, I fear that it will again become stuck. Consider moving your comment out of the area in which Jreferee, Binksternet and I are discussing Callahan or, if your comment did not relate to Callahan, removing it altogether. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, you added the comment to this thread that Time & National Review had been added to the article. But you did not explain how doing so resolved this RSN. And then you said Time & National Review are not part of this tread, but you alluded to other additions to the article, again not explaining how they impact the question of this RSN. It is regrettable that you have "no idea" of what is being asked. If Time & NR are not pertinent to the RSN, please help us out and explain: 1. what are "the cited sources" that are pertinent and 2. why the Callahan blog is acceptable RS as used in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't help you because I don't understand you. Consider dropping this thread and posting a fresh, more clearly stated, question for RSN assistance. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Steeletrap understands – seems to me that other editors do. But if Steele (or anyone else) does not post in the near future I shall request WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The high horse attitude does not help your case. S. Rich made it abundantly clear that this thread is about whether the Callahan blog should be used in the LvMI article to say the Institute is a cult. Many have weighed in on the matter, and it looks like consensus is against the blog. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello binksternet, in case you missed it, I replied to one of your posts here a few days ago and asked your view on a way some of your concerns might be met. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just found out about this chat here and I'm still trying to catch up, so could someone please help me out? I'm not sure what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views. I totally see why we can't state them as fact, but it doesn't look like anyone is trying to, so the objections aren't even wrong; they just miss the target.

If I'm wrong, 'splain it to me in small words. MilesMoney (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note, the archive default on this board is 5 days (not 30). I have requested WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich I would have expected you to understand that the archive parameter is not the same thing as closure of an ongoing discussion. There are questions which various editors have posed in the course of the thread in their responses to various other editors' comments here -- for example Miles' request that you summarize your view. Closure would not be constructive until the open questions have been addressed, and frankly it's hard to see what's to be gained by such a proposal. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A 5 day automatic archive means the discussion will disappear from the active board unless someone adds a new posting every 4-5 days. MilesMoney posted 3 days ago. Adding a timestamp for the sake of keeping a thread open, e.g., without adding to the content, serves little purpose. Next, if there are open questions, you might restate them. For example: Is it a question whether or not the blog is a personal blog? Is a question as to the fact that Callahan is commenting about another personal blog? Is it a question as to the fact that Callahan's area of expertise is economics? Indeed, because Callahan is talking about his personal experience at LvMI is there a question about whether he is a PRIMARY source? And is there a question as to whether he is talking about third parties and persons? (Or is there another open question that needs addressing?) Other editors seem to understand these issues, and I would trust the editor closing the discussion to do so with a considered determination. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Miles asked you a question here. Unless I'm missing something, the simplest thing would be for you to give him the courtesy of a response. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I will quote Binksternet from a few days ago: "S. Rich made it abundantly clear that this thread is about whether the Callahan blog should be used in the LvMI article to say the Institute is a cult." That said, repeating myself (or seeking to do MilesMoney's homework) is not productive. But I will respond to Miles – "I'm sorry, MilesMoney, but you are wrong. Please read through the material above." – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a question and you refused to answer it. No matter how you try to spin it, you evaded the question. This is not productive. MilesMoney (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are questions worth a response and there are other questions. This thread has gone on long enough to determine consensus against using Callahan's blog to say Callahan believes LvMI is a cult. In the end it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT: If Callahan has not been quoted by reliable secondary sources then how important is this single blog post of his? Perhaps it is like the tree falling in the forest with none to hear. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My questions are worthy of a response, it is premature to say that the thread has come to a consensus, and your response is unhelpful. MilesMoney (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If changes to the summary statements are desired, please let me know – or make changes to your particular section. – S. Rich (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)17:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• What points need revision & how? – S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The summary is inaccurate and you still haven't answered my direct question. I'll ask it again: what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views?

Please tell me what parts of the summary are inaccurate – I shall be happy to fix. The policy WP:SPS. Callahan can give his opinion regarding his field of expertise – economics. We do not allow personal blog material that goes beyond that relevant field. Questionable sources "are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're kind of missing the point. Well, multiple points, really. The big one is that WP:SPS can't have anything to do with this because it's not a WP:BLP and we're not using Callahan for expert claims in the first place. We're using him (and Murphy) for their statements about their own experiences with the Institute. They're talking about themselves and what they believe, which is something each of us is qualified to discuss.

So long as we properly attribute these claims to them, as opposed to silently endorsing them by speaking as Misplaced Pages, we're being fair and accurate, and we're following all the rules. The only legitimate basis you could have for claiming unreliability is if you had some verifiable reason to believe that Callahan and Murphy didn't actually say these things or that the basic background facts (such as their association with the Institute) were false. Is that what you're claiming? If not, you need to walk away, because you seem to be grasping at straws here in your attempt to obstruct material whose content you dislike. Misplaced Pages is not censored, remember? MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, your points have been incorporated into the summary. Please let me know if more addition or revision is needed. (While you mentioned Murphy, I left those out because the Murphy blog is under discussion in another thread.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your summary is very much your summary; it's all spin and has only a tenuous connection to reality. In particular, it violates the talk page rules by falsely attributing views to others. For example, you excluded mention of Murphy which is central to my argument. You said it was ok for us to change it, and since you wouldn't do it when we asked, I took the liberty of collapsing it.

I keep asking you a simple question and you can't answer it. At some point, I just gotta conclude you don't have an answer. But not yet. I'll ask again: what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views? Before you answer, stop and read WP:RSOPINION. MilesMoney (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I have incorporated your points about Murphy into the summary. Please let me know about other changes you think are needed. As for your question, I have cited SPS and WP:QS. Perhaps this quote from RSOPINION (the third paragraph) will help: "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published ... blogs ... as a source for material about a living person,... ." Callahan is writing about what Murphy wrote and what Murphy thinks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

When I repeatedly ask other editors to make comments on what changes are desirable, accusing me of misrepresentation fails WP:AGF. If you feel changes are warranted to the summary I posted in your section, please feel free to make such changes yourself. Please do not change the sections related to other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@srichYou are taking an entirely inappropriate posture that you are in a position to command the behavior of other editors. I made it quite clear to you first that you misrepresented me, and second that the table itself was (is) inappropriate. Please strike your personal attack re:AGF. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I already pointed out, you need a single, valid argument against inclusion, not a hundred waving hands (or pumped fists). I asked you for a principled basis for your objection, for something supported by the rules and our sources, but you've kept tossing out easily refuted arguments while trying to shift the conversation to your dishonest chart/table thing. As further counterproductive distraction (not to mention intimidation), you're threatening me on ANI pages with accusations so baseless that you've had to retract them and go hunting for some place else to attack me. How is any of this going to help you prove your case? Just drop the nonsense and focus on the topic. MilesMoney (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here is that there have been a few opinions shared by editors who either don't understand the question or don't know the answer. Some just don't understand that we're quoting someone on what they believe, not stating it as fact. Others don't understand the policies that allow us to do this. And there are those who make both mistakes.

This is not a vote. It's a discussion. Opinions that are based on errors just don't count. If I argued that we must allow Callahan because he's the Pope, my opinion is worthless and should be thrown out. If I bring in a hundred other editors who likewise argue based on his Papal infallibility, they're likewise worthless.

All it takes is a single, correct argument. Incorrect ones are noise, not signal, no matter how many there are. But Rich's chart is a noise-amplification device, designed to drive out the signal under a flood of mistaken conclusions, to create a false consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Rich, adding an attribution column isn't enough. Now you have to remove everything that's written by you and summarizes someone else. After that, we can slash out each row that contains an invalid argument. When we're done, all that'll be left is SPECIFO's and mine. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a note to each of the other contributing editors and asked them to modify the summaries of their comments. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See, that's just another way for you to try to control the conversation, demanding that we fill in the blanks in your hopelessly broken table. No, thanks. There have been enough editors opting out that the table is doomed. And since you won't stick to the topic you brought up, this entire section has withered on the vine. I recommend WP:BLOWITUP: get rid of this dead end and start with a short, clear post that explains how the rules applied to the facts lead to your conclusion. If you can't do this (and I have my doubts), then you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own. You have gained no traction so far and you're not going to unless you come up with something better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO; to address your question (why can't we present Callahan's view as his view). The problem isn't so much that we can present his view (we can, he has published it, that's fine). The problem is that you've not presented anything to support Callahan's viewpoint as a noteworthy one. Anyone can start a blog. I do appreciate he was (or claims to have been, I am unclear here) a member of the institute. But even so, a SPS blog source isn't very strong. It's not our place (per, for example, WP:OR) to choose which views to present. So what you need to locate is an independent, RS, that discusses Callahan's view as noteworthy. --Errant 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just read Gene Callahan and you'll see that he is an adjunct scholar at the Institute and has published heavily in his field. There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says we can't quote him on the subject of what he believes about the Institute that he is a member of. Instead, it's obvious that he's qualified to speak on this topic and what he says is notable. We know for sure that it's notable because it was noted and got a response.

I'm going to say this again: policy permits and encourages us to use Callahan for an attributed statement. There is no element of WP:OR and WP:SPS just doesn't say what you think it does. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but your comment qualifies as noise. MilesMoney (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's borderline, but I think in the case of this contested information we would, yes, look for a secondary source to support the view as noteworthy. Per WP:SPS; Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so --Errant 23:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this? It seems as though all of the criticism of the Institute is coming from its own members. This lowers the burden on us substantially. MilesMoney (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Again that's the blog of a former member; which fails the test of being independent coverage. Just to highlight the mistake you are making here, It seems as though - where are you getting that from? Yourself, or a RS? --Errant 09:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Further on my post above, even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult is an ordinary claim, it still needs to be verifiable against reliable sources. Being a cult is something capable of being prove true or false. You cannot verity a fact with an opinion, no matter what source opinion you use. Even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult were verifiable using opinion, Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not a Misplaced Pages reliable source for the proposed use or the target article. The opinion of Gene Callahan, of what he believes, characterizes Gene Callahan as a person, not the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The only place it could be posted is the Gene Callahan article, but since no third-party source has used it to describe what Callahan believes, the information does not belong in that article either.
  The problem is that editors want to use the charged, loaded word "cult" instead of taking the time to summarize how third party reliable sources are characterizing the institute. It is not a cult, but look at the definition of cult.: veneration of a person and/or ideal. A body of admirers. Ideology. If you look at the collective of the reliable sources on the institute, you may not see these exact words or explanation, but you may see something along these lines: 'Those who oppose or question the Ludwig von Mises Institute assert that, as a body containing a mix of admirers and idolizers of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, they go beyond promoting the economics proposed by Ludwig von Mises to a point of veneration.' So which reads better? The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a cult or what I just wrote? What I wrote is not sourced so do not use it in the article. Instead, go though the reliable sources on the Ludwig von Mises Institute, get a sense/summary of how they are being characterized by others, the consider posting that in a verifiable, neutral way. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Good advice, Jreferee; you are a clear thinker. The only correction to make here is that the supposed cult leader would be Murray Rothbard, not Ludwig von Mises. Rothbard was a strong character who made certain that his views were foremost at the Mises Institute he co-founded. Rothbard is dead, so BLP considerations do not stop us from using blogs to call him a cult leader. However, I have argued that BLP applies to the people who are still members of LvMI, the ones who would thus be called cult members. As well, the blogs are not important enough for us to single them out for attention; they have not risen to the world's attention by way of mainstream media, so why does Misplaced Pages care about blog accusations? Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I see your error: you say, "even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult is an ordinary claim", but we're not making that claim. We're stating that X says Y, not affirming Y. So you're using the wrong set of requirements. MilesMoney (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We do several things in the editing process. We analyze the claim & source and, if the claim & source meet editing policy, we restate the claim based on what the source says. In this case, the claim that LvMI is a cult is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Thus it comes under special scrutiny. As a source, Callahan is primary because he was there and he's talking about his experience with the people there. And as a blog, which is commenting about another blog, it fails RS – even if it were not making an extraordinary claim. In other words, we do not say "X says Y" – because X's comment does not meet RS standards (as a blog) and Y is an extraordinary claim. This would apply if Callahan was making an ordinary (or unchallenged) claim. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As User:MilesMoney implies, much of this controversy stems from shoddy reading comprehension. The claim that "The Mises Institute is a cult" is extraordinary, but does not appear in this article. The claim is that LvMI is a cult in the opinion of Gene Callahan, who is a notable academic that had a long, prolific role with LvMI. Similarly, we present the view that Democracy is "incompatible with wealth creation" on the Mises page; this is not an extraordinary claim because it is presented not as fact but as the opinion of Mises fellows. Steeletrap (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to think I was really clear but Rich's response doesn't make any sense or show he understands what's going on. I'll say it some more, until it sinks in. We're not saying the Institute is or isn't a cult. We're saying that these two members disagree on this topic. Until you understand this, nothing you say matters. Sorry, but I'm being blunt because you're just not getting it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted a variety of arguments above. In reply to the comment that "We're stating that X says Y, not affirming Y" - X's opinion about an unproven fact claim about Y is a characterization about X, not Y, so Callahan's opinion about an unproven fact claim about the Ludwig von Mises Institute does not belong in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. Even if we grant your reasoning -- which we can't because it doesn't seem to be supported by policy -- it fails because of the facts. You argue that X talking about Y belongs in the article about X, but in this case, X is a member of Y, so it belongs in the article on Y. Claims by members of the Institute belong in the article about the Institute, not anywhere else. Sorry, but that doesn't work for you. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Two bloggers taking potshots? Not notable. If you can find a mainstream source mentioning Callahan's position then you have something you can bank on. Otherwise it is undue weight given to Callahan, who is not an expert on cults. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not based on an accurate summary of the situation. If you and I opened blogs that debated with each other about whether the Institute is a cult, it would be entirely non-notable. What we're talking about are two members of the Institute having a public discussion with each other about their own Institute. Callahan is, as a member of the Institute, qualified to speak about it. This makes your opinion here non-notable. MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksernet, what if their blogs said "Michael Moore is fat" or "Sarah Palin is stupid" -- would you insist they be notable experts in physiology or psychometrics? There is RS documented public discussion of vMI as a cult, see Time Magazine, Buckley, and other RS discussion. In light of the corroborating secondary sources, I feel that MilesMoney's analysis is supported by WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If Time magazine & National Review directly supported the material (the contention that the institute is a cult), that would be one thing. But they do not. Justin Fox (Time) talks about Rothbard, the Kochs, and gives quotes from Buckley, Gordon, and Rothbard. Fox does not come out and say anything about the institute. (He quotes Buckley who says the number of followers ("disciples") of Rothbard & Koresh are similar. But this does NOT serve to characterize the institute as a cult.) Jonah Goldberg (National Review) quotes Doherty, who does not discuss LvMI. The quoted material from Doherty again quotes the Buckley obit, expanding the sentence which reads "Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God." (Thus we have Goldberg quoting Doherty who quotes Buckley.) Characterizing the support for the cult characterization as coming from Time & National Review (or even Buckley) fails the WP:RS#Context matters direct support requirement.17:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not contending that it's a cult. We're stating the uncontroversial fact that members publicly debate over whether it is a cult. This is a simple point that even a child could understand, but you keep missing it. Are you WP:COMPETENT? MilesMoney (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

caic.org.au

Source: caic.org.au

Article: Landmark Worldwide, and others:

• culthelp.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• caic.org.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• (other domain redirects may exist as well)

Content:

• In the article Landmark Worldwide:

  ...with former members reporting manipulative and coercive techniques such as sleep deprivation.

  and (in the lede):

  In some quarters, it has been classed as a cult, with some participants alleging the use of manipulative and coercive techniques.

• On the Talk:Landmark Worldwide, it is being used by editors to forward claims that the company is a cult.
• These claims (among others) are then being used to support the company's inclusion at List of new religious movements.

Commentary:

• As near as I can tell, CAIC is now a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere. (A Whois search shows that the site is registered to an individual, not an organization.)
• The site is clear that it has an agenda.
• It (CAIC) has a statement on most pages that it is not saying anything in their voice.
• The site does not have clear ownership (the site copyright actually includes the phrase "Yada yada yada").
• Our own article on the only "source" for CAIC's voice says that she passed away nearly 13 years ago (over six years before the domain was registered).
• In the example of Landmark Worldwide, it is being used as a source to support a rather exceptional claim.

Is the source (caic.org.au and other redirected domains) a reliable source? Does it support the statements made at Landmark Worldwide quoted above?

• Not reliable - As proposer of commentary above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As I suggested on the Article Talk page given CAIC is a clearinghouse of links to other articles (which are not being disputed individually) then one option would be to source each article directly. However, the opposite holds, if each CAIC linked article is not being disputed individually then why is CAIC being disputed as an aggregate of links? AnonNep (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable From looking around the site it appears to be mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course, I can write one of those, inclusion on that site wouldn't make it authoritative. Indeed on this page http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=12 the site maintainer "Jan Groenveld" says "Most of the articles regarding Landmark/Forum/EST are anecdotal - subjective experiences of others who have been through the Landmark/Forum/EST experience. They are provided to give an alternate viewpoint to that found on their own website." in other words articles on the site about Landmark are selected because they disagree with Landmark's own website, not because they necessarily have merit. Jasonfward (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The specific page on CAIC that mentions Landmark lists its sources (including publishing a Landmark rebuttal to its own content for balance) and does include a few 'subjective experiences' but is more of 'a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere' than 'mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course'. But, as said, the 'subjective experiences' could be ignored & other sources directly linked to the same effect:
    • 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns - Mother Jones, Volume 34/August 2009
    • ABC Radio National "Background Briefing" documentary on Landmark Education - ABC Radio National (Australian National Broadcaster)
    • 60 Minutes: Werner Erhard (March 3, 1991) - US CBS '60 Minutes' with link to transcript
    • "The Fuhrer Over est" by Jesse Kornbluth - New Times, New York, March 19, 1976. Pp. 29-52.
    • Marriage licence for Jack Rosenberg / Curt Wilhelm VonSavage / Werner and Ellen Erhard etc - Book excerpt 'Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile', Steve Pressman, 1993
    • AUDIO: Werner Erhard interview with Barbara Walters (1976) - as per description
    • Inside Landmark Forum (transcript) - English language transcript of French documentary "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous"
    • Inside Landmark Forum (video) - video of above with English subtitles
    • Landmark Education reply to France 3 documentary - Right of reply offered by CAIC to Landmark
    • The Forum Begins: The Curriculum and Pedagogy - Ph.D Dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • The Structure: First Sights Of The Forum - Excerpt from dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • "Not interested in people - but only money" - Personal experience copyrighted to Rick Ross
    • Soul Training (another Landmark experince) - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999.
    • There's no meeting of the Minds - Westword, April 18-24, 1996
    • Mind game courses aimed at public sector workers - The Times, July 22, 1992
    • "Landmark Forum is a very aggressive and selfish program" - 'By an attendee of Landmark Education', 1988
    • The Con-Forumists - Swing Generation, November 1998
    • The Forum: Cult or comfort? - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999
    • Mellow Out Or You Will Pay - Argus Magazine, December 1980
    • Landmark Education - by Andy Testa
    • Cults & Psychological Abuse (my experience in the forum) - 'taken from remarks -- considerably expanded -- that I delivered as a panel member at a discussion called "Cults and Psychological Abuse" on 30 October 1992 at Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh'.
    • Part 1 Of a Discussion on AOL - as titled
    • Part 2 of a discussion on AOL - as titled.

AnonNep (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this gaggle of links appear to either be to unreliable sources (the AOL chat might be my favorite) or to sources that don't actually discuss the claims that this source is being used to report. In any case, these links are irrelevant to whether the CAIC itself is a reliable source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable if used with care. Despite the statement by Tgeairn, CAIC is not cited as a reference for the "cult" label at all in the Landmark article (for which other sources are cited), but rather only for the statement that there have been reports of "manipulative and coercive techniques". Nor has this source ever been discussed on the Talk:List of new religious movements page. Although I agree that there are other sources that can and should be used to support this brief statement, that is no reason to deem the existing reference unreliable. CAIC, and its website, are cited in academic literature, and a very quick search turns up several:
  • Jeffry Kaplan: "Doomsday Religious Movements" in 2002. Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future. London: Routledge/Frank Cass Publishers.(references)
  • George Chryssides: "Heavenly Deception" in James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer, eds. 2007. The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press (references)
  • George Chryssides: 2011. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press (bibliography)
  • Margaret Thaler Singer, ‎Janja Lalich: 1994. Cults in Our Midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers (acknowledgements as an important resource)
  • Nancy K. Grant Ph. D., Diana J. Mansell R. N.: "Eckankar (co-worker with God) The Religion of Light and Sound" in 2008. A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People. New York: iUniverse (references)
  • Thomas J. Badey, ed. August 2004. Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism 05/06. edition: 8. Dubuque: McGraw Hill Contemporary Learning Series (references)
  • Sharon Brehm, Saul Kassin, Steven Fein, et. al.: Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (recommended resource)

Moreover, according to CAIC's Wiki article, it has had notable run-ins with Landmark in the past, and CAIC would also be a relaiable source for its side of that story, again, if used carefully. • Astynax 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that CAIC is cited in academic literature, please review your references:

• In Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future, it is listed in a list of Internet Addresses in the "References and suggested reading" section. CAIC is never cited in the book.
• In "Heavenly Deception", the actual reference is to "Hassan, Steve, "The Truth about Sun Myung Moon" and includes a url for a copy of that article on CAIC's site. CAIC isn't the source in that reference, and does not provide any content other than hosting a copy of someone else's web page.
• In Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, CAIC is listed in a list of Critical, Countercult, and Cult Monitoring Sites. Being listed in a list of websites does not mean it is being used as a source. There is a reference to caic.org regarding MSIA, which takes the reader to an unattributed copy of an excerpt of someone thoughts on the subject. Again, there is not material here from CAIC, only an unattributed copy of someone else's work.
• I cannot find any reference to CAIC in Cults in Our Midst. Can you verify that one?
• Following the pattern, A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People uses CAIC as a repository for other people's material (and is not exactly "academic literature").
• Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism, included on a list of websites - the exact same list as the others.
• Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology, the name of the website is listed in a list of websites that are accessible from a personal website. Again, no material from CAIC is being used as a source.

In none of the "academic literature" you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all. At best, it is included in a list of websites; and at worst it is being used as a webhost for someone else's material. Neither of these make it a reliable source. --Tgeairn (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: You are again mischaracterizing the issue at hand. A great many reliable sources are collections of information from multiple authors/sources. For each book/journal listed, I already provided in which way the site was listed. Academic authors do not include items in their references unless they have used them as sources and/or regard them as reliable for their readers/students. They do not tend to put unreliable sources in their recommended reading lists or bibliographies unless they have either used the source or think it will be valuable for their readers/students. The sole exception for that would be if the article criticized the source as unreliable, which none of the above do in regard to CAIC. Even were we to dismiss reference, bibliography and recommended reading lists (and we should not), your contention that "In none of the 'academic literature' you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all" is patently false. Chryssides certainly cites them, and authors do not thank sources in their acknowledgements for the contributions made by the sources toward completion of the work unless they have made use of the source. • Astynax 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable As above, the CAIC website is clearly a self-published website that appears to have no scholarly or academic credentials. Moreover, the site itself doesn't even appear to make the claims that the source is being used to support. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable per WP:SPS. Of course if some of the links on that site point to sources that are WP:RS, there is no reason why those references could not be cited directly. It does seem however that, of the links that point to to newspaper and magazine articles, many are Op-ed pieces rather than news reports, or quotations by the reporter of the opinions of non-notable or unnamed individuals. DaveApter (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, it is not reliable in the sense that it can't be used to say Landmark Worldwide is a "cult" and therefore a "new religious movement". When you go to the CAIC site the first thing you see is a big disclaimer saying "Just because a group is mentioned on this site does not mean we regard it as a destructive cult. Both Cults and Isms are listed to provide information for those seeking the downside of many of these movements." So in their words, they're not saying it's a cult; also I don't think the self-published reviews there are reliable sources either. I'm not saying that Landmark doesn't have problems, but I don't think this is the way to deal with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

consultingbyrpm.com/blog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy

1. Source: "Free Advice: The personal blog of economist Robert P. Murphy": "In Defense of the Mises Institute" .
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#Criticisms
3. Content:

   Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters. In the opinion of former Mises Institute Scholar Gene Callahan, "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time Bob and I got there" around 2001. Callahan states, "Rothbard, in the late 80s or early 90s, had decided that an appeal to racists was just the ticket for his movement. He published articles saying things like blacks weren't doing very well because they weren't so smart, got involved with Neo-Confederate causes, and so on. I think by 2000, Lew Rockwell sincerely regretted that time". Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology.

• Talkpage discussion: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Murphy blog as RS for article .28BRD.29
• Notes by OP: Footnote 37 is the Murphy blog citation. Footnotes 38–40 are about the Ron Paul newsletters. Footnote 41 is the subject of another RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. (The quoted passage is copied from screenshot of paragraph without using <ref></ref> Wiki markup so that footnote numbering does not change with subsequent edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite (or maybe because of) a lot of words coming from Srich, I still have no idea what his objection is. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cannot read his mind, but a frequent objection (and one widely supported at this board) is that in general a blog is not a reliable source, and that even in cases where it is accepted (e.g. for an opinion), there needs to be a good reason why a particular blog post deserves enough weight to include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried that on, but it didn't fit. We're using Murphy's words about himself and his own organization, so it's WP:ABOUTSELF that applies here, not WP:BLOGS. Moreover, we're quoting him in support of the subject of the article, which means WP:BLP can't possibly apply. The reason we're doing this is so that we can frame Callahan's response, which would otherwise make no sense, so this is well-motivated.

I can't read his mind, either, but if that's what's on his mind then he's wasting our time again. I've been frustrated with his confusing, incompetent and counterproductive behavior on this issue, and I'm no less frustrated now. MilesMoney (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just gonna point out that I've asked SRich to explain himself, he's made other edits to this section, but hasn't even tried to explain himself. Looks like all we're left with is mind-reading and I'm not detecting any hints of what your objection is. a whole lot to read.MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. Please redact it per WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood it, but whatever. MilesMoney (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• PRIMARY sources are piss-poor at evaluating racism. They're entirely unsuitable to cult-studies. And they're inappropriate for the history of small controversial organisations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that the primary source isn't even quoted on the issue of cults, and we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered. MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't interest me. The source isn't reliable for the claims it is making. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply to anything I said. Unfortunately, none of your comments show that you have a working understanding of the relevant issues so I'm not sure what to do with your opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote you in detail, "we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered" We must X because WP:OTHERSTUFF. No we must not. I'm sorry but you can't backdoor shit into the encyclopaedia because someone else once did so. The source you're citing has no capacity to judge racism in the sociology of small group organisations, nor is it credible for the history of a small controversial political group. This is because it is a primary SPS. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you find that it's not only a (non-binding) essay, it's a link to a section called "What about article x?". This argues against the idea that one article's existence should be justified -- in an article deletion discussion -- by referencing other articles.

What we're talking about isn't article deletion, nobody's making the argument that it argues against, and it's not even binding, regardless. Like I said, you don't have a working understanding of relevant issues. You're misquoting non-policy out of context to something it was never even supposed to apply to. The relevant policy is WP:BALANCE and it's on my side. MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF is often mentioned in discussions about problematic edits. The analogy is that the existence of other lousy stuff/articles does not justify keeping this lousy stuff. While BALANCE is editing policy, it does not come into play until the threshold question is asked – Is the Murphy blog (or Callahan blog) acceptable RS? We cannot have two personal blogs (not acceptable RS) presented in the name of BALANCE. This is especially true when these personal blogs are talking about third parties. Also, Murphy's blog is not about "his organization" in that he has no official role in the administration or policy positions of LvMI. He teaches & has had stuff published by LvMI. (Another analogy. Fouad Ajami is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's written over 400 articles about Arab & Islam issues. It would be improper to look through his publications, find interesting tid-bits, and post them in a "Views espoused by founders and organization scholars" section.) The views of the individuals, like Murphy and Callahan and others, are best confined to their particular articles. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Srich The Murphy piece is RS for the content which is cited to it in the context of this article. Most of the points I stated in the Callahan thread above also apply here to Murphy. In neither thread have you made a case based on policy and content. Instead you are dressing up your opinion with inapt citations and misinterpretations of policy. Please do some background reading: . Please note, per one of the links provided, it is not constructive to deploy gratuitous language such as "lousy stuff" here. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

PRIMARY SPS with no EXPERT making accusations tending to libel. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What article text sourced to Murphy's blog is libelous? I don't think calling Rockwell's unnamed critics "hyenas" is actionable. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Libel is not the issue. (Murphy could be saying wonderful things about different people.) When a personal blog talks about others (persons and third parties) it goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF. Murphy's personal blog involves named, particular third parties/third persons. It is not acceptable RS about the Ludwig von Mises Institution. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is out of touch with the facts. Murphy is writing about himself; he's a member of the Institute and therefore free to discuss it all he likes. He's saying good things about it, defending it, so libel doesn't even enter the picture. But if he wants to deny that it's a cult, that's his call, and he's a reliable source on what members believe about the cult status of the Institute. MilesMoney (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you've been curiously silent. Can we conclude that you're dropping your objections now that they've been soundly refuted? MilesMoney (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be a welcome outcome, since Srich has rejected user Fifelfoo's libel concern. Of course, keeping Murphy's bit intact makes it all the more appropriate we also keep Gene Callahan's comment on Murphy, for balance. Note that Callahan defends Rockwell by stating he believes that Rockwell came to regret the racist redneck strategy which supported the founding of vMI. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:QS says: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves;... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. " Murphy's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Callahan's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Murphy has taught & had publications published by LvMI, that does not make him an official of the organization. I'm a "member" of the Sierra Club. While I can use my personal blog to express any personal opinion about the Sierra Club, that opinion cannot be used in WP. Fifelfoo has objected on multiple points. I support many of the points. Again, we have a blog commenting about another blog which is commenting about other uncited comments. This is QS based on other QS. – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich: Have you reviewed the links which discuss various of the fallacies you have used in these RSN threads? That will help move this discussion forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My background reading is not the issue of this thread. Rather, let's look at the names included in Murphy's blog: Ron Paul, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Peter Klein, Roderick Long, Mark Thornton, Lew Rockwell, Guido Hulsmann, Jeff Herbener. Even if he says wonderful things about these people, he is giving us gossip, rumor, and personal opinion. His personal blog has no meaningful editorial oversight. It can be used in the Murphy article, but not elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph describing a kerfuffle between warring camps of libertarian economists (between the "GMU Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians") is a tempest in a teapot if all we have on it are blog-sourced salvos sent at each other across no man's land. Why do we care what the bloggers are saying to each other? This stuff should be sourced to mainstream journals and books, not blogs, and it should be described neutrally rather than in the voices of the involved. The text shown at the top of this thread as "content" is clearly using Murphy's blog post as a coatrack to introduce the intended post by Callahan who is given five sentences versus the one sentence offered to Murphy. It is clear from this addition by Steeletrap in mid-August is the basis for the current RSN discussion; Steeletrap writes that Callahan "implies" that LvMI is a cult akin to Scientology. It is only later that Murphy is added by SPECIFICO in a false attempt to provide balance, when it is obvious that the only reason Murphy is added is so that the bit by Callahan can better survive deletion. The much greater weight given to Callahan is revealing. I think the whole paragraph should be struck as undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flick, Binksternet. This has nothing to do with the Cato/Mises rift. Murphy and Callahan were colleagues at Mises. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where I linked to the same Murphy blog that you used as a reference. It's the same game. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be directing your efforts to an area beyond your expertise with these libertarian and Austrian economics articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really good at recognizing activist editors who are here to slant the encyclopedia their way. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this noticeboard is Reliable Sources, and so far you haven't shown much understanding of the sources, their contexts, or the WP policies that would apply to them. But I'd love to have you prove me wrong and see some on-topic policy-based writings from you. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of my "understanding" is not worth comment. There is a larger picture here; larger than RSN's purview. This context should not be absent from the discussion, as it bears strongly on the matter. The various blogs from Murphy and Callahan are not useful on Misplaced Pages unless they are 1) on topic, 2) founded on the writer's widely acknowledged expertise, and 3) relevant to a summary style encyclopedia article on the topic. In this case, the relevance is severely lacking. Murphy argues against unnamed critics of LvMI-as-a-cult and then Callahan responds saying LvMI is indeed a cult, in his opinion. Who cares? This back-and-forth by bloggers is not mainstream news. I say delete the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. As well, neither Callahan nor Murphy are expert cult researchers, so they are out of their element. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, just about nothing regarding the Mises Institute is "mainstream news." Please read all the source material. Murphy says that no group which solicits dissent could possibly be a cult. Callahan, in order to refute him, gives a counterexample. It's a matter of logic. One needn't be an "expert cult researcher" whatever that means, or call Ghostbusters, to figure out that Callahan has refuted Murphy in this narrow clearly stated matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The more I look at Rich's and Blinksternet's hardline refusal to accept either of these sources, the more I realize that neither of them has even an excuse. Neither one can point at a rule that's even relevant, much less on their side. Neither one has anything substantive to object to; it's all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I also realize that, since we can't quote Callahan without Murphy or vice versa, we can't talk about how reliable they are separately. We need a single thread, which means this one is dead in the water. Let's close both of these threads, burying the mess, and let them open up one where they actually stay on topic and don't misapply the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Callahan blog RSN is getting plenty of comment, and each RSN thread has a notice about the other. Combining them will not work for two reasons: 1. Combing would not change the basic RS analysis (for either blog) and would only complicate a thread that is quite long as is. 2. What you say about the fate of Murphy's blog vs. Callahan's is true to a certain extent. If Murphy's blog is non-RS, then Callahan's comments about Murphy's blog get kicked out because of WP:UNDUE. I opened the Callahan blog RSN first because some editors claim other RS supports the idea that LvMI is a cult. Callahan's blog might be non-RS in this regard, but the other sources might support a cult description. But since Callahan's blog talks about Murphy's blog, I felt it necessary/helpful to open this RSN as a separate issue. Again, I remind readers that each thread provides notice about the other. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not saying that LvMI is a cult. For that, we'd need considerably stronger sources. All we're saying is the obvious and uncontroversial fact that the controversy exists, that members of the LvMI argue publicly about whether it's a cult. I'm just not going to let you misinform people by spinning the issue this way. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Citogenesis problem

Per the clever minds at (the website that shall not be named), it was discovered that reference.com is linked from ~12k articles. However, reference.com itself often hosts copies of wikipedia articles. Thus, citogenesis.

This is a classic example: Landala - no source other than reference.com, which itself contains a copy of the article from Misplaced Pages.

I think we should list reference.com and (in some cases) dictionary.com as non-reliable sources (do we have a black list?) and start an effort to clean this up. What do you think? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

After playing around a bit, I did a search on:

• "reference.com" -"classic.reference.com" -"filmreference.com" -"football-reference.com" -"hockey-reference.com" -"basketball.reference.com" -"dictionary.reference.com" -"chemistry-reference.com" -"sports-reference.com" -"baseball-reference.com" intitle:-reference.com

That's getting me 370 hits. It's an underestimate, but probably not by a lot. Here's what I'm seeing:

For those keeping score at home, I've now gotten this down to 319 hits using

• "reference.com" -"shark-reference.com" -"haiti-reference.com" -"vhsl-reference.com" -"classic.reference.com" -"filmreference.com" -"football-reference.com" -"hockey-reference.com" -"basketball.reference.com" -"dictionary.reference.com" -"chemistry-reference.com" -"sports-reference.com" -"baseball-reference.com" intitle:-reference.com

• With the exclusion of shark-reference.com we're down to 234 hits. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed Michelle Malkin
• No issue at dictionary.
• Fixed gapyear.com
• fixed Howling Laud Hope
• Not sure why Dwarf sawfish is showing up.
• Fixed Gholam Mujtaba
• Fixed Joseph Oppenheim
• Fixed Vanga Kingdom
• Fixed Da Nang Port
• Fixed Reginald Case, Drummonderinoch, Liquor license, Romanos II, Women in Sikhism, Terminating bias circuit, Frederick W. Green (Egyptologist), Philip Knights, Baron Knights, Paul Barsky, AdPack USA.

If anyone else wants to lend a hand cleaning these up, add what you do to the above list.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed Floor, dwarf sawfish has shark-reference.com in External links. Tobus2 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nice catch! Don't know why I didn't see that. I'll update my query. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a list somewhere of sources that people may think are good, but which aren't? Also, I haven't checked the diffs above, but I hope we're not just removing the links - should we ensure that the content that is there is not itself the product of citogenesis?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of a list, but ask.com should definitely be on there. I'm not "just removing links", but aside from adding an odd {{cn}} tag where I think it's warranted I'm not bothering to track down additional sources. So far these all good like good-faith, benign and trivial mistakes on low-traffic pages. If you want to make a pass through and validate this for yourself, you're more than welcome (I could stand another set of eyes on these edits).

I've just finished another dozen. The list gets reordered as I continue to add filters (which is a little strange), so I don't know if you're seeing the same order to the search results as I'm seeing. Rather than me marking down each article, do you want to start from the end of the list and I'll continue working forward? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the link - it was for "sub-floor, also called Underlayment" which I don't think really needs a ref, could put back a cn or link to a glossary if others think it does.

I'm about to start work so won't be doing anything for at least 8-10 hours... if the list is being reordered then I'd suggest an "A-M"/"N-Z" or other alphabetical split - easy to subsplit if others join in too. Tobus2 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated search query (194 hits, ~100 are done): "reference.com" -"site-reference.com" -"kata-reference.com" -"wordreference.com" -"racing-reference.com" -"shark-reference.com" -"haiti-reference.com" -"vhsl-reference.com" -"classic.reference.com" -"filmreference.com" -"football-reference.com" -"hockey-reference.com" -"basketball.reference.com" -"dictionary.reference.com" -"chemistry-reference.com" -"sports-reference.com" -"baseball-reference.com" intitle:-reference.com
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've plowed through the lot. I'll run the search again in a week and see what has changed. Thanks for bringing this up. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work. You might enjoy looking at the large scale problems at the top of this page which involve similar problems in finding and locating issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'll take a look at evolutionnews. Don't expect too much progress before the weekend, though. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• As a reminder, if a site (or a book or a publisher) mirrors wikipedia content, it's a good idea to list it at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks. That list is sadly not complete but it does help stop circular sourcing, and this is a handy thing to point to when other editors worry that you're removing something that seems, at first glance, to be sourced content. bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't know that existed—thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Is "Brainyquote.com" a reliable source?

www.brainyquote.com is a collection of quotes from various artists, authors, and public figures. Is this a reliable source? The quotes contained in brainyquote.com do not appear to have any secondary or primary source attribution. Herzlicheboy (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful. Any quote worth quoting can be sourced to a reliable, researched book of quotations (Bartlett's, Oxford, etc.) or a primary source. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So can I unilaterally remove any quote in any Misplaced Pages article solely attributed to Brainyquote.com? Herzlicheboy (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is attributed to a living individual, yes. Otherwise, you might want to just add a fact tag. In some cases it would be quite easy to come up with an appropriate source. Did you have any particular articles in mind? Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the quote attributed to Wilhelm Steinitz in the third line of this section: French_defense#History. Is it solely attributed to "Brainyquotes". Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find that quote via Google Books and added the new citation. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, very impressive find. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

When using a quotation, you should include a reference to where it was originally published. But Brainquote does not do that do it is best avoided. Also, it is rarely a good idea to provide a quote unless a secondary source can establish what it means. Otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

four deuces, please elaborate, because as your statement stands you are more than incorrect, your bordering on competence issues. We use quotes from primary sources all the time, it is only when talking about what the quote means is a secondary source needed, and in fact you can use a primary source to explain the quote if the primary source goes on to say "this means..."' OR means YOUR own OR, not OR dome by a respected author who was published and peer reviewed.Camelbinky (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it ok to delete what a source says, keep the source & add material contradicting the source?

This ones a bit tricky. Recently some copper mines in the Timna Valley were redated to Solomonic times. Various articles have been written about this (ignore the headlines as they don't reflect what the articles actually say). The Phys.org article says "Scholarly work and materials found in the area suggest the mines were operated by the Edomites, a semi-nomadic tribal confederation that according to the Bible warred constantly with Israel." It also says " It's entirely possible that David and Solomon existed and even that they exerted some control over the mines in the Timna Valley at times, he says." An article in the Jewish Press says "The archaeological record shows the mines in Timna Valley were built and operated by a local society, likely the early Edomites, who are known to have occupied the land and formed a kingdom that rivaled Judah." And "He also says that the findings at the Slaves’ Hill undermine criticisms of the Bible’s historicity based on a lack of archaeological evidence. It’s entirely possible that Kings David and Solomon exerted some control over the mines in the Timna Valley at times, he says" (he being the chief excavator).

This has been added to our article on the book King Solomon's Mines. I revised it (and I perhaps should have put in the speculation by the excavator) to match the source about the Edomites warring constantly with Israel, but an editor disagrees about the Edomites and so it now reads " Research published in September 2013 has shown that this site was in use during the 10th century BC as a copper mine possibly by the Edomites<ref>http://phys.org/news/2013-09-proof-solomon-israel.html</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Proof of Solomon's mines found in Israel|url=http://www.jewishpress.com/news/proof-of-solomons-copper-mines-found-in-israel/2013/09/08/|accessdate=17 September 2013|newspaper=The Jewish Press|date=September 8th, 2013 Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/proof-of-solomons-copper-mines-found-in-israel/2013/09/08/}}</ref>, who are believed to be vassals of King Solomon<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Edom#Biblical_Edom</ref><ref>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_05562.html</ref>." In other words, it contradicts and ignores what the original sources say (using an article of hours and the Jewish Virtual Library, which does not say they were Solmon's vassals and is clearly opinion, not fact, using words such as "apparently" and "According to the Septuagint, what is said about Aram in I Kings 11:25 refers to Edom, and it thus turns out that this Hadad rebelled at the beginning of Solomon's reign and ruled Edom. It is difficult to accept this version... It would therefore appear that Edom's liberation was possible only at the end of Solomon's reign."

I'm not sure how to handle this (and I'm not sure this belongs in an article about a book, so the easiest way would be to just take it all out and not have an article about a book fight out a debate over the historicity of these mines). I'm pretty convinced though that we can't just delete relevant material that is in the sources being used for these recent excavations. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take on it. The problem seems to be these two edits: and . I find both of these edits to be inappropriate. The first one misrepresents the source, and is technically OR, while the second edit uses a Misplaced Pages article as a source, which obviously fails RS. However, the point of the article is to publish archaeological evidence so maybe it isn't suitable for paraphrasing the bible (it is published by the science faculty after all), so perhaps the Edomites relationship to Israel should just be dropped. Betty Logan (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am reading it wrong but the sentence quoted above has, with respect to sourcing, two sections.

• The post above appears to be about the first section which only seems to have a "light" claims "possibly the Edomites". I don't see any contradiction with the sources described above? It just does not repeat everything? If so there would be no policy problem with saying less than what a source says, as long as the meaning does not really change.
• The second bit who are believed to be vassals of King Solomon looks inappropriately sourced, and indeed not really necessary to the subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I was surprised that Misplaced Pages didn´t have a article about king Solomons mines, as, you know, "theory". The word "mine" don´t even show up in Solomon until "Contemporary fiction". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That may be on topic after all. Does the idea that Solomon had mines, under his own control or that of "vassals", have any source? Andrew Dalby 09:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Microsoft Office website used to define project management terms

I found this page on a support section of Microsoft Office's official website. Could it be used as a source on Deliverable without changing any content? The article only has one citation (as of right now) and I was hoping to beef it up a bit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about this? The article seems to be written by an industry professional with references citated...which I guess makes it a tertiary source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

These are pretty weak sources. A textbook for MBA students would be better. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Or a project-management textbook. (Although PM methodologies tend to nurture their own sets of keywords which have significant differences from common usage, cf "control" &c). Speaking from personal experience I'd be particularly wary of this as all my deliverables are intangible. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was a tech comm major, and I still have all my textbooks at home (at the office right now). Some courses involved a bit of PM, so I will see what I can find in those instead. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Iran

Is this a reliable source --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR is a problem here, as Professor Manuocheher Vahidnia cites Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nndb.com/

Hello! Is this encyclopedia-type site a reliable source? 79.117.175.246 (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In a word, no. "Our standard is correctness over verifiability (the reverse of Misplaced Pages)". Previous discussion from this noticeboard has some more info:. Siawase (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about Institute for Building Efficiency - enough sources?

Hello

This is Anna Timms, Senior Manager, Social Media for Johnson Controls. I am aware of the conflict of interest policy, so will not make any edits to any company related articles.

I would like to ask for guidance from this noticeboard on whether I have enough sources to request a new Misplaced Pages article or whether I should suggest an addition to the existing Johnson Controls article.

The Institute for Building Efficiency is an initiative of Johnson Controls to provide information and analysis of technologies, policies, and practices for efficient, high performance buildings (http://www.institutebe.com).

Here is a list of sources that have written about the Institute for Building Efficiency: (Citations and inline comments by Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC).)

• http://distributedenergy.com/DE/Articles/22289.aspx?goback=%2Egmr_3102657%2Egmp_3102657#%21

• Hull, Paul (19 July 2013), "Saving, Not Speculation", Business Energy. IBE mentioned once in passing.

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/05/measuring-energy-efficiency-buildings

• "Turn that light off!", The Economist, 28 May 2013. IBE mentioned only once in comments. Not a reliable source.

• http://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/articles/findings-of-the-institute-for-building-efficiency%E2%80%99s-energy-efficiency-indicator-2011-study

• Findings of the Institute for Building Efficiency’s Energy Efficiency Indicator 2011 Study, Navigant Research, 26 July 2011. See WP:BLOGS for guidance. This may be acceptable, but I'm not sure.

• http://www.matternetwork.com/2011/1/institute-building-efficiency-expanding-pie.cfm

• Wapner, Mike (12 Jan 2011), The Institute for Building Efficiency: Expanding the Pie, Matter Network. Looks good.

• http://scalinggreen.com/2012/08/institute-for-building-efficiency%E2%80%99s-jennifer-layke-insights-on-communicating-the-enormous-potential-of-energy-efficiency/

• mikec (13 August 2012), Institute for Building Efficiency’s Jennifer Layke: Insights on Communicating the Enormous Potential of Energy Efficiency, Scaling Green. Also a blog, and probably not one with editorial oversight. Would not consider this a reliable source.

• http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/institute-building-efficiency-reveals-findings-future-demand-response/2011-05-16

• Lundin, Barbara Vergetis (16 May 2011), Institute for Building Efficiency reveals findings of the future of demand response, Fierce Energy. This reads a bit too much like a recycled press release.

• http://www.gbpn.org/newsroom/achieving-scale-energy-efficiency-us-new-video
• http://www.uli.org/centers-initiatives/new-research-identifies-opportunities-and-obstacles-for-energy-efficiency-in-buildings-sector/

• Simpson, Molly (20 June 2013), New Research Identifies Opportunities and Obstacles for Energy Efficiency in Buildings Sector, Urban Land Institute. Not a lot here.

• http://www.facilitiesnet.com/energyefficiency/article/Longerpayback-Energy-Upgrades-Maximize-Building-Efficiency--12300
• http://www.opportunitygreen.com/green-business-blog/2011/09/30/johnson-controls-research-indicates-cost-savings-remains-the-single-biggest-driver-for-energy-efficiency/
• http://www.racplus.com/news/johnson-controls-releases-building-efficiency-report/8632389.article
• http://www.eia.gov/conference/2013/pdf/presentations/hughes.pdf
• http://www.jsonline.com/business/survey-more-commercial-building-owners-want-to-energy-efficient-oe5pg8d-159139065.html
• http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&nr=489&type=1000&menu=126
• http://greenwisejv.org/californias-capital-leads-the-nation-in-energy-efficiency-financing/
• http://www.progressivefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/11.2010PPI_Memo-Hodum-Efficiency_Boom.pdf
• http://www.texascleanenergy.org/Commercial-PACE-TCEC8.pdf
• http://www.ecmag.com/section/miscellaneous/building-owners-fighting-rising-energy-prices-efficiency
• http://buildotechindia.com/india-leads-in-importance-placed-on-building-efficiency/
• http://boston.1thingus.com/reevaluating-the-word-%E2%80%98retrofit%E2%80%99-when-it-comes-to-building-efficiency/
• http://constructionpronet.com/Content_Free/20120622-GBI.aspx
• http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/category/29016/publisher/institute-for-building-efficiency/
• http://gestion.pe/empresas/72-empresas-nivel-global-planea-invertir-ecoeficiencia-2070110
• http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?p=16&id=6133
• http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/news/retrofitting-the-empire-state-building-provides-profit-lessons-for-going-green-in-australia/2012080855794/Page-2

Based on the list of sources above, I'd like to ask for your guidance: are there enough reliable sources to justify a separate article on the Institute for Building Efficiency? Or would it be advisable to ask for the Institute for Building Efficiency to be made a subsection of the existing Johnson Controls article?

Thank you--Anna C Timms (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anna. First, thanks for respecting the COI policy. I'm going to convert a few of your links above into citation format; that'll make it easier for others to evaluate. If for whatever reason you'd prefer that I leave the list as it, feel free to revert my changes. I'll also add a comment or two after the cite. Working... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, having taken a look at a half-dozen of these, I'd say it's much more important to isolate the four or five best references and build the article out from there. You should probably take a look at WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH to see what we're looking for. Ideally, we'd like to see substantial third-party reporting in a well-known magazine or newspaper. The closer you get to blogs and press releases the more difficult it will be to establish sufficient notability for an independent article. If you'd like to pick your top-five I'll be happy to take a look at them. There are other folks here with much more experience in corporate articles so feel free to solicit other opinions as well. 23:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

May I use these links in the discography section of an article of a musician?

Hello,

I'm a contributor to the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page. They have released several singles in MP3 format on iTunes and other similar sites, so a discography section was created, here: Camille and Kennerly Kitt#Discography. As you can see, the section includes release dates, the names of the tracks, and the harp duet type (acoustic or electric). Would it be acceptable to insert a link to the corresponding iTunes page next to each track name, since those iTunes pages are the ONLY way to support the release dates and tracks mentioned? Or would that be considered promotional? As we know, the contents of Misplaced Pages pages must have verifiable sources, and those iTunes links would be the only way to prove that the discography section is true.

Here's one example:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/game-of-thrones-single/id551895996

Many thanks in advance for your time and help. Dontreader (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A shop that is trying to sell the product is not reliable source. Independent sources have no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication). That counts out shops. Misplaced Pages is not here to help businesses sell products. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

duffbeerforme should not be here since he is the user who took down those links a day ago, and therefore he is biased. Besides, a much more experienced Wikipedian recommended me to do what I have asked about here. Furthermore, when the page was proposed for deletion, Duffbeerforme spent far more time than any unbiased Wikipedian arguing that the page must be deleted based on his knowledge of the Misplaced Pages rules, yet the consensus that was reached by much more seasoned users was to keep it. Therefore, I ask once again for help from an impartial Wikipedian with greater experience. Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Trouts to duffbeerforme for not pointing out they were a party to the dispute. That said, Dontreader, if no one in the music press given a list of gear for each song then we probably don't need to either. Once you find a reliable source with that information I don't see any objection to including it in the article. Yes, this is annoying. No, it doesn't have to be this way. But overall the problems caused by a conservative interpretation of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS are (in my opinion) slightly better than the problems we'd have with a more liberal interpretation. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, I appreciate your response very much. I see your point; however, you said "probably", so I just would like to please know if for sure my proposal would clearly violate Misplaced Pages rules or not. I have taken a look at Lindsey Stirling's page, and in the discography section Lindsey Stirling#Discography it says, "Singles and EPs The following list of official music singles is available at the official independent record label website.", followed by this link: http://lindseystirling.mybigcommerce.com/music-singles-1/ Therefore, her page is promoting sales. I fail to understand the difference between that link and the iTunes link that I provided. You said that I should find a reliable source, which I understand, and it sounds quite reasonable, but is that link on Lindsey Stirling's page a reliable source? If not, can I proceed with what I suggested for the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page? Again, I appreciate your kindness and help. Dontreader (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dontreader: That's a fair question. Poking around a bit, I see that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Sources mentions "the artist's or label's website" as allowable for discographic information. As lindseystirling.mybigcommerce.com appears to be both, I'd say using that cite is within current consensus. iTunes is neither the artist's site or the label's site, so use of iTunes falls outside current consensus (at least for this purpose).

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, I'm very grateful for the impressive research. You have been very helpful, and I won't ask you to keep on addressing my points because I don't want to abuse anyone's generosity, but taking an even closer look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Sources, I think it's important to stress a couple of things:

1. When you quoted "the artist's or label's website" as allowable for discographic information, that certainly explains why the Lindsey Stirling website is fine, but that quote is under the category of "Useful resources", so it does not claim that those are the ONLY acceptable sources.

2. Furthermore, on that same page, I see that I can invoke Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Discographies/style#Ignore all rules because "if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article. It is our goal to provide information in the best way possible, so a strict adherence to the guidelines listed above may not always be the best way to accomplish our goals." The reasonable justification, in my opinion, is that both Lindsey Stirling's link and the iTunes link that I showed as an example serve the exact same purpose, which is to support the claims made in the discography section. I certainly hope consensus can be reached on this matter because I'm tired of my edits being systematically reverted by duffbeerforme, who takes advantage of the fact that there is a lack of consensus. Thanks again for the kind help. Dontreader (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dontreader If you're going to play the WP:IAR card (and everyone should at least once in their editing career) then you're going to need to make a case as to why the benefits of ignoring the rule outweigh the costs. At the moment I'm not seeing a lot of upside here: including links to iTunes will let you fill in a few details, but those links aren't going to improve the overall quality or make the article significantly more complete.

I do see a substantial downside, though. I don't think you can make an argument that iTunes links be limited to just this article, so I'm going to have to evaluate how this change would affect all music articles. Alexa Internet ranks sites by traffic. Misplaced Pages is #6. Apple (and by extension iTunes) is #44. If we were to allow all band articles to point to iTunes, I have no doubt that we would become the largest referrer to iTunes within a handful of weeks. At that point, record labels and bands have an empirical metric (money) for the effectiveness of a band's article in driving sales. Because real money is now on the line, those articles aren't going to be left to the best efforts of overworked, amateur, volunteer, and above all, neutral editors.

The current solution severs the link between the article and the point of sale: no links to iTunes, Amazon, eBay, etc. This policy doesn't entirely remove wikipedia's substantial effect on sales, but that effect is harder to quantify and there's less of a monetary incentive to try to game the system.

So that's the big picture as I understand it. As I said, WP:IAR works when you can show the benefits of ignoring the rule outweighing the costs. Based on the information I have, in this case I'm seeing negligible benefit and potentially crippling costs. I can be persuaded otherwise, but to do so you're going to have to make an argument on how your change benefits the encyclopedia, not just this article.

Hope that was helpful, and I'm happy to continue the conversation.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For sake of completeness, I'll point out that Leck mich im Arsch has an iTunes link tucked away in the external links section, and I don't have any problems with that at all: it's informative, and The Academy of St. Martin in the Fields is not making a substantial portion of their budget from sales generated by that link. There is not, however, an iTunes link in the Leck mich im Arsch (Insane Clown Posse single) article; such a link would also be informative, but there's far greater potential for promotion and thus abuse. The Camille and Kennerly Kitt article is, strange as it may be to say it, closer to ICP than AoSMinF. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, I really appreciate your time and kindness, and especially the effort to explain your points as thoroughly as possible, instead of reverting edits and basically saying in the edit descriptions that I don't know what Misplaced Pages is about (please see the history section of the article that we are talking about, if you have a moment - I find that behavior far from civil). However, I have no idea what ICP and AoSMinF mean, so if you could explain that, I would be grateful. The rest is very interesting and I don't have the knowledge to contest anything that you said. My concern is very simple: if the discography section remains (as it is now) without verifiable sources, anyone might come at any moment and take it down. Isn't that a valid concern? Then, without the discography section, it would look as if the Harp Twins are not serious musicians, who have never released any music, when in fact they have spent lots of time and money making many of their tracks available for purchase on several sites (remember the licensing fees involved in making covers). I don't think it would be right for their page not to contain a discography section, which, as I said, is in danger of disappearing any second. You mentioned a rather obscure external link to iTunes on another page. I saw it. I'm perfectly fine with an iTunes link being an external link (perhaps the link to their page with all of their tracks, which includes all of the release dates). Any suggestion/help you can give me is enormously appreciated. Please understand why I'm so worried. Thanks again for all your generous help. Dontreader (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

ICP=Insane Clown Posse. AoSMinF=Academy of St Martin in the Fields. Apologies for being obscure. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact, Lesser Cartographies, not that I want to sound abusive, but if you could edit the page yourself, that would be awesome because if I do whatever you recommend, Duffbeerforme will automatically revert it. Dontreader (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dontreader I'll take a look. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Specific page numbers for journal articles needed?

I used template:cite doi to cite journal articles, but this editor is asking for specific page numbers. This is awkward, especially if a statement is repeated in various pages and you certainly do not do it if you are using APA style, unless it's a quote. What's the Wiki opinion about this? Cavann (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, adding page numbers to citations is a kindness to the reader and page numbers should be added where feasible. I prefer using {{rp|pagenum}} after the {{refn|name=foo}} because (a) it gives me an easy-if-slightly-ugly way of pointing out the cite is spread over several pages, e.g., and (b) I can use the "pages" parameter to give the length of the work instead of the page of the citation. All that said, if the article is cited adequately then the presumption is towards leaving well enough alone. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have ready access to the page number(s), simply provide the information as a courtesy. But page numbers are not essential. If a reader had a copy of that issue of the journal in their hands, it would be an easy matter to look at the table of contents, skim the relevant article, and verify the information. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is not always reasonable to demand page numbers, but there will be cases where it is very reasonable. Hard to generalize. In general I would say that for short journal article it should hopefully never become a cause for big disagreements anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Cullen. In humanities subjects this should certainly be done - journal articles almost never have "tables of contents", and often no abstract or clear summary at the start, and articles may be up to 40 pages long. Very often points cited will be incidental and not mentioned in any introduction or conclusion. Articles should be treated just like books, and if the template doesn't allow this, use another one. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As a courtesy to this user, I have posted quotes and page numbers in the article talk page. I guess I can use {{rp|pagenum}} after the {{refn|name=foo}}, I just was not sure about moving journal articles from references to bibliography section.Cavann (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Off course if this is a matter of content dispute, a full citation, in that way, is necessary: Especially when the one part of the dispute asks kindly of the precise part/page, where the claimed fact is supported in the reference. I see no reason why this should be neglected.Alexikoua (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive.is RFC

Due to some recent bot issues, Archive.is is up for discussion.—Kww(talk) 16:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Tech blogs" as sources for a company controversy?

I wouldn't mind sources like Ars Technica being used to cite noncontroversial information, but I have a suspicion that this source and several other "tech blogs" are being relied on too much in the Suburban Express article, specifically in the "2013 controversy" section and to describe the company's reputation on Yelp and Reddit. I've brought up my concern on the Talk page, but I think it might help to get some additional opinions. HtownCat (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ars is owned Condé Nast who publishes some high quality magazines. I would probably put it on the same level as Wired for straight reporting and feature pieces. --NeilN 03:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Much of Suburban Express Wiki article relates to attacks on Suburban Express by Reddit users and Suburban Express response to same. ARS Technica articles relating to Suburban Express devote a large number of column inches to discussing Reddit vs Suburban Express with a noticeable bias in favor of Reddit users. Since ARS and Reddit are both owned by Conde Nast, there would seem to be somewhat of a conflict of interest. It is in the interest of conde nast if its subsidiary ARS supports Reddit users and drives traffic to subsidiary Reddit. It seems clear that ARS blog posts should not be used as sources in this, or any article which relates to Reddit (or any other conde nast media property). 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A number of biographies use People magazine for sourcing various statements. Prior limited discussions on this board have held People to be generally reliable. , , However, concerns have been raised that People does not meet the sourcing standards laid out by WP:BLP. The full discussion outlining these concerns can be found here.

1. Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?
2. If the answer to 1 is Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used as a source in BLP's?

--NeilN 00:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey (first question "Can People continue to be used as a reliable source in BLP's?")

• Yes, it can be validly used (my rationale is the first post in the Threaded discussion section below). Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. I mean, it can be used; it'd be pretty silly to say it can never be used. This doesn't mean that it can always be used for everything, that everything that appears in People must be true, or that People is the gold standard for journalistic veracity on this planet. But it can be used. Am I understanding the question correctly? Of course it can. (BLP's can be fraught; there's some material that should be redacted even if we have an excellent ref, there's usually lots of harmless and uncontested material that doesn't really have anything to do with why WP:BLP was created and the spirit of BLP, and then there's some borderline material where we want to be really careful. Those need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and things like the reputation of the author of the piece and other factors might come into play. You can't really have a strict rule that covers all these cases.) Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes People is a magazine that has a major emphasis on reporting celebrity news. If terms such as "gossip" and "tabloid" are defined broadly, then People is a gossip tabloid. Defined more narrowly, it isn't. It has a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and professional editorial control. Therefore, it is a reliable source in specific contexts. Certainly, a book published by a reliable publisher would be a better source, or even an article published in a respected newspaper. But we are not debating whether or not People is the best source ever published, but rather, whether it is generally reliable for biographical information about notable celebrities. Even the New York Times can be unreliable, for example, Judith Miller's articles about the runup to the Iraq war. I believe that People is generally reliable for biographcal details regarding celebrities. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, to be used for uncontentious biographical information from interviews, as per WP:SELFSOURCE, and possibly for other information relevant to People as per Context matters. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Longstanding consensus is that People may be used as a reliable source (obviously in BLPs, since LPs are their focus), and it is already used in a large number of well-written, well-sourced articles, including GAs and FAs. It is a mainstream magazine published by one of the oldest, most reputable magazine publishers in the world, it employs experienced editors to oversee a staff of qualified journalists, it has a reputation for fact-checking, and because of its good name in the business it enjoys an enviable level of trust among its readership and among the celebrities it covers. We would be hard pressed to replace it because no other source with its specific focus is as reliable. In discussions leading up to this RfC, the term "tabloid" was bandied about, but it seems unfair to tar People with that broad and woolly brush; the magazine's style may verge on the lurid at times, but the same can be said of much celebrity coverage in other sources, including various daily newspapers and broadcast news programs. Besides, the substance matters more than the style, and no evidence whatsoever has been presented that People 's substance is generally less reliable than that of any other source. Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. It is particularly useful for interviews and announcements from BLPs and their representatives, which they have a good track record of rendering faithfully. Siawase (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, especially in interviews of LPs and statements they make regarding themselves, their lives and careers. Liz 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• No as it is a gossip magazine; as someone put it below, accuracy is not important for its business model. However good its fact-checking, it is, by its nature, prone to use less encyclopedic rigour in what it does and doesn't print than we require for sources on a BLP. There are also well-founded concerns about it being used by celebrities for what amounts to product placement. We should perhaps adopt similar, but even stricter, guidelines to using sources like this and Hello to those we already have for sourcing from autobiographies. A Featured Article should never be sourced to gossip magazines, as their editorial values are so different from ours; even if, on occasion, they contain useful material (and I have seen little evidence of this), it should always be possible to find a better source for something that is going into one of our encyclopedia articles, particularly those on living people. --John (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes - From looking at the edit which started this discussion, yes it can be a reliable source. And as stated above, context matters. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, but cautiously. People is not utterly unreliable, but it's not the gold standard of journalism either. If the claim is unlikely or potentially contentious, I'd want to see corroboration from other sources, but if it's pretty unremarkable, I think People would be sufficient. Seraphimblade 20:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes And this has been discussed enough times to make it a simple answer. It uses fact checkers, etc. which makes it reliable enough for Misplaced Pages purposes. It is not a "gossip magazine" and calling it one does not make it one. Does it use information from press agents? Yes. So does the New York Times. So that argument is simply disposed of as not relevant here. Would I use any single source for an extremely contentious claim? "George Gnarph is HIV-positive and has had thousands of sex partners" (hypothetical claim) surely requires extremely strong sourcing - beyond even the New York Times. Collect (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. No question here, it's an excellent, perhaps the best, source for what it does cover, the celebrity world. It is a long-standing and well-regarded publication ad is ubiquitous in libraries and library databases, and is frequently cited in sources that no editor would think twice about using in a BLP, such as biographies from mainstream, reputable publishers and biographical library databases. It is not the ideal source for things outside its area of expertise (for example, medical, legal, and historical issues.), but what source is ideal used in that manner? Gamaliel (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. There should never be a blanket ban of this magazine in BLPs. It can be used to support a wide variety of facts. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, with caution. It can be used carefully to add or confirm basic facts or opinions that more reputable news sources leave out because it is not in their remit, particularly when dealing with highly notable celebrities whose fame is in part derived from this media coverage. I would not touch it for anything negative, or for anyone else other than the article's subject (most obviously their spouse(s) and children). Ritchie333 10:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, for standard material, with the same disclaimers as everyone above: requires editorial judgment (as does everything else), and not as the single source for a highly contentious claim". --GRuban (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey (second question "If Yes, under what circumstances should People not be used...")

• I'll assume it's not a question of the material itself being problematic (e.g., it's unnecessarily defamatory, trivial, nobody's business, subject has requested redaction, etc.) where we might remove the material regardless of how well it's sourced. So we're talking about anodyne (harmless) material that does belong in the article. In that case, we should treat it like any other source: If there's reasonable grounds for suspecting the material isn't true (such as when there's another source saying something different) then we should probably not include the material. Otherwise, treat it like any other medium-level source, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Herostratus, we are not discussing problematic additions. Thank you for asking. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
    • OK. Just to expand a little, suppose the material is not defamatory but is maybe a little embarrassing. It's something we want to be sure to get right. If it's in a book the subject wrote himself, we're pretty sure of that. If it's in Der Spiegel we're pretty sure of that. If its most other places, we're maybe not quite so sure. I don't think we can give a set rubric and each case needs to be looked at. How about this for a rule of thumb: treat People about the same as a news story in the Los Angeles Times. Times news stories aren't fact-checked but they have a rep for veracity to uphold; People is fact-checked but rigorous veracity is not as important to their business model; so maybe it's a wash. Just a thought. Herostratus (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Do you have a source establishing that LA Times reporters aren't trained in fact checking? --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
        • I'm sure they are. What I meant by "not fact-checked" is that newspaper news stories generally aren't checked by an independent fact-checker because there's no time. It's only hours between an event and the publication of the story. (New stories are copy-edited for errors (spelling, grammar, house style) and the copy editor might flag a dubious fact, but not usually.) Instead, news reporters are expected to check their own facts and keep copious accurate notes and not make errors, and they will be fired if they make too many mistakes. Imagine being called J. Jonah Jameson's or Perry White's office to explain an error in your story, if you will. This varies very much between papers, but big famous papers like the LA Times have a strong business incentive to not be perceived as being riddled with errors. At People, on the other hand, you have an actual person calling Scarlet Scarlett Johansson and asking "We have you down as saying such-and-such. Is that an accurate quote?" and so on. I don't know how vigorous their fact-checking is, but just because "The sort of person who reads People" is I thing I don't think it's accurate to assume they don't care about that or that being lax with fact-checking (which is pretty low-wage and cheap) would be a good business model for them. "The sort of person who reads Cosmopolitan" is also a thing, but see here for a description of their reasonably rigorous fact-checking operation, for instance. Herostratus (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Please don't say newspaper stories aren't fact checked because reporters are expected to check their own facts. It has no meaning. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
            • It has some meaning. "Fact-checker" is a real job. "Fact-checking" is what a fact-checker does. If a professional fact-checker hasn't vetted a piece, it's not been fact-checked in this formal technical sense, which is what I meant. Herostratus (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• As noted in the linked WP:BLP noticeboard consensus discussion, the appropriateness of its use varies, but editors especially agree that it is fine to use for uncontentious information. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree and did not agree that it i fine for uncontentious information, and I mentioned specific problems with the uncontentious examples posted, and your final posts indicated that discussion was manipulative, and I request you not to draw conclusions for me from it. Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Like I noted in that discussion, I don't see how my post you are referring to "indicated that discussion was manipulative." You drew a conclusion that I did not state or imply. As for not drawing conclusions from you, noted. What I stated still applies to the other editors, as seen in that discussion. Collect, one of Misplaced Pages's strictest WP:BLP-compliant editors, even told you: "It meets WP:RS and is generally acceptable for Misplaced Pages articles, including BLPs. I believe this has been stated forcefully by many above. AFAIK, it is not the Weekly World News or the like, and is not a 'tabloid.' It does not promote specific special interests, and is about as innocuous as is imaginable. It does, in fact, cover people other than film and tv actors, and I seriously doubt the about long discussion affects the opinions of a clear consensus here. And since the consensus is so crystal clear here, I consider the issue quite sufficiently settled. Cheers." So the exceptions from that discussion are you and John, which is where "generally" comes in with regard to the other editors and what I've seen in various discussions on Misplaced Pages regarding People. Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I provided evidence that it does promote specific interests, that of the celebrities it works with. The consensus of that discussion is completely bogus. Please do not continue speaking for that discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

And per above, I fail to see how the "consensus of that discussion is completely bogus." I will continue to refer to that discussion as having achieved consensus on this matter because, as others agree there (and at WP:ANI), it did. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at BLPN is to continue to use People as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• People should not be used as a source for medical, scientific, historical or other academic topics. It can be a reliable source, when used judiciously, in celebrity biographies and other articles about popular culture. It should be used with caution in articles about notable legal cases. When sources from publications with a better reputation for accuracy are available, they should be used to supplement or replace citations to People. As always, editorial judgment is called for. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Cullen's got it about right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think People should not be used in most cases. Most of the content of the magazine is produced under no well-regarded standards of rational inquiry. So largely it is not a reliable source. There are of course exceptions, but these would be few and far between. I think a lot of people respond to considerations like these with their arguments like "discussion of these aspects of pop culture are not covered by sources which follow academic standards, and so reliable sources for these aspects do not have to approach the quality of reliable sources for academic subjects." I say to this, one man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. I would say that this only goes to show that such aspects are not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Some people also may reason that it is harmless to allow such sources in for pop culture articles, because the serious articles will not be affected. I would ask anyone who thinks that to look at the evidence and reconsider. It is often that a nonetheless serious topic becomes popular. In such cases, if there are editors who promote non-academic quality material, they end up treating these serious topics the same way. For example, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a recent book about the historical Jesus which became very popular. The article is currently greatly a commentary on a Fox News interview by a Lauren Green, including the question whether this was "The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?", as if any of this has any importance to the study of history. But by tolerating and incubating such treatments of non-serious, popular topics, this is the sort of spillover that happens. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• What Herostratus said, more or less. I wouldn't support a blanket rule about when not to accept People as an RS; I think we need to use our judgment on a case-by-case basis, as we would with any source, when exceptional claims or particularly sensitive content are involved. Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I don't think People should be used when it speculates about the future, specifically regarding pregnancies, marriages, affairs, divorces, weight issues or substance abuse problems of LP, any statement that comes from unnamed sources that aren't the individual concerned. I think that any newspaper, magazine or website article that makes these unsupported, speculative statements is veering into "tabloidish" behavior and should be avoided. But I don't see that as a consistent pattern with People magazine.

Luckily, WP:BLP guards against this kind of speculation being included in articles on Misplaced Pages We don't have to write up special guidelines for each media source because WP:BLP is adequate protection against this kind of media coverage. Liz 14:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm largely in agreement with the above. If the claim is speculative, extraordinary, or likely to be contentious, People is not sufficient by itself. If the claim is in the area People is normally known to cover (celebrities and pop culture, largely), and is relatively mundane, using it is likely to be acceptable. Ultimately, "Is this a reliable source?" always requires the followup question "A reliable source for what claim or statement?". There is no source which is unquestionably reliable in all cases and for all subjects, so examining the context is always critical. Seraphimblade 00:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• People can be used whenever the facts it presents appear to be well-founded and not controversial. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with Cullen's comments above, with perhaps an added caveat. There will be times when some material in such a source is a matter of some contention to the person involved, but we as editors might not know that. As one possible example, someone might use it to indicate that they were present at a wild party they themselves want to deny being at, whether they were or weren't there probably doesn't really matter, and in some cases there may be no apparent "contention", perhaps because of lawyers working unseen in the background. I don't know how often such "I was somewhere else" or "S/he was here" statements appear in such sources, but I imagine they do exist. On that basis, honestly, much as some others might not like it, I personally would be really, really hesitant to use People at all on a lot of material, other than perhaps direct or indirect quotes from individuals and similar material which can be directly ascribed to some person involved in the story. Particularly for most of the people in People, there are other sources, like the person's own website, newspapers, TV, and other media, which might be preferable. Yeah, they might have the same problems once in a while too, but their reputations for seriousness are also a bit heavier, and I'm going to assume that they possibly exercise greater care in covering what we might call "questionable" material. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Editorial judgment, avoiding undue weight and general WP:BLP concerns ought to constrain us from mentioning "wild parties" in biographies, no matter what the source, unless some dramatic event occurred there. We simply can't concern ourselves with the machinations of invisible lawyers. If People says that actor so-and-so was born in Altoona, Pennsylvania in 1961 to a tool-and-die maker named George and a hairdresser named Harriet, I trust them. It may well be that this information has not been reported in the New York Times or the New England Journal of Medicine. As for "TV", do you really think that "AM Altoona" has fact checking capabilities comparable to those of People magazine? Because I don't. I think that local entertainment TV talking heads pretty much read what is placed in front of them, and that journalistic standards for that type of reporting are low. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let me ask about a couple of examples of borderline data:
  • "Schmoe, a devout Christian Scientist...." (Keep in mind that some people think Christian Scientists are kind of nutty, so this could be, if not defamatory, deprecatory to some. That applies to really any religion -- some people think Catholics are any kind of Christian are kind of loopy, and so forth.)
  • "Schmoe turned down the role of X in film Y..." (Nothing else is stated, but let's assume that X turned out to be a plum role, and turning it down might indicate lack of savvy or following bad advice on Schmoe's part (probably just bad luck though), so a deprecatory vibe could be inferred.)

Assuming the only source is People, what would you my fellow editors do? I don't know. It's a hard question! My inclination would be: 1) it's quite likely true, since People wouldn't just make something like at up or publish it without a fact-checker confirming it it wit the source, but 2) "quite likely" isn't good enough for arguably deprecatory material in a BLP. But if I'm not going to accept it, I also wouldn't accept Time or the New York Times as a sole source, either -- same deal applies, and I have no reason to believe that Time or the New York Times is any better on this sort of thing than People. Herostratus (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd use them if it isn't highly contentious, there isn't a source to the contrary, and (for the second case) it's judged to be important to the person's notability. The "arguably deprecatory" case seems weak - there are few facts that aren't "arguably deprecatory": just for an example, see just above, "arguably" being born to a hairdresser and tool-and-die maker is a sign of lower-middle-class origins. If we excluded everything that is this weakly "arguably" deprecatory, we couldn't write anything. For the second case, it might well not matter enough to be included - actors turn down roles all the time, and it's very rarely a big deal; maybe he just wanted to spend the time with his family or something. It would be highly contentious if there are sources to the contrary, or implications to the contrary (for example, if the alleged Christian Scientist is known for advocating blood donation, or their close relatives are well known or proselytizing members of some other faith); then we'd probably want other sources as well, not just this one, though this one could be used as one of several. --GRuban (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not if it's the single source for a highly contentious claim; and not for the sorts of gossipy or celebrity trivia things we generally leave out (currently dating X; attended movie premiere Y dressed in fashion by Z; etc.), not because of unreliability, but because they're a celebrity mag, and we're an encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I don't have any new arguments, so I'll repeat some of what I stated in the above linked WP:BLP:noticeboard discussion: People is generally not considered tabloid journalism, at least not by Misplaced Pages, which means that use of it for biographies of livings persons (BLPs) is generally not in violation of WP:BLPSOURCES. It has become standard practice to use it as a source in BLPs; editors often have especially felt that it is fine to use for uncontentious material. It is also used as a source in many WP:Good (GA) and WP:Featured (FA) BLP articles during those nomination processes (where the sources are usually extensively analyzed, especially with regard to WP:Featured articles), without any problems. I wouldn't put People in the same category as the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail, especially not the former, and of course neither has the Misplaced Pages community generally done so. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's an odd thing. The question is "...for BLPs". But if People is reliable, it's reliable. If it's not, it shouldn't be used anywhere. Granted there are special BLP considerations for some material, which can get complicated I guess, but we can probably dispense with that because:

• People is probably mostly used in BLPs. It's not much used as a ref in articles on quantum physics or medieval plainsong and so forth. If People is no good for BLPs it's probably not much use to us at all and blacklisting it would not be much of a loss.
• If it is reliable, then it's probably most reliable for material on living people, because that's their area of expertise (note that the name of the publication is "People"). If I wanted to learn about the current state of exoplanet research, I'd turn to Astronomy, but if I want to learn what movie Kristen Stewart is currently filming, I would not turn to Astronomy. That would be silly! Even if if they did mention it (doubtful, but let's suppose they did) I wouldn't consider them reliable for information about Kristen Stewart, because that's not their area of expertise. They might get Kristen Stewart confused with Jennifer Lawrence. A reporter from People would never do that, but might get R136a1 confused with Cygnus OB2-12, which a reporter from Astronomy would never do, and so on. (At the ref vetting checklist I used the more formal term "standing to address the material".)

Summary: If People can't be used for BLP's, is there any reason to not just blacklist it? Can't see one. Herostratus (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Data is good. Here's what I got from a quick web search:

• here's a recent instance where they screwed the pooch. This doesn't speak to well of People. On the other hand, photos are particularly hard to verify (maybe with Google Images and TinEye and whatever, though, that's not longer so true). It's easier to call someone up and ask "Did you really call Brad Pitt a poltroon?" than it is to say "I have a photo here, is it you?". Also, this was apparently a big enough deal for the Post to write a story about it, so maybe it's not that common. It's one instance, but it's a data point. If People does this a lot it should leave a paper trail, and we should look for more of these.
• here, People itself says that fact-checking is done by interns. (That's not necessarily that damning; they didn't say "only by interns", its a very entry-level job, and "intern" != "lazy moron". I'd be interested to know how this compares to other publications, though.)
• I see a couple references to People's "$3-million-a-year fact-checking department" but in ads that're probably sourced to People itself and I can't put that in context anyway. If there's anything to it, $3 million sounds like a lot to me, but I'd have to have other publications' budgets to compare.
• Heh, I found an article where an actress screams at a People reporter "Do your fucking homework, you cunt!" which I suppose could be taken as criticism of the rigor of their fact-checking (I can't cite the source cos it's not reliable, and WP:BLP standards apply here too; it's probably true, but then the actress is one of the lidda-bit-crazy ones, so that's maybe a wash).
• Now this is interesting: according to an old version of our article Fact checker, there was an article at the Medill School of Journalism website where an erstwhile People fact-checker writes "f more than four mistakes are later found in articles checked and passed by a fact-checker in the course of a year, the magazine would fire him or her. To protect their jobs, fact checkers try to identify three separate sources for any claim." If true, that's a useful data point, but the link doesn't resolve. But it's a direct quote; it seems unlikely that they'd just make up something like that. Why would they do that? I'm pretty confident the article exists and was quoted correctly. Would like to get my hands on it. A year's a long time. Four is a small number. Getting fired is pretty harsh. Add it up and it sounds like a reasonably rigorous fact-checking operation. (Update: realized that the (dead) link points to a folder named /1999/, so probably too old to be very useful.) Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think all newspapers and magazines make mistakes, so I think we have to have reports of comparing how many they make, anecdotes won't cut it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

It is perhaps just as important whether they publish corrections, openly acknowledging the mistakes they do make, and it appears they do: Siawase (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like they do publish corrections, and that's good for two reasons: 1) they care about that on at least some level, and 2) if data sourced to People is challenged by another editor, she can point to the correction (if there is one and she can find) as proof of nonveracity. Anecdote's don't cut it, but each little thing is a data point. If someone can show me scores of these, I would change my mind about People. (I note that the picture screwup was widely reported (even in India and so on), and that further indicates that this is not something People does with every issue. It's still a black eye though.) Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• The comment a little above "But if People is reliable, it's reliable. If it's not, it's not usable for any purpose" is a misunderstanding about the nature of sources. There is no source that is 100% reliable. There is no source that is unusable for all purposes. People is not the sort of reckless irresponsible source that we blacklist. It cab be used properly for clearly uncontested facts that do not deal with possible negative aspects of a person;s life. It cannot be used for negative BLP, or for evaluations of merit. (There is a potential problem that for many of the individuals it covers, even the apparently uncontested facts of their life tend to be in dispute.) Whether it can support notability depends. Extensive coverage there shows something is a matter of substantial comment, but if the comment is tabloid0-style gossip, we wouldn't include it in any case. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Right, that's all correct, and deciding which sources are OK for which material in which articles is a tricky and subtle thing. All I mean was this: if you accept the proposition "At no time may the Reference section of a BLP contain a link to People, ever, for any material" (the assertion of which is why we're having this exercise, I think), then what good is People to us? Everything except the activities of living people is outside their area of expertise. I suppose old articles might be used to ref facts on people who were formerly living. But WP:BLP doesn't imply "if the person's dead, screw it, just source your material to any old gossip rag". So I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• We must not confuse reliability with weight. While the information in People may be reliable, it may also be too trivial to warrant inclusion. Generally if the information is significant it will be carried in more reliable sources, which we should use in preference. TFD (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say reliability depends on the nature of the material, and how People attribute it in the first place. If it's straight from the horse's mouth so to speak, it's reliable with possible WP:SELFSOURCE concerns. Direct reporting where People were present for an event or similar, also generally reliable. The really questionable material is when they attribute to "a source close to the star" or similar. And this is probably a good chunk of their reporting (see google search.) When it comes to celebrity news media like People, their primary fact checking concern is whether they risk being sued or not. So they may publish good news or a flattering puff piece with very loose backing, since there is basically zero risk in doing so. But with lawsuits in mind, and their track record for accuracy and fact checking, I would actually trust them to have substantial evidence for any negative or potentially damaging reporting, even when attributed to unnamed sources. All that said, when People is the "heaviest" source a particular piece of information is found in, that's a pretty good indicator it does not carry the WP:WEIGHT to be included in Misplaced Pages. For contentious claims, I would also say WP:REDFLAG kicks in, and even if we trust People to be reliable, that is not sufficient to satisfy verifiability without corroboration from several highly reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• My understanding is that the reason we're going through this exercise is that some editors are asserting that People cannot be used to ref anything in a BLP, even anodyne material such as place of birth and so on. OK so far -- that's a reasonable (if wrong IMO) position which reasonable people can work out -- but some editors are pretty adamant about it, so we're working through this. It's been a particularly fruitful and interesting discussion so far, BTW.

So anyway, regarding the position "People? Never in a BLP, period". Well, look. I understand the spirit of WP:BLP pretty well I think. The guiding principle is "The Misplaced Pages does not exist to make people sad". Sometimes we have to, but let's minimize that and be sure it's for very good reason. We're very very careful with defamatory material, for instance, and other types of material. But there's a reasonable limit. Consider the following assertion:

• In our article on Evanston, Illinois, we can state "Evanston is a suburb of Chicago..." and source the assertion that Evanston is a suburb of Chicago to a normal source describing it as such, per WP:RS and so forth.
• But in our article on Joe Shmoe, we cannot use that same source to say "Shmoe was born in Evanston, a suburb of Chicago...". It's a WP:BLP! Normal reliable sources won't do. We have to have extremely rigorous proof that Evanston is indeed a suburb of Chicago -- the same level of proof we would need to assert "Shmoe is an alcoholic and wife-beater..." for instance. Just a line in some magazine or newspaper describing Evanston as a suburb of Chicago is not sufficient. We need AAA-level sources here.

This seems odd to me. The word "nonsensical" comes to mind.

But wait. Suppose the subject is (let's say) a musician who projects the persona of an inner-city tough-guy fuck-da-police type, and maybe his career depends on projecting this persona. He doesn't want people to think he came from a suburb.

So let's not have things "...born in X, a suburb of Y..." for anybody, absent AAA-level sources. Actually, since anyone can easily look up the nature of any town, let's redact place of birth altogether, absent very rigorous proof. Same for pretty much everything. Month and day of birth? It's possible that some article subject somewhere doesn't want their astrological sign known, so let's redact month and day of birth for every article, absent a copy of the birth certificate. And so on.

But look. We are not mindless pencil-pushers here. Great Darwin gave us brains to work these things out. Obviously things such as birthplace and birthdate are just anodyne harmless facts for 99.99 percent of article subjects. In a case where the matter is raised, that's different: "Look, based on such-and-such data, it's reasonable to infer that he's ashamed of his hometown/birthdate/mother's maiden name/whatever and would prefer people not to know it. So let's treat this as contentious defamatory material and make sure we're as close as humanly possible to 100% confident that it's true (and also carefully consider whether it's necessary even if we're sure it's true)." That'd be both reasonable and kind, and in that case it'd be reasonable to throw out not only People but any source which is not AAA-level (and there are very few of those). But absent data to the contrary, there's a lot of material that we can assume is harmless and can be sourced to AA- or A-level publications such as People. That's in the spirit of WP:BLP. Pointless pettifoggery isn't. Herostratus (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question If we are agreed that People and its cohort (Hello etc.) allow "celebs" to pick and choose what they place in the publication, wouldn't we need to treat it the same way as we treat commercial links like Amazon and user-generated ones like IMDB? --John (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• People does publish negative/contentious information without confirmation from the subject, but they do so sparingly. Siawase (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Wait, tell me more about this. People allows people to choose what they place in the publication? I'm not disputing this (or accepting it without more info), but what do you mean? Is article space bought and sold? Do subjects sign off on articles before publication, or are they involved in the writing of the articles, do they have the right to refuse to have an article published, or to demand that one be published, or what? Or is it more of a symbyotic thing where there's an implicit agreement in some areas? Would people not publish an article that would increase sales, or publish articles that readers don't want, at the behest of a third party, and why? Again, all this could be so, but what exactly is going on here? Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As we are not agreed that subjects have final control over articles, please provide evidence to back your assertion. --NeilN 16:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't agree that article subjects (or their staff) have final control over articles. Yes, there is a dependent relationship (access to actors in exchange for not embarrassing them) but the same relationship exists between financial reporters and the companies they cover, between Washington reporters and politicians, between small town editors and municipal government and local businesses. I worked for several years for an entertainment publication that accepted no advertising so it could be seen as completely neutral but the subscription price was outrageous.

So, for most newspapers, magazines, TV/radio programs, websites there is always a trade-off. Without a link to some sort of expose of payola at People magazine, I don't think we can accept as true that there is some quid pro quo. Meaning? We need a reliable source for that claim. Liz 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Regardless, the answer to John's question is still no. WP:SELFSOURCE clearly states that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves". So again, no, self serving publication of information about yourself, used in a Misplaced Pages article about yourself, is fine as long as it is not "unduly" self-serving nor an "exceptional claim". Regular old self-serving is just fine for basic biographical information. On the other hand, we have little clue who writes content for Amazon reviews and IMDB, so these are not "Selfsources" Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

International Kungfu Federation used as a BLP source

This organisation is used in relationship to a BLP, Wong Kiew Kit to claim he is "the fourth generation successor from the famous Shaolin Monastery of China, and a grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu and Chi Kung" in the article Shaolin Wahnam Institute and in his own article to state "grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu and Qigong." Google search doesn't bring up enough for me to see this group as a reliable source for a BLP in this specific instance. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be very skeptical. Perhaps it could be treated as an SPS... ie allow it, but attribute. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as well, but it does look like an acceptable source for saying that he is grand-master-certified by the IKF. CorporateM (Talk) 13:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethiopian Journal

An Ethiopian Journal article indicates with regard to Matt Bryden, the former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG), that "the UN has also insisted on retaining and re-nominating Matt Bryden, Arnaud Laloum and Jörg Roofthooft despite objections from some quarters" (c.f. ). This was used on the Bryden page to source the following wikitext: "Bryden was retained on the panel despite objections from some parties" . I would like to know if this is ok. If not, how can the phrase be amended to conform with wiki policy? Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the concern? The wording or the source itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A commercial link

In Goniometer I recently added a new section- Doctor blade inspection- and the following text:

Used Doctor blades, used in gravure and other printing and coating processes, may be inspected using a goniometer, typically with a built-in light source, to examine the blade edge to see whether the blade has worn at the desired angle and whether there are signs of wear at other angles. A difference in angle from that set on the machine may indicate excessive pressure, and a range of angles ("rounding") probably indicates a lack of stiffness, or wear, in the blade holder assembly.

The source supports most of the first sentence. The second sentence is verifiable in principle.

This was deleted as spam and since then there has been a bit of discussion about this source- see Talk:Goniometer.

I believe that WP:SPAM says "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia"

So- a couple of questions

• is the use of this source in this context acceptable?
• Widening out the question- Vsmith asserts a blanket ban: "A commercial webpage that exists to promote and sell a product is not a valid reference." in any circumstances apparently, as (s)he does not wish to discuss the particulars of this entry. IMHO, that creates particular difficulties for engineering, manufacturing, and technological articles. Is this a serious WP policy?

Gravuritas (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but such a policy saves us from other difficulties. If we did allow those links, the engineering, manufacturing and technological articles would soon have little else (who could resist free advertising on the 6th most visited site on the web?). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to WP, but I'd be surprised if policy-making on WP is done by one man and a dog. So where does this policy appear? I asked VSmith and (s)he ducked the question despite posting a reply, which is either inconsiderate or implies that it's his/her invention. Are you arguing in favour of a policy that really exists? or are you suggesting that such a policy should exist?- in which case maybe the examples to discuss could possibly be better-known objects than goniometers.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Try WP:RS, particularly WP:QUESTIONABLE: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites .... that are promotional in nature... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So firstly, we seem to have established that the words of VSmith's original assertion were his/her own invention. That's progress- thank you.

Now let's have the quote in full. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." So we are agreed that the only issue is that source was promotional in nature. Agreed, but so what? The WP policy continues "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." So none of that applies. And finishing the quote- "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited" Now finally we have got to something that might apply. I suggest that, in the absence of another non-commercial source, the existence of a commercial website selling goniometers is a perfectly reasonable source to back up my assertion from Goniometer that

"Used Doctor blades, from gravure and other printing and coating processes, may be inspected using a goniometer".

Gravuritas (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For your source to be accepted, it's not sufficient to point that the guidelines allow links to promotional sites in limited circumstances. You could have just pointed to WP:IAR to establish that. What you need to do here is make a case as to why your source fits into an already-accepted class of exceptions, or why creating a new class will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Given that you're asking for simultaneous exceptions to WP:LINKSPAM, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, I don't see how an effective argument can be made. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems the user above wishes to use commercial webpages as references for content in Misplaced Pages articles. If we allow such, as indicated above, commercial interests will jump at the chance to promote their stuff. I'm quite surprised that there seems to be a lack of direct advice on this in our policies. I was of the understanding that company websites could be linked in articles about the company, but other such uses as in articles about products or services shouldn't use commercial "references" to avoid "promotion" of a single company. Commercial websites lack independent editorial oversite, are promotional "designed to sell" and not neutral, and are self-published. So how can we use a commercial website as a reference in an article? I don't think the user bringing this question here has any connection to the website so WP:COI likely doesn't apply, but ... if we allow the use of such websites others with a conflict of interest will see a source of free advertising/promotion.

I also see the user is seeing this discussion as supporting his edits: see this and note ref #8 which links to this website which prompted this discussion following their use of this on the goniometer article as mentioned above. Vsmith (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me rewind slightly here and apologise to Vsmith for some over-the top language on my part. Let me say that, in my few weeks editing on WP I am beginning to understand the scale of the effort performed by many people just keeping up with vandalism, edit wars, etc let alone adding to the material and keeping it up to date. I'd like to avoid adding further to this load- but I do have a remaining issue with the consensus emerging in this section and the way it seems to unfolding in doctor blades- as follows-

In the Goniometer example, I added a section that boils down to "Goniometers are used for examining doctor blades" (say g.a.u.f.e.d.b.) and added a commercial link to verify that assertion. Whether or not Benton Graphics goniometers are good or bad, they _are_ selling them for that purpose and the assertion g.a.u.f.e.d.b. should be taken as verified by all. By all means delete the link- but for goodness sake a CN tag should not then be added. Similarly a link to a supplier of hard-chromed gravure cylinders demonstrates that at least some gravure cylinders are hard chromed; a website advertising chromed or ceramic anilox rollers shows that anilox rollers can be chromed or ceramic, etc. If I added to an appropriate article that, say, ceramic aniloxes can be laser-engraved, I could verify it in an instant by a link to an commercial website, but I might look for a long time before finding an appropriate printed article (and when I did it would probably be a puff-piece from a trade mag, which is only likely to be there if the laser anilox engraver has taken out an appropriate amount of advertising). I operate & have operated in some moderately obscure bits of technology and engineering, and sources of the preferred sort are hard to come by. Some of the recent edits I've done- Mimeograph, talk:punch press, electrical discharge machining; carbon paper are not wonderfully backed up by cites, though I've done my best- but hey- do you want this stuff or not?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't want citations to commercial suppliers. Allowing those links create more problems than they solve. Yes, this means coverage on a lot of interesting topics will be limited to nonexistent. That's ok.

There's a higher tolerance for accepting (non-controversial) edits that aren't (yet) backed up by reliable sources. However, since those kinds of edits can be reverted as soon as anyone challenges them, I don't know that adding unsourced material is a good use of your time.

Ideally, you'd be starting with an impeccable source and mining it for edits. Putting "doctor blades" into google books returns plenty of hits, many of which are preview-enabled. Not all of those are going to be reliable (particularly the "books" that are just reprints of wikipedia articles) but most of them will be. Start from that and all of this WP:RS annoyance just disappears. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces 1

• www.americanspecialops.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub.

• Can't find any info about this site period, let alone editorial policy, ownership, etc.

Does anyone here familiar with WP:RS find this site to be reliable? Thanks - thewolfchild 06:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces 2

• sofrep.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem; this is a subscription site, cannot access references. Site appears to be run by Special Forces 'guys', and content appears to be user submitted (by other Special Forces 'guys') and is published 'as is'.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise if this site is considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operation Forces 3

• fas.org

• Being used for Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem, this is a subscription, may not be able to access content being used as a source. This site is run by what seems to be a Washington DC think tank with charitable status, and it appears it may be a blog of sorts for various 'scientists' to submit user content.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise is this site can be considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Is electronic intifada a a reliable source regarding issues related to Israeli-Arab conflict, Zionism, Holocaust Anti-Semitism and relationship between Arab world and Nazi Germany

• 1. Source.
• 2. Article Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world
• 3. Content.

Thank you for your opinion.Tritomex (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This question has been asked on this noticeboard at least 10 times before, but in the current case, the question as expressed is misleading. Nobody is trying to cite any fact to Electronic Intifada (and if they were, I would probably oppose it). The situation is that an interview they posted is being used for the words of the person interviewed, a leading expert on the subject. The opinions expressed by the person interviewed are fully consistent with his known views and I don't see any reason to regard the reporting as unreliable. Zero 14:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, If the interview published by clearly unreliable source is "fully consistent with the known views of Achcar " than proper references regarding his views should be added through reliable sources. An unreliable, partisan source can not be reference for any scholar view, certainly not on subject which is directly linked to the reason of its unreliability. Otherwise, we could quote scholars, scientists, politicians from blogs, political pamphlets, self published articles etc.--Tritomex (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

While replacing an acceptable source with a better source at some point in the future sounds like a reasonable principle, I take it that such possible futures are not the question here. Zero0000's response looks like a correct answer to the more practical question originally asked.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Some editors have tried countless times to have "Electronic Intifada" branded as "clearly unreliable". They have never succeeded. Now Tritomex argues as if they have....so what does this do to his/her credibility? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

An activist source is more likely to be reliable for an interview with someone in broad agreement with their views, not less as Tritomex suggests. In this case there is a choice. Several editors (including me) have read Achcar's book and could summarise his views using more or less the same words, but that would just make it harder for readers to verify that the summary is objective rather than OR. It is better to use Achcar's own words as a summary of his views. If a summary just as suitable is found in a place less likely to be challenged, it could be used instead. Meanwhile, no case for suppressing the information has been made. Zero 09:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

tabloids

In a number of pages - viz. Tony Blair, Kate Winslet, Peter Mandelson, John Major et all, it is stated that any newspaper published in a tabloid format is unacceptable for any use at all in a BLP. As all the major British newspapers are now tabloid or the very slightly larger Berliner format, this, taken literally, means no British newspaper is usable on Misplaced Pages. In fact, a majority of all newspapers worldwide are no longer full-size publications, so we could simply say no newspapers at all are allowed <g>. Is it proper to now delete all sources published in tabloid format as being verboten in BLPs, and presumably as tabloids verboten on all of Misplaced Pages? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I researched this topic a while back and learned that tabloid has two meanings. One is Tabloid (newspaper format), which has nothing to do with reliability and only relates to the size of paper the story is printed on. The other is "featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner" (Webster's) which does effect its reliability. I would think we would want to avoid a Tabloid style of reporting, but the size of the page isn't important. This would be easy to clarify at WP:BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We can not simply ban major newspapers from BLPs... While tabloids do tend to sensationalize their stories, even the most sensational of them can contain good reliable reporting from time to time. What we have to realize is this: reliability often depends on context. The same source might be reliable in one context, and not at all reliable in another context. We have to examine the specifics. Also, even the best of sources can contain errors. If you think a source contains an error, double check it against other sources, and assign them due weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times is a better newspaper for politics than The Sun. Both btw are published by the same company and have similar political views. We should favor the better source. Also, stories about major political figures that are only covered in tabloids lack the importance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "tabloid" is problematic not only because it has more than one meaning but because the adjectival meaning involving sensationalism and lurid reporting doesn't always lend itself to a dichotomous categorization of sources. There is a spectrum, and it includes no bright line but rather a sizable gray area. Some newspapers are tabloid in the worst sense of the word, others are tabloid only because of the size of the paper they're printed on, and others fall somewhere in between. It should be noted that on the other side of the Pond there are several major dailies published in a tabloid size that rank among the more reputable newspapers in the U.S. (e.g., the Chicago Sun-Times, Newsday, and the sadly defunct Rocky Mountain News) and are easily as reliable as their broadsheet peers. At the other extreme are rags such as the New York Post whose reporting should always be viewed with a huge dose of skepticism, to put it mildy. Occupying middle ground are certain papers, notably the New York Daily News and Boston Herald, that run giant headlines and employ a rather dramatic, lurid style but nonetheless do contain some legitimate stories written by competent reporters and checked by competent editors. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post is a "rag"? I didn't know that there exists such a harsh view of it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'fraid so. Rivertorch (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I reverted one of those text deletions that you mention and, then, I was rereverted and told I should go find better sources. I thought it was BRD: boldly edit, revert, then discuss the edit....not boldly edit, revert, revert the reverter and then tell the reverter to go get better sources and not revert again. Liz 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Self-published book being used for exceptional controversial claims about a NRM.

The article is Brahma_Kumaris. The reference used is supposedly a book written by "Anti-Om Mandli Committee" (Om Mandli is the previous name of Brahma Kumaris). The link for the book, named "An_Reply_To_Is_This_Justice", and also the only place it can be accessed, is the anti-Brahma Kumaris site brahmakumaris.info. The book is fully typed by brahmakumaris.info, an ex-members critical site which contains original research and exceptional claims. There is no original version of it available on the internet and none has been shown on the article.

The book, even if true, is self-published by the Anti-Om Mandli Committee. It contains heavy WP:Exceptional claims that are not mentioned in any secondary or reliable source, only in itself. And it is being used as basis for extraordinary and heavily controversial claims in the WP article, such as the following diff: .

The article is also under probation, which highlights the importance of verifiable, reliable secondary sources, in opposition to original research, specially on controversial claims.

I appreciate any attention on this matter. Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The text is available at via BramaKumaris. UMich had an original copy that has unfortunately gone missing. I'm not seeing any cites to this work on google scholar, which isn't unexpected given the rarity and the fact that work is dated from 1940.

As to your points: reference works are allowed to contain original research, and the fact that we only know of electronic versions of the work does not impeach its reliability. Given the absence of any press information I think it's reasonable to conclude this was self-published, but the work does contain several transcriptions of newspaper articles; do those articles contain anything of interest? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LC, thanks for the response. The version you linked is the same typed by brahmakumaris.info.

According to WP:NOTRS, the Article Probation , WP:Exceptional and WP:SPS, an original research, or self-published source, may be used only for non-controversial points. In this case, it's being used for highly controversial and exceptional claims, that are not mentioned in any secondary or reliable source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A few points. The articles in on probation as per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Article probation, so it would be I guess acceptable to request ArbCom input as per that ruling. Also, it would really help if someone indicated exactly what was regarded as exceptional. The questioned material seems to, correct me if I'm wrong, refer to citation #19, which sources the following material:

• "Kripalani was reported to have learnt a spiritual practise from a Bengali sadhu at the cost of 10,000 rupees" - Not sure if that is considered controversial or not.
• "Lekhraj started holding satsangs which attracted many people and the group became known as Om Mandli. In the beginning of the movement, members considered God to be omnipresent, and their founder Kripalani to be god Brahma, the author of the Bhagavad Gita" - which I guess could be controversial, but I would like to know what aspect.
• "Kripalani claimed that he was the Hindu god Krishna reincarnated. The group was accused of being a cult and putting individuals into a trance by way of hypnotic or occult influences. It was reported that under the guise of high sounding philosophy, a systematic ridicule of Hinduism, worship and prayer was going on and priest and preachers of other religions were stigmatised as hypocritical charlatans and that followers were being duped into the belief that salvation could only be attained through him and the Mandli and within one week" some of which I could see as being controversial, but if it is referring to the accusations, I'm not sure that saying accusations were made is necessarily controversial

There is one fourth reference link, but it seems to link to the third quote above. So, honestly, I really would like to know exactly which statements sourced from the work are considered controversial. If we knew, it would be possible to find out if any other sources support it or not. Also, at least theoretically, if there is one or more problematic editor involved, it would not be impossible to ask for ArbCom to perhaps take up the matter. But we would need to know exactly what is being called exceptional claims here. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, John Carter, thanks for the response. What is being called exceptional is the claim contained in the book, that Lekhraj sexually abused the girls who participated in Om Mandli, and immorally touched and kissed them. Even if the book is true, beyond being self-published, that claim was only made by the anti-committee, which lost the legal case against Om Mandli. Even in the context of the book, the claims are not accepted as fact. Yet we have in the article, for example, the following diff presenting the exceptional claim as fact: GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that one: "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavourably to the movement because of immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram, and his encouragement that they leave their husbands and families and become his gopis. The situation was further inflamed when it founder challenged the authority of his local caste leaders during the marriage of one daughter and by taking back a second married daughter whilst leaving her child with the other family.". OK, knowing what is being argued helps. I could see maybe that some of the content be kept in, although perhaps changing it to something like "...Sindhi people reacted unfavourably based on allegations of immortal and intimate behavior...", if the material about that Sindhi reaction is considered significant enough to be included, which, for all I know, it might be. Local reactions to groups tend to be a big deal historically, depending on the size of the group. The second sentence, which I'm assuming is factually accurate?, might be less controversial, as it seems to be more about social factors than individual behavioral ones, depending of course who the male involved in those matters was. Or are you contending that the matter of the alleged Sindhi response is itself not significant enough for inclusion? Just asking for clarification here. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing the words might be something, but "immoral intimate behavior" (which means sexual abuse) is something contained only in the book we are talking about. WP:Exceptional says that exceptional claims need multiple high quality sources as basis. There is no reliable, secondary, high quality source to back up those claims, let alone multiple. The Arbitration case says there are quite enough secondary sources about Brahma Kumaris, and that WP:OR cannot be used to back up controversial claims. Just to clarify: My concern is precisely the excerpt "immoral intimate behavior" right now, and also using the anti-committee book as basis for controversial claims, as I read on guidelines and arbitration, that controversial claims require secondary sources. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, "immoral intimate behavior" could just mean indulging in "free love"-type sexual license, I don't know, and that isn't necessarily sexual abuse, although, admittedly, that is a really fine line there in the religious context. If there are no other sources alleging some sort of sexual misconduct, abusive or otherwise, though, then I don't see any reason for those words to stay in the article. The rest of the sentence, if it is better sourced, could probably stay, although it would be useful to indicate if the negative Sindhi response, if that is sourcable elsewhere, did have any sort of clear cause. Maybe, if that is the case, something like "Allegations from current or former members turned the Sindhi against the BK," or some other comment of that type that doesn't go into any particular dubiously sourced details. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. So, by your advice, I assume I can remove "immoral intimate behavior", as no reliable secondary source supports any sexual misconduct. I will do that as per your advice. Thank you very much. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journal article not reliable?

Is this one a reliable source?

Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Martinez-Laso, J. (2002). "Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective". Tissue Antigens 60 (2): 111–121. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2002.600201.x

The work of principal author, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, was criticized, but the article in question was not retracted. It's not being cited in support of anything relevant to controversies.Cavann (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is for use at Turkish people, yes? It's WP:PRIMARY, it hasn't been cited that much, and the primary author is controversial. There's also a red flag in that Arnaiz-Villena is publishing in Tissue Antigens while the other cites in that section are to J Human Genetics, J Physical Anthropology, Antiquity, etc. Given that we already have better citations in place, why include it? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor who removed the source also asked for Good Article Reassessment Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/Turkish_people/1. It was more needed for this section Turkish_people#Prehistory.2C_Ancient_era_and_Early_Middle_Ages (see diff which was reverted: ) Cavann (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of that version of Prehistory has four cites to the Arnaiz-Villena paper. I'll also note that the Yardumian (2011) paper has only been cited once and is used three times in the paragraph. I think the question of undue weight needs to be addressed first. If these two papers are within the mainstream opinion in this field then we can probably dig up some better cites. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say they are, but I don't think this particular topic gathers that much attention. Yardumian (2011) is a review study. I guess I can find more sources within that. Cavann (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim that "Modern Turks descend primarily from ancient Anatolians" is not mainstream. No scientist worth his salt will make such a claim, because it is impossible to prove. Only kooks like Arnaiz-Villena would make such a claim. As far as I can tell, the consensus among the literature is as follows: 1) Anatolia as a land bridge, has been subject to numerous populations movements, and its genetic makeup is highly complex and varied, and includes neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, etc..), as well as Bronze populations and Central Asian tribes, 2) The genetic impact of the Central Asian Turkic tribes was small because Anatolia already had a large population (but this population was itself highly diverse and simply "ancient Anatolians"), and 3) Modern Turks are closer to Middle Eastern and Balkan populations genetically than to Central Asian populations. However, stretching that to mean "modern Turks primarily descend from ancient Anatolian populations", is well, a stretch, and is not to be found within the literature. Athenean (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also well-sourced that several million Balkan Muslims and Caucasus Muslims settled in Anatolia during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The genetic makeup up of modern Turkey is thus highly diverse, now that is amainstream claim. Not that the modern Turks are lineal descendants of the Bronze Age populations. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, the author seems to have a history of controversial articles. Some of his articles have even gotten him fired from journal editorial boards for a topic very similar one here. I'd be VERY reluctant to call this a RS. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

2002 is not very recent in this field, and we do not have to use such a source if there is something "redflag" about it. OTOH I think that just claiming continuity from ancient Anatolians is not all that shocking? Nor can we really justify deleting reference to "primary" research articles in the human genetics field if they are important. (There is very little secondary literature in that field which is up to date. Attempts to rely on it always lead to strange results.) What is relevant:

• It sounds like the author is controversial.
• We should cautiously check to make sure this is not widely cited before deciding not to use it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about the use of this source, being too lazy to investigate it. I just want to say that there is nothing "red flag" about publishing in a different journal from other authors. In fact it is a normal phenomenon across all areas of scholarship. Zero 09:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. However, whether or not it meets WP:WEIGHT is a separate issue. It is better to use secondary sources that explain what weight academics have given to the report. TFD (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

"Simultaneously, however, he did not publicly support ; in his political biography, Mein Kampf (1925, 1926), Hitler only mentions it as “the so-called program of the movement”." Here is a link to a snippet view of the passage in Turner's book. He wrote, "Subsequently, even while proclaiming the correctness of the program as a whole, consistently refrained from citing its terms in detailed fashion. He conspicuously omitted its text from Mein Kampf, where he alluded to it disparagingly as the "so-called program of the movement."

An editor removed this line from the article National Socialist Program with the comment, "The absoluetly most reliable source as to the contents of a book are, and will ALWAYS be that said book. Turners claim cannot be verified (wikipedia rule), as infact it can be easily disproven." I have discussed this with the editor at Talk:National Socialist Program#An error.

Whether or not Hitler supported the program is relevant to the article. To me, if an editor disagrees with what Turner says, then s/he should find another source, rather than just remove the text based on his/her reading of Mein Kampf. I would appreciate any comments.

TFD (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR The IP's interpretation of a book is original research. Nothing else to discuss. There is probably an OR notice board where an admin can help you remove the IP's research from Wikipeia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

TFD, as you present it, your reasoning seems correct. It could be that other sources exist which give another opinion, but then they can be added later and that does not require us to remove mention of this opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As N-HH wrote on the article talk page, Turner did not write what is claimed, so Turner cannot be refuted by refuting what is claimed. (I.e. the difficulty seems to be a strawman.) What Turner actually wrote, that Hitler referred to the 25 points in disparaging fashion, appears to be true. I'll quote Mein Kampf on the article talk page shortly. Zero 13:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

ePodunk

ePodunk "provides in-depth information about more than 46,000 communities around the country". It is owned by Internet Brands. It's list of sources is here. It's very heavily used in our articles for demographic information. I can't see anything about it that makes me think it should be used as though it's gospel. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As an example, it is being used in North Miami Beach, Florida as a source for the Haitian population ( shows before and after recent IP edits which may have been vandalism or just bad editing. But where is it getting this data? (and for Columbian, etc). Here is the 2010 census data, no data on Columbians, Haitians etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It does if you know how to use the census site. Here it clearly states that there were 9,807 Haitians in North Miami Beach city, Florida. Here it states there were 1,446 Colombians. No idea if or how ePodunk works (indeed, the valid reliable source SHOULD BE the Census.gov site, even if ePodunk were compiling from that site, the original data is better from the original source). But on the question of whether or not the Census has data on the number of Haitians and Columbians in N. Miami Beach, it certainly does. --Jayron32 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry if I don't understand how to use the census site. I couldn't find anything about Haitians though from your link, I'm clearly still doing something wrong. It will be interesting to compare the ePodunk numbers with the census. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Apparently, you can't link to the URL directly to get the correct link. Apparently the database calls are generated in a way that can't be copy-pasted from the URL. Sorry about that. Here's how I got the data: From http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml the main American Factfinder site, you click "Advanced search - Show me all" then on the next menu, under "item 1" click the radio button for "Race/ancetry" and then as you start to type "Haitian" it brings up a tooltip that lets you select "581- Haitian (336-359)" Select that. Under the other box, start to type "North Miami Beach" and likewise it brings up a tooltip that lets you select the exact name of the city. Select that, then select "search" and then on the next screen, you'll have like hundreds of "products" that have those values in them. About 5 options down is B01003 "Total Population" Click that blue link, and you get a page that gives you the value you're looking for, in this case the total population of Haitians living in North Miami Beach. So the data exists, and can be gotten manual, or for anyone smart enough, a program can be wrtiten to cull the information from the database automagically. ePodunk may have done this, for all I know. But the data should really be cited to the horses mouth, as it were. --Jayron32 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.bentongraphics.com/flipcheck.html

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment