Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:54, 26 November 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

"Consortium News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory

Is Robert Parry's self-published, donation financed "Consortium News" website (with all of the relevant articles written by Parry himself) a reliable source for historical facts? The site is barely above the level of a blog, although Parry's past work as a journalist may give him some credibility (along with a strong conflict of interest). At the moment, "Consortium News" (and an editorial from the far-left advocacy group FAIR, also by Parry) are the primary sources used in October Surprise conspiracy theory. I'm hardly surprised that the article has been written entirely by editors who take everything Parry says extremely seriously; the resulting lack of neutrality is merely the collateral damage that comes inherent with a project like Misplaced Pages. No doubt the page requires mass deletions of unsourced content ("Bush provided several alibis that fell apart," with no source, when Secret Service logs show Bush engaged in a large number of appearances in the United States), as well as removal of useless external links like Rumor Mill News, and it should probably portray the delusional con man Ari Ben Menashe (whose inglorious career includes serving as chief witness in Robert Mugabe's farcical treason trial of the leader of the chief opposition party in Zimbabwe) in a less glowing light. But even granting that perhaps fringe theories are most written about by fringe theorists, is "Consortium News" a suitable source for Misplaced Pages at all? Keep in mind that Parry claims to have found a "Russian X-file" proving the October Surprise after he snuck into "a remote storage room on Capitol Hill," and that this is typical of his style. (Here he talks about how he found Carter's "green-light" allowing Saddam to invade Iran, "which apparently had been left behind by accident in a remote Capitol Hill storage room". Certainly, none of his "well-placed official" are sources we can check.) Also consider that "Consortium News" is often the sole source used to ascribe factual statements to important political figures, for example Yitzhak Shamir.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

sole source used to ascribe factual statements to important political figures, for example Yitzhak Shamir. - well yes, Parry was present in the interview with Shamir, so he's the direct source for what Shamir said. Podiaebba (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable. Not a reliable source in the whole article as far as I can see. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Great efforts were made to paint Ari Ben-Menashe as delusional and a con-man, but that line is no longer sustainable, which is probably why his house was fire-bombed recently, shortly before he was due to assist Parry with an interview of a senior Israeli intelligence figure (who concluded it was a message to him, and cancelled the interview). Podiaebba (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Consortium for Independent Journalism meets rs as does Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. FAIR is actually a "progressive" organization, not the Weather Underground. Also, you should have posted a notice on the article's talk page that you were posting here. TFD (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, can you elaborate? Surely you aren't suggesting that they are RS because there are Misplaced Pages articles dedicated to them, or because you find my "far-left" description objectionable? Of course Parry revels in his self-published status, claiming that it allows him freedom from the constraints of biased corporate fact-checkers so he can uncover "the real story". But WP:SPS says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Parry revels in his self-published status - that is absolute crap. Look at Parry's backstory and you will see that he left both AP and Newsweek because they were too willing to draw a line under Iran-Contra and not publish any further digging into who knew what when (like Amiram Nir briefing Bush in 1986, as came out years later from an Israeli source). Podiaebba (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

FAIR comes up all the time. U.S. conservatives do not like it because it concentrates on right-wing media.

The Misplaced Pages article says Parry who worked for AP and Newsweek is the editor and there are three other contributors. It's "reporting has featured several times in Project Censored's Top 25 Most Censored Stories of the Year". The close control of an owner over a publication does not make it self-published, otherwise we would have to exclude Fox News. Here is a link to a copy of the cable on Consortium's website. The Road to 911 by Peter Dale Scott (University of California Press, 2007) quotes the cable, which he sources to Parry. I do not know if the contents of the cable were accurate, or if it means anything, but see no reason to doubt it was actually sent, and Scott's book is rs that it did exist. I do not know where Barry wrote that he "snuck in" and found the document, my reading is just that he said it was stored for years.

TFD (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He didn't "sneak in" anywhere, he asked for access to the files and got it (and found the files in such a "we don't really care" mess that classified materials he shouldn't have been given access to where in there as well, which AFAIR includes the Russian cable and the State Dept memo proving that Casey was in Madrid at the relevant time). Podiaebba (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No. See more here. Whatever credibility as a journalist Parry once had went up in smoke captain Ahab style. And I agree with Itsmejudith that there are no decent sources in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? You're trying to use the 1991 Newsweek article by Steven Emerson which included claims Newsweek knew to be false (Craig Unger, who warned them, "They told me, essentially, to fuck off.. It was the most dishonest thing that I’ve been through in my life in journalism") and which the House Task Force dropped without comment? Even without knowing anything else about Emerson, that's going some. PS Is it possible that knowingly publishing false information might affect Newsweek or Emerson's status as a reliable source at least for this subject? ... Ah, though not. Podiaebba (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert Parry (journalist) is probably the leading expert on the October Surprise; as such, his publications on the subject are reliable sources by any meaningful interpretation of the concept. Anyone who dismisses Parry on the basis that he's still pursuing the October Surprise when the House Task Force "proved" it was wrong really ought to look at House October Surprise Task Force. Podiaebba (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I actually agree with you about FAIR--I would consider them a reliable source. Keep in mind, my concern is Consortium News. You seem a lot more concerned about proving FAIR is reliable, which is not what I am focused on, and doesn't prove anything about Consortium News. Now, I don't think a media watchdog advocacy group like FAIR is ideal for establishing historical facts, but I do think they can be cited for claims specifically ascribed to them. Regarding Consortium News, I am not persuaded by your comparison of a donation-financed blog with 3 contributors to Fox News, suggesting that we would have to blacklist them both. Nevertheless, that you found a RS (The Road to 9/11) citing Parry on the Russian report is quite helpful. The article should be structured around RS like that, rather than extensively quoting Consortium News uncritically (while I would need to look a little more closely to be sure, I think it may be fair to say the article as currently written is based on Consortium News). If anything Parry has written on the subject has been published, even by institutions like FAIR, then it could also be cited. However, the claims should be ascribed to him rather than treated as gospel truth, and the article should focus on how these assertions are viewed by impartial mainstream observers.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Parry is an RS, and mainstream sources are hardly interested in continuing to pursue the details of it post-House Task Force, so the new information Parry has come up with (of which the State Dept memo is probably the most critical - the Task Force chairman told Parry two decades later that if that hadn't been withheld, the conclusions might have been different ). I don't object to more explicit attribution of claims to Parry, but that will make the writing pretty awkward. I'm not happy to have to rely on one author so heavily, but when it's an RS who is the leading expert on the subject, and few others are interested in continuing to write about, that's how it is. As to "impartial mainstream observers" - this is a joke, right? Or did you miss the deliberate publication of misinformation by New Republic and Newsweek? Or that the efforts to discredit every source (cf Ben-Menashe) still leave the whole thing a radioactive mess for any mainstream journalist - potential career suicide even if they could get their employer to publish it (remember Parry left Newsweek because they wouldn't)? Podiaebba (talk) 11:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

NB if it makes any difference, the large majority of the info on Consortium News will also be available from Parry's books. Podiaebba (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

PS Those who insist that the House October Surprise Task Force is the last word on the subject might pause to consider Rep Dymally's refusal to sign the report - a refusal relegated to a single sentence on page 244, in a section with an irrelevant heading, whilst the cover letter claims unanimous approval of the report's conclusions. (And that's not Parry, that's verifiable from the HOSTF report itself.) Podiaebba (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

After a brief review, there are several high quality sources on this subject.

1. The New Republic Piece
2. Newsweeks investigation
3. American Journalism Review
4. The Village Voice
5. Two congressional inquiries

Even if a case could be made that Robert Parry is a RS, his website isnt and the way the article looks now, Parry is responsible for the majority of the content which would seem to violate WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. WeldNeck (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, Newsweek and New Republic 1991 pieces knowingly published false information at a time when there was a concerted Republican effort to prevent Congressional enquiries taking place; and the House enquiry mislead readers about one of its members' refusal to sign the report. No discussion of "reliability" which refuses to engage with these facts can be at all credible. Podiaebba (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if a case could be made that Robert Parry is a RS, his website isnt - this is the sort of absurdity which comes up a lot. If Parry is an RS, then his claims published on his website are too. We don't even need to take into account that those claims have been reprinted and repeated on other websites (some with at least a modicum of editorial oversight, like FAIR and truthout), in Parry's own books, and in others' books. Podiaebba (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

On quick example of the issues with Parry's work. The following is directly from the article and sourced to Parry: "David Andelman, the official biographer of French spy chief Alexandre de Marenches, testified to the House investigation that de Marenches had told him that he had organised the Paris meeting.". I can find no mention anywhere else outside of Parry or individuals who use Parry as a source that David Andelman testified to the House investigation or that deMarenches claimed to organize a meeting in Paris. If anyone has a copy or can obtain a copy of Andelman's The Fourth World War: Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism this could be positively verified but I wouldnt count on it. WeldNeck (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Weldneck; the article is unquestionably giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. However, if Podiaebba is correct in saying that most of the relevant material can be sourced back to Parry's published books, doing so would resolve this matter as far as RSN is concerned. To create a neutral article, I would suggest restoring the version that existed prior to Podiaebba's edits. Podiaebba could then create a section devoted to Parry, succinctly summarizing his most important claims and making clear they are his claims. If RS have commented on Parry, they could also be mentioned.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The main issue appears to be weight, rather than rs. It is not that there is doubt about whether Parry's facts are accurate, it is their significance to the article. Weldneck, Andelman spoke to the task force about Marenches and the Paris meeting. I only have access to a snippet view so I cannot verify that Parry's description is accurate. Do you have access to the report? TFD (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's both whether his facts are accurate and whether there's a weight problem. Do they account for his claims? Yes. Should we necessarily trust something he writes that doesn't have editorial oversight? I don't think so. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I do not have ready access to the report. Kudos for looking for it in Google books, nice move, I only thought to look for the biography. The snippets of the report on google books are tantalizing, but we cant see more than the preview. WeldNeck (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Check that, I found a copy online . Looks like (according to pg 168) de Marenches categorically denied it when interviewed and Andelman himself had some doubts when de Marenches mentioned it in passing. Not exactly the slam dunk its portrayed n the article. WeldNeck (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is nobody even reading my posts? The hathitrust link is in House October Surprise Task Force, which I recommended reading... Podiaebba (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

De Marenches' denial when directly asked isn't worth much given his history with Casey (and his denial to investigators preceded his admission to Andelman, and investigators said they were "unable to reach" him to confront him with Andelman's testimony). I will add Pierre Salinger's corroboration of de Marenches' knowledge of the meetings, which I wasn't aware of til just now. And BTW the deletion of the 8-paragraph passage from the 1995 English edition of Salinger's book ought to be a reminder of how toxic the subject became in the US. Podiaebba (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

NB In case anyone cares, some of the consortiumnews articles were republished by truthout. . Podiaebba (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, I am reading your posts, but they are completely irrelevant. "No discussion of "reliability" which refuses to engage with these facts can be at all credible." That's just not how Misplaced Pages policy works. If a source is reliable, as Newsweek clearly is, I'm afraid that your dislike of it has no impact on its reliability. Misplaced Pages is not the truth. I think there is a consensus that this article, and many others you have edited, will require significant clean-up to meet our standards.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. But you're not going to get away with claiming that Newsweek's reliability is unimpeached even on this specific subject without explicitly addressing Craig Unger's point that he warned Newsweek that a key claim it was about to publish in that 1991 piece was wrong, and they went ahead and published it anyway - he later said "They told me, essentially, to fuck off.. It was the most dishonest thing that I’ve been through in my life in journalism." Any further attempt to pretend that this is about me "not liking" Newsweek or about seeking "the truth" regardless of reliable sourcing - or to simply ignore the issue ... well I'll leave others to judge what conclusions to draw from that. PS I see no consensus - just you reasserting your initial claim that started this thread, ignoring all reliably-sourced information and commentary that doesn't support your view. Podiaebba (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Every editor, except you, agrees that Newsweek is RS and Parry is being given undue weight: Itsmejudith, Weldneck, Thargo Orlando, TFD, and myself. Hence the need for clean-up. Your obvious failure to understand the concept of WP:RS doesn't help your case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your willingness to assert without evidence what I do or do not understand whilst refusing to address specific evidence of reliability problems speaks for itself. Is it really necessary for WP:RS to be amended to give explicit weight to publications knowingly publishing false information before you're willing accept that this impacts on their reliability?? Also, this is not the Undue Weight board, so don't try to change the subject. Podiaebba (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of Parry's criticisms of the report were published in January 1993 in The Nation. Does that help any? I have no problem with avoiding use of consortiumnews when the same thing is published in a source others consider better. Podiaebba (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to beat up on Podiaebba, who obviously has very strong feelings in favor of Robert Parry's professionalism and credibility, but he has tried to shoehorn Consortiumnews onto the Ghouta chemical attack page, with similar responses: Noticeboard and Talk as examples. Regardless of Parry's "amazing track record", the fact that his website is self-published and other red flags like it lending credence to fringe personalities and conspiracy theories really should be weighed when we're looking at whether to include it. I just don't think it rises to the level of a reliable source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

lending credence to fringe personalities and conspiracy theories, eh? This seems a remark carefully crafted to make consortiumnews look like infowars.com or something. I suppose you're thinking of "fringe personalities" like Ray McGovern, who received the CIA's Intelligence Commendation Medal? Perhaps Paul R. Pillar, a professor at Georgetown until 2012? Do tell. And I like your equally handwavingly vague "conspiracy theories" - citing concrete examples of the claims actually made would involve admitting that they fall very well within the normal range of investigative journalism. I can only imagine that it must take years of practice to be this good at obfuscation. I'm reminded of Richelieu's Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him. Podiaebba (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We should not treat Parry's (selfpublished) site as a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But the site is edited by Parry, is backed by a 501(c)(3) which has received external grant funding, and publishes other authors. It is not "self-published" in the most trivially obvious way that a one-person blog is, if at all. Podiaebba (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure everyone here was aware that Robert Parry was awarded a Polk Award for his reporting on Iran-Contra - a matter highly intertwined with October Surprise. One might think that this would be relevant for judging whether he's a reliable source on the subject. Podiaebba (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Source for a translation of Voltaire

Any French speakers around? This question also possibly involves other policies than WP:RS, but to start somewhere...

Article: Teleological argument. Text: a translation of Voltaire's: L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger

• Currently in article, and being defended with reverts (bold added): I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream. Source: Harbottle, Thomas Benfield (1908). Dictionary of quotations: French. S. Sonnenschein. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-4212-5720-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• My translation as a Misplaced Pages editor (given that I found the above not good): The universe troubles me, and I can not imagine that this watch exists, and it has no watchmaker at all

The following alternatives were then offered by third party User:Myrvin:

• The universe perplexes me, and for me it is unthinkable That this watch exists, yet without a watchmaker.. Christianity Unveiled, Paul Henri Thiry Holbach, Hodgson Press, 2008, p. 285
• I canot believe that this watch can exist and have no watchmaker. A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 11 Aug 2011, p. 271
• this watch could be and watchmaker have none. Voltaire and his times. Authorized transl (Google eBook), Laurence Louis Félix Bungener, 1854, p. 462
• The Universe troubles me, and much less can I think That this clock exists and should have no clockmaker., From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution, Etienne Gilson, Ignatius Press, 2009, p. 126

I believe all the 21st century ones look preferable to the 1908 dictionary of quotes? However, these were however rejected by the person who found the original translation on the grounds of accuracy (if I understand correctly) and they have suggested:

• The universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think That this watch exists and has no watch-maker. Man and God: a physiological meditation, tr. from the French By Jean Marie A. Perot 1881 ISBN-13: 9781279158883.

Personally I believe WP:RS does not need to dominate knowledge of French here, but I also think WP:RS and a knowledge of French would probably agree on the 2008 translation, but in any case neither the current one nor the last one proposed (they both just seem wrong to me, although I see how using a dictionary could lead to them)? (Keep in mind that the article we are writing is not about poetry, so it needs the real meaning of the sentence.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the 2008 one too. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Any other comments about either the French or the strength of sourcing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, are suggesting that Jean-Marie Perrot used a French dictionary or an English one to translate the 1881 source? The fact that your hubris allows you to suppose that you can provide a more accurate translation than a French scholar is astounding. Let's just use my suggestion and cite multiple sources. You yourself have not stated which source you prefer, you've stated that you like your own translation better. I've said the 1908 (which was what was there before you deleted it) is fine, I also offered a second cited source, the 1881 Perot. Exactly what is the problem here?Tstrobaugh (talk)

• apparently Perot, Jean Marie Albert, 1814 wrote in French, the name of the translator is not available, but the author was involved in the translation.Tstrobaugh (talk)

Let's not worry too much about how the translation was done in 1881. We can discuss translations two ways (which are not mutually exclusive), under WP:RS as a sourcing issue, which is what this board is mainly for, and as a translation as such, just like any wording decision when editing (because actually we are not obliged to use published translations, especially if we only have weak ones). This board is of course also often helpful concerning wording, because nearly every sourcing question involves wording choice to some extent. This is my rationale at least: In terms of both RS and French, the two versions you want to use are very poor. I hope we can get broader feedback because this really shouldn't be so difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone interested to be a third party in this discussion on the article talk page? It feels like a case that is stuck for silly reasons. It is in any case not a major crisis or complex issue, so should not take much time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Update. The one third party opinion we got above has not led to closure. In summary:

• The 2008 translation proposed above is argued to be a poor source compared to the 1908 quotes dictionary or the 1881 translation which contains the clear mistake of translating m'embarrasse as "embarrasses me", because (a) it looks like Hodgson Press are self-publishers? and (b) the translation is claimed to be a 1761 source from Baron d'Holbach?
• The 2009 translation is also proposed to be a worse source because (to quote) "John Lyon is an Associate Professor of American and Comparative Literature, Lakeland College, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. So no I don't think "John Lyon" is an appropriate source for this citation." (I do not really get the point here, so I just quote.) It was also stated that this can not be considered a scholarly source because it is not peer reviewed.
• A new proposal has been made "In God's Defense: Writings on Atheism Voltaire (Author), Kirk Watson (Translator). To quote the proposal: "NB This is a self published Kindle only edition but thought more versions might help pinpoint our issues." The translation is The universe contains me: there's no way, This watch exists without a watchmaker.
• I think there might be issues of policy understanding, but anyone seeing the discussion will appreciate that my policy advice is not being treated as neutral given that I was the one who questioned the translation originally. A third party opinion is really needed.
• If there is a good forum for translation discussion, can someone please advise us? (But note that the discussion has so far been based on reliability claims.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We, as Misplaced Pages editors, can translate this text. We don't need a source. It's only French, for goodness' sake. Lots of people on WP speak it fluently. We even have people who are true bilinguals. So we can do better than Google, and better than the older translators too, because we write modern idiomatic English, and use modern translation conventions. Thank you, Andrew, for taking the time to help us get this right. Translating quotations does not count as original research. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Beyond translations of words or phrases it is Original Research. Translating literary passages is not something that should be done by random Misplaced Pages editors. It's not true to say that an editor's translation of a literary or philosophical text would have to be better because "we write modern idiomatic English". It's not a good idea to re-cast historical quotes in the vernacular of any editor that is convinced they wouldn't miss nuances and context of that quote. An important translation should be reliably sourced, not manufactured from scratch. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". Misplaced Pages:NONENG People can argue over which translation published by a reliable source captures the essence, but shouldn't reject multiple existing reliable sources in order to create something from scratch. Also, a newer translation is not necessarily better than an older translation, just because it's recent. And the fact that this quote has been interpreted different ways by scholarly translators should make it clear that translating it isn't trivially easy or non-subjective. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The last two posts are not relevant to the case involved where both original and published (but more modern) translations were being rejected in favor of very old and clearly quirky ones (which disagreed with other translations). But for the record, you should read the rest of WP:NOENG, which is considerably more refined.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the points aren't relevant. I read the rest of wp:NOENG but it didn't say anything more on this subject of how to choose a translation, other than to prefer published over original when available; what did you mean "more refined"? It goes on to say that when it's original that the editor is not cited, but that isn't saying anything about preference of source. And it's simply true that a translation being more recent doesn't make it better or worse on that quality alone (see things like Beowulf in old and new translations in various degrees of quality). For what it's worth, I'm sure, when compared, your original translation "disagreed" with other translations as well as each other. It sounds like you decided what the quote meant and pushed for a translation that matched your interpretation, which is fine, but don't make it more than that. You decided one was quirky. Other people have similar or different opinions and we discuss. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think your FWIW is a correct assessment. I did not want to "make it more than that", but more was made of it and so I came here for the "we discuss". I have recently inserted a more recent, but also clearly higher status translation, and it seems resolved at least for now. I agree that the age of a source is not always a simple black/white criterium to use, but we are talking about odd 19th century translations versus a scholarly 21st century translation here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wind direction on the night of Syrian gas attacks, and the source supporting it

We have a source dispute on the page for the Ghouta chemical attack, which occurred early in the morning on 21 August 2013. Content added here using this article from the New Scientist argues, quoting Richard Guthrie, that the night of the chemical attacks was the one night that week in which wind blew east: away from government soldiers, and towards rebels.

The statement hasn't been reported elsewhere, so far as we can find, and it's not clear how reliable or what kind of a news source the "New Scientist" is. Because I study climate, perhaps, I was a little skeptical of the claim: at a given site and time period, you'll usually see one or two dominant wind patterns, and see that change with seasons. So after editors began arguing about the veracity of the statement, I went to the NOAA, which has the largest available database on this and is regularly used for research or practical purposes globally. According to the site, wind did blow ENE on the night of the Ghouta attacks. However, and you can check this yourselves, wind also blew that direction every day of that week, and of that month. It turns out that the average wind direction at the site over the last 5 years is 245, or ENE.

All Syria civil war related articles are under sanctions because the issue is politically charged. I have the impression that efforts to retain the statement using the New Scientist source, invoking WP:V and WP:RS, amount to WP:GAMING because retaining the information seems to violate WP:COMMONSENSE. Input would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A relevant discussion on the talk pages can be found here. -Darouet (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"it's not clear how reliable or what kind of a news source the "New Scientist" is." - well New Scientist is easily a reliable enough source for Guthrie's claim. The issue is that it's merely reporting Guthrie's claim, which appears to be contradicted by NOAA data. I've been part of this discussion at the relevant article, but I still feel it bears pointing out to a potentially new audience that Guthrie's highly damning claim was published 2 days before the US Government Assessment, in an article with a highly relevant title in a fairly prominent and widely available non-academic science journal - yet the Assessment doesn't include it. (Nor has the US Govt ever used the claim since then to back up its argument.) In the circumstances, I feel this is extremely strong "dog that didn't bark" evidence that the claim is wrong. Podiaebba (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the deluge of text, but here is a response from a non-involved editor to our last RFC that I think is particularly relevant: '(responding to bot-generated RFC): Fails WP:RS for total of five reasons: Cannot add a hearsay of a statement from a non-expert in weather when there are no references where the weather data were taken, so that we can verify. No additional sources found so fat to corroborate the statement. Evidence of contrary found in a factual source. (Hearsay issue: countless cases are known when a phrase "was a day of the week" may magically convert into "was the only day of the week"). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)' I think this well summarizes the problem. -Darouet (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick look (I commented in the RFC) is that Guthrie is of course a Reliable Source on the topic. Weight of the claim and how to treat a quick claim right after the event happened versus a much more authoritative source (the UN) which issued a major report (which certainly would have looked at wind patterns, but didn't emphasize it as evidence), is another thing entirely. And probably should lead to the claim being removed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Darouet: I really do not think there is any need to imply editors are gaming in this case. This is a judgement call, in my opinion a close one. We have a reliable source making a claim, but only one source has made the claim. Meanwhile, the primary sources appear to contradict the reliable source, though there are some complicating factors that make interpretation of the primary sources problematic re WP:SYNTH (ie the chemical strikes were closer to upwind mountains than the weather station). VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's basically where I am on this as well. I'd like to be able to qualify Guthrie's claim in-text, but I'm not seeing reliable secondary sources that explicitly contradict it; at the same time, we should probably recognize that the fog-of-war may be relevant here. I don't want to pull the statement altogether, because what we have here is a credible source reporting a relevant statement by someone who I think is universally recognized as an expert on situations like this. But nor do I want this claim to have undue weight, as it hasn't been widely repeated and primary data doesn't back it up, even if it doesn't necessarily contradict it (for the reasons VQuakr outlines). -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, Kudzu1, both of you have made strong cases on the talk page, and it seems clear you have the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind (not that I have a crystal ball - that's just my feeling). So I'm sorry - I didn't meant to implicate you two in my statement. Unfortunately I wouldn't say the same of some editors, though to be fair, for every partisan editing for one side of this conflict, you'll find another editing for the other. Your concerns over the NOAA data's relevance to Guthrie's claim on the talk page are well-reasoned and have made me less certain. What the NOAA data shows, nevertheless, is that wind direction on the night of the attack was the same as the mean weekly, monthly, and 5-year wind direction at the nearest met station, 8-10 miles away. Without any knowledge of how Guthrie could have acquired (apparently) conflicting information, and without repetition by other sources, the statement is highly problematic; in my view it's likely wrong. Right now, as opposed to earlier, the article qualifies the statement and doesn't present it as a fact. That's an improvement at least. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

New Scientist is a science magazine and a good source for science news. Not much good beyond that. WP:RECENT applies to the war in Syria. if facts aren't on the BBC or CNN you have to wonder why not. What is the impact if this is left out? Itsmejudith (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Book cover quote

Jesús Huerta de Soto article. Can sentence Former European Central Bank director Jean-Claude Trichet wrote that Huerta de Soto’s Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles "is indeed a remarkably stimulating and thought provoking summa." be used in a "reception" section with ref being Jesús Huerta de Soto, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, 2012, 3rd Edition, Back cover quotation. I put it in because couple past WP:RSN discussions said that unless there was evidence the quote was fabricated it could be used. I saw several non-RS mentions of it but could not find original quote. (Perhaps they sent him the book? don't know.) Thanks. CM-DC talk 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• I don't see why not from a reliability standpoint, but if this is source is being used for how the book was received, it's not a particularly good source. Obviously, book publishers are going to put the most flattering quotes on the book covers and it may not be a fair representation as to how his work was received. Personally, I would try to find better or at least other sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is a significant danger of promotion if positive reviews are taken from the book itself. I have seen reviewers misrepresented by book review blurbs. For instance, Day of Deceit quotes a primarily negative review out of context to make it seem as if the reviewer called the book stimulating and thought-provoking without tearing apart its premise. The original source should be found or the review blurb left out. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is similar to using quotes on Amazon. As Binksternet says, these can be misrepresentations of the actual source. Like billboards outside theatres cherrypicking from reviews. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Material on book covers cannot be said to be independent or high-quality as it is selected, edited (and sometimes solicited) purely to promote the book. I would say it is almost always not usable. Alexbrn 05:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• Thanks for opinions. I see this done a lot when people trying to make someone look bad for praising a book the don't like in a blurb. And other opinions I heard weren't too trustworthy. Obviously best to find original quote. CM-DC talk 16:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

RS for Murray Rothbard as an historian

Some editors are trying to remove mention of, and/or categories about, Rothbard as an historian despite the following sources from talk page mostly in format as others presented it; duplicates integrated where possible. (Pardon length: The talk page "Not a historian" section discussion is too long to ask you all to read through it.) Three editors keep arguing against these sources for reasons they can explain.

• In the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Rothbard is characterized as a "libertarian economist, political philosopher, historian, and activist" p 441, Sage Publications
• Mark Thornton, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, 2 vols., Southern Economic Journal, July 1, 1996
• Gerard Casey (2013}.Continuum International Publishing Group Murray Rothbard, editor's "Introduction" to book. "Murray Rothbard was an economist, historian, political and moral philosopher, and legal theoretician." (refers to it (p.98 and later) in discussing reviews of a book
• Justin Raimondo (2000).Prometheus Books An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, page 54]. "...the young Rothbard was now embarked, fully armed, on a remarkable career as a thinker, philosopher, economist, historian, and all-around champion controversialist." p. 54 Also On pages 19–21..
• Brian Doherty (2008). PublicAffairs, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, Part 64. Doherty says that The Panic of 1819 was Rothbard's history thesis work at Columbia, published years later in 1962. Doherty describes how Rothbard was given a grant to write an exhaustive work on American history. The grant was running out in 1966 when Rothbard had performed a lot of research but little of the writing. Doherty describes Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty as one of his major works in American history.
• Vincent Gaddis (2005). Herbert Hoover, Unemployment, and the Public Sphere: A Conceptual History, page xx. University Press of America Gaddis gives an overview of the historiography of the 1920s. He says historian Rothbard was a prominent re-interpreter of Hoover's legacy.
• David Gordon, ‎Carl Watner (1986). Murray N. Rothbard: a scholar in defense of freedom, page 14. "A historian, besides possessing the correct theory, must also master the techniques of empirical research. Rothbard passes this test with flying colors. His doctorate was in the field of economic history..." 'Ludwig von Mises Institute
• Mark Skousen (2008). Regnery Publishing Economic Logic, page 412. "Rothbard was a highly influential American economist, historian and natural law theorist belonging to the Austrian School of economics... who helped define modern libertarianism."
• Adrianus Arnoldus Maria van der Linden (1996). Rodopi (publisher) A Revolt Against Liberalism: American Radical Historians, 1959-1976, page 58. Linden describes Rothbard as a conservative historian who allied himself with radicals to challenge liberal histories of the New Deal.
• Ronald Lora, ‎William Henry Longton (1999). Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, p. 373, The Conservative Press in Twentieth-century America. "Murray. N. Rothbard is a libertarian economist, political scientist, and historian."
• Daniel S. Dupre, "The Panic of 1819 and the Political Economy of Sectionalism", Penn State University Press, page 274, chapter 9 in The Economy of Early America: Historical Perspectives & New Directions. Rothbard is listed as one of the few historians who have written about the Panic of 1819.
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe "Murray N. Rothbard – Economics, Science and Liberty", Ludwig von Mises Institute, page 238, within the book The Great Austrian Economists. "Furthermore, although first and foremost a theoretician, Rothbard was was also an accomplished historian..."
• Editors of The Austrian Economics Newsletter, 1995, volume 16, page 33. "Murray N. Rothbard, economist, historian, political theorist, and philosopher, died on January 7, 1995."
• Bruce Frohnen, ‎Jeremy Beer, ‎Jeffrey O. Nelson (2006). ISI Books, American conservatism: an encyclopedia, page 750. Rothbard is described as a free-market economist, an ethicist and a historian.
• John F. Welsh (2008). Lexington Books/(Rowman & Littlefield). After multiculturalism: the politics of race and the dialectics of liberty, page 62. Rothbard is described as not "merely" an academic economist but also an interdisciplinary scholar and historian. His exemplary historian work is listed as Conceived in Liberty, a four-volume history of the American Revolution.
• Sheldon L. Richman (2001). Ideas on Liberty, Foundation for Economic Education, volume 51, page 59. "Rothbard (1926-1995), economist, philosopher, historian, and essayist par excellence..."
• His history books are: The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies, Columbia University Press, 1962; America's Great Depression, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1973; Conceived in Liberty, (4 vol.), Arlington House Publishers 1975–1979; An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, (2 vol.), Edward Elgar Pub, 1995. An editor pointed out his books: Rothbard's book on the Great Depression has been cited by 499 authors. Panic of 1819 which several observers judge as one of his major works. Rothbard's Panic of 1819 has been cited by 106 authors.
  Thoughts? CM-DC talk 19:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering how serious this issue of trashing so many WP:RS entries in, and the fact it has been done before when one of the editors opposed to calling him an historian removed No |7 references calling him an Austrian economist, maybe we will need to get an official admin opinion on this. Is request for close the appropriate place when the time is right? User:Carolmooredc talk 02:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• Given the length of that list and the titles of his books, he has a claim to be described as a historian of some description. It really doesn't matter whether everyone on the list knew him or not: that's a lot of published sources. I'm not looking at the article talk page to understand why this should be such a big issue (doubtless a timesink) but it is not as if someone is suggesting that he be described as the greatest historian that ever lived or something similar. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are reviews of his books at JSTOR. Eg: JSTOR 2116455 is the Journal of Economic History, whose reviewer (Harris Prochansky) concludes: "The historian of business fluctuations in the United States and the economist hoping to find material aiding them in their quest for the causes of the crippling and demoralizing panics, recessions and depressions that have periodically occurred in the United States would find the volume disappointing in this regard. Since the author avowedly centers his attention on reactions and policies, he cannot be criticized on this score. His work is stimulating, instructive, and lucid."
• JSTOR 1817172 is Harry Shaffer in The American Economic Review: "The bulk of the book is devoted to a very detailed account of contemplated, proposed, scrutinized, rationalized, tested, instituted, rejected, legislated, and repealed remedies for the panic. State by state, territory by territory (and where necessary county by county and city by city), the reader is given the opportunity to listen to the arguments and debates in newspaper editorials, in letters to the editor, in monographs, in petitions, in gubernatorial messages, in proposed bills, and in speeches before legislative assemblies". If that sort of research and presentation of something that happened in 1819 does not qualify someone to be described as a historian then I've got degrees in the wrong subject. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The first does not support calling MR an historian. The second is your OR statement based on self-reference to your judgment. To determine RS we need to evaluate the publishers and their editorial standards and biases. This would be a simple task for any of those who advocate using these as RS. The timesink comes from ignoring policy and replacing it with personal opinion or google metrics. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Does this have to do with this edit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Close. It has to do with the previous edit, the removal of categories which are well understood to be true by any topic expert. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I'm on record as saying that I dislike this almost unique system of discussion that the regular AE contributors have created, which include the bizarre "involved" and "uninvolved" sections that were placed here. However, since they are here, what are you doing in this bit? I really cannot fathom the protocol that you and your opposites have created. In any event, the first source is the Journal of Economic history and the second should be common sense. The pedantry that surrounds this topic is incredible: can we not all let it drop and actually get on with improving this encyclopaedia? - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding to you, that is why I write in this section. There's really no need to restate what you're on record as having said. Maybe there is some other noticeboard where it would be useful to discuss and seek resolution your meta-issues.

I don't yet have an opinion on RS or not, but when I do I will post it in the "involved" section. I didn't create the sections -- OP did, so I'll just follow OP's format here.

• WRT your #1, you'll have to show why the cited reference is RS for the assertion that MR is an "historian". The name of the publication is not, by itself sufficient. We need to know the publisher, editorial policy, author, and text which would supports calling Rothbard an "historian". It should be easy to do if such documentation exists.
• WRT your #2, "it's common sense" doesn't pass muster for RS per WP policy. On WP that is called OR and we can't use it if it is disputed. That's not my opinion, that's policy. I've cited the relevant policies elsewhere here and on the article talk page to Binksternet, who googled this list of names but has refused to provide any of the information we'd need to call them RS. So far, nobody has demonstrated why these are RS for the assertion being made. That's pretty easy to do if in fact they are RS. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Small Note: The Involved/Uninvolved was brought over because of this kind of inundation of comments/criticism against anyone who disagreed with certain editors, leading to "chaotic" discussions. Sometimes the sectioning actually helps keep them from overloading the discussion with their commentary. CM-DC talk 01:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, excuse me, all, but I think most people who are active across multiple Austrian Economics articles might benefit from a dose of common sense. The engagement subculture, the WP:3LA (sic) and the concomitant frequent need to resort to drama boards etc is tiresome. This guy has written about stuff from two centuries ago, has been referenced as a historian (a fairly harmless term unless they are in fact a futurist) and has been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals that include "history" in the title: these things, as a minimum, would allow use of the word. I've still not looked at the talk page but if this is such as sticking point then can you not finagle something like "has written of historical events", "examined economic history" or whatever? There are so, so many ways round this issue. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

At first sight I am also wondering why it is considered so important whether he called an historian or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico and Steeletrap have been trying to reduce the respectability of Rothbard ever since they first touched the biography. Denying his historian credentials is part of that initiative. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, got it that this is the background dispute, but is this particular issue really an important one? It looks a bit like one where a compromise should be possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Andrew Lancaster. Do you have any information or opinions which would help resolve the RS question in this matter? The question as to whether this detail is important to the article is more of an article talk page matter. Personally, I don't think it's as important as the "historian" advocates apparently think it is, but the RS question is why OP brought it to this Noticeboard. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No I don't think it is constructive to pretend there is anything truly odd about bringing it here, and that we should start talking about that decision itself. Anyone watching this board can see that there is a heated systematic debate going on which goes beyond this one particular question, and both sides feel frustrated. Proposing a compromise on this case does not imply that I think it was wrong to come here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:Hello. I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was simply that the issue you raised, namely whether the "hisorian" question is important, is a separate question from the one raised by OP here, namely whether we have RS to support that statement. I'm puzzled by your words "...pretend there is anything truly odd about bringing it here , and that we should start talking about that decision itself." Could you provide a diff in which an editor expressed that point of view? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "the RS question is why OP brought it to this Noticeboard". I disagree. The big question is how to make a better encyclopedia, and all the smaller questions should head towards that one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I will re-parse my words to obviate this discussion: I meant to convey "OP posted this thread in order to resolve the question as to whether we have RS which calls Rothbard an historian" I didn't say anything which I would have expected to be interpreted as "Why did OP bring this up in the first place" or similar... I suspect that the reason why small issues of content lead to larger threads on this board is a valid one, namely that the principle of vetting and using RS is critical to every aspect of WP. In that sense, there are no small issues. Anyway, OP had her reasons and I haven't seen anybody question her decision to open this thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This sort of petty arguing about labels is one of the more pointless things Wikipedians do... but anyway, Rothbard seems to be a social scientist in a wide sense, active in a number of fields, including history, and on the basis of that plenty of good sources include "historian" in a list of things he is. It seems a bit absurd to crusade against that label as if using it had some major significance. It's a descriptive label with a fairly elastic meaning, not a stamp of approval or an academic degree! Podiaebba (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

• For reliable sources, we would want evidence that historians view him as a historian. From what I saw of the proposed sources, they seem to come primarily or entirely (some sources lack publishers and other details) from those very close to him, including his associates and followers. There's been a long history of bias on their part, so I would hold out for an independent source that is credible in the field of history. MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Seem to come primarily or entirely"? If you do not know who is more closely connected and who is not, how can you make this comment? This response of yours was made in ignorance of the connections of former University of Louisville professor John F. Welsh, former The Freeman editor Sheldon Richman, legal scholar Bruce Frohnen, conservative scholar ‎Jeffrey O. Nelson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte history professor Daniel S. Dupre, University of Toledo professor emeritus Ronald Lora, University of Toledo History Department Chair William Henry Longton, writer Adrianus Arnoldus Maria van der Linden, economist Mark Skousen, writer Vincent Gaddis, and CATO editor Ronald Hamowy. The CATO folks were particularly unhappy with Rothbard but they describe him fairly as "a libertarian economist, political philosopher, historian, and activist" in their Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, page 441. Hamowy was the editor of that encyclopedia but CATO writer Brian Doherty drafted the biography of Rothbard. Neither is associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute co-founded by Rothbard. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disproof by single example: We've discussed Skousen previously, and he's not actually a historian, so his opinion on this matter is questionable. He's also not unbiased about Rothbard, which presents its own problems.

The root cause of your problem is that you combined a shotgun approach with an attempt to avoid doing your homework. It's really not really my job to go through your many low-quality citations in search of one that's valid. You need to pick out one or two that can pass muster. If you won't choose a good representative, I'll choose one for you -- Skousen -- and you probably won't like the result. MilesMoney (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are basing your argument on a logical error. It does not take a historian to properly identify a historian! Skousen is a professor, scholar, author and an Austrian School economist, unaffiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute founded by Rothbard. He is a perfectly good third party source. Skousen is quoted by Casey in Casey's book Murray Rothbard. Skousen is also cited as a reference in our Rothbard article. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Original poster: Now not every ref has to be used, but there are more than enough independent ones to merit use. And the idea that every tenured professor who happens to share some views with Rothbard or his associates, or sometimes publish with one of their groups, means they are not reliable as a source for a factoid or an opinion is total POV deletionism, IMHO. CM-DC talk 19:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please identify one that is independent? Please include the name of the publisher. MilesMoney (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, started putting non Ludwig von Mises in bold and removed one I found was self-published. CM-DC talk 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• This list was generated by an editor's quick search engine adventure, but then its promoters have failed, or in one case refused, to provide editorial, publisher, and other information that would be required to verify the asserted text and evaluate whether any of these is RS. Until they do so there is no basis to accept anything on this list as RS. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• See my response to MilesMoney. Your push to impeach this list because of insufficient citation information shows that you have no better argument. That's pretty weak. You are perfectly free to select one or more of the sources and describe how its stance does not support our use of the word "historian" even though it says so in the cited text. I suggest you start with the CATO Institute's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Enjoy. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Repeating response to @Binksternet: from article talk page: It's not sufficient to use a search engine to come up with a list and insist that they prove your point. WP requires us to verify information from WP:RS according to policy. You are under no obligation to do so, but the burden in this matter is clearly on you. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE. If you choose not to provide the information, your assertion is rejected. If you choose to deny policy as cited you should pursue this discussion. It is nobody's job but your own to prove your case here. The second sentence of your post above is a WP:PA You should ensure that you do not misrepresent other editors' positions nor engage in personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is quite sufficient to list a score of sources to prove one's point. If you, personally, do not think the proof is adequate then you have adopted a position not shared by the majority of observers here. You ask me to read WP:SOURCE even though that policy is about sources as used within articles rather than sources presented in talk page arguments. Similarly BURDEN is about sources used within articles, not on talk page debates. Frankly, a talk page debate can be and often is more informal, with references to "the Raimondo book" or "the NYT obit" usually being quite enough to alert participants to the proper source. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You haven't established that they're sources, which for the purpose of WP article content means sources which comport with the policies which I linked. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What utter bullshit. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think in order to say someone is an historian, we need to show that that is the the mainstream opinion, which has not been shown in this case. Certainly, Rothbard wrote about history, but so do many journalists. TFD (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Of course Rothbard is a historian. The cited sources list him as one, and several of these go into more detail about Rothbard's significant works of history including Conceived in Liberty (about the American Revolution in the late 18th century), The Panic of 1819, and America's Great Depression. These works establish his historian credentials. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there standards for use of these words? I would think that several reliable, independent, mainstream (academic)historians are required. Non-historians lack expertise in determining who fits into the discipline. Co-workers who hew to fringe "revisionist" methodologies also must be looked upon suspiciously. Steeletrap (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

[Note:Put back removed comment per: Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors which the individual who removed it is very well aware with since I have to remind the individual frequently.

Is it my imagination, or the same 3 editors who thought it was ok to use personal blogs to say nasty things about BLPs think that nearly a dozen independent mainstream publications calling someone a historian is not RS? What could possibly be the explanation for such an anomaly? Whatever it is, it makes it necessary to keep bringing issues here and makes it difficult to take their opinions seriously on things like book cover blurbs above. User:Carolmooredc (who did temporary business as a test as CM-DC), 16:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Deletions of posts are in my opinion an extreme measure. The post removed was an accusation of inconsistent application of RS norms, and does not seem to be a personal attack in the appropriate sense of that term here on WP (ad hominem and not concerning information relevant to editing). I have hesitated from reverting. But my understanding of WP:NPA is that it is not intended to apply to cases where an editor is criticized for edits or rationales. If there is a consistent pattern of inconsistent rationales that would seem a relevant point to make.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Virology

I added content about two Human coronaviruses as the source of the common cold to the Common cold article. I cited a study from the Journal of Virology that mentions this fact and cites two articles as the source. The J.Virol. article is about dentritic cells in HCoV infection and not about the epidemiological study it mentions that says HCoV's cause 30% of common colds.

Specifically, it says, “Epidemiological studies suggest that HCoVs account for 15 to 30% of common colds, with only occasional spreading to the lower respiratory tract. Airway epithelial cells represent the primary target of infection.” The authors then cite an article from the Archives of Pediatrics, and Journal of Hospital Infection which report on two studies in neonatal intensive care units regarding the transmission of these human coronaviruses. Here’s a link to the full article that mentions this: http://jvi.asm.org/content/86/14/7577.long

I added this to the Common cold article:. But Doc James reverted claiming that it is based on primary sources and can't be used. . The fact that two human coronaviruses OC43 and 229E are among the many viruses that cause the common cold is well documented in the literature to the point of common knowledge. This fact is often mentioned as background information in journal articles reporting studies on the HCoV's. It seems perfectly reasonable to use this source for the edits. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The individual studies are "primary" - when a later writer refers to earlier studies published in a peer-reviewed journal per WP:MEDRS, the argument that the secondary source is still "primary" fails. has even made it into a RS medical textbook from Oxford. (academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher) Collect (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The textbook linked to above says Coronaviruses are an "important cause", but Collect is right in that WP:MEDRS does state that "Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources; however, they normally contain previous-work sections that are secondary sources", and this seems to apply to "Epidemiological studies suggest that HCoVs account for 15 to 30% of common colds". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Papers discussing new findings frequently provide an overview of existing literature which explains why the authors decided to conduct a new study. While their findings are a primary source, their summary of existing literature is a secondary source. I would like to point out too that some editors are under the misapprehension that if the authors of a study dispute existing literature that they cannot be used as a source for what that literature says. TFD (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky on Operation Menu

User:LudicrousTripe is deleting material sourced to Pawns of War and Sideshow and replacing it with a supposed quotation from a primary source mentioned in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (a work only tangentially related to the article). While Chomsky's opinions on some topics may be notable, my understanding is that as a linguist and polemicist he lacks historical training and therefore shouldn't be used to establish historical facts over academic historians. However, LudicrousTripe assures me that Chomsky is a reliable source for factual claims and insists that my only motive for disagreement must be a personal dislike of Chomsky. Should Chomsky be used to establish the authenticity and historical significance of this quote, and should it replace Pawns of War and Sideshow?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Rather, it's a sliding scale with some sources more reliable than others. Noam Chomsky's area of expertise is linguistics, not history. Given that the Vietnam War happened over 40 years ago, surely there are better sources available from actual historians. On a side note, even if Chomsky's area of expertise were history, we should not use the word "criminal" in Misplaced Pages's voice until there is consensus among historians for using this term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:A Quest For Knowledge I am not using the word "criminal" in Misplaced Pages's voice, the word criminal was used as a direct quote from the Cambodian governments response to the attacks.

Your tone is, as usual, it seems, judging by your talk page, unnecessarily combative. Quite disappointing, as it makes any interaction with you extremely unpleasant. Anyway, let's get this over with.

There are few points I want to make.

1) It was not I who wanted to replace the stuff; it was Balgill1000. My reversion was admittedly trying to cement that replacement, which brings me to my next point.

2) Despite appearances, I do not want to "replace" anything; it appeared to me from your reversion of this Balgill1000 person, and its edit summary, that you had tried to replace Chomsky–Herman with other stuff on the basis that you did not think C–E are RS. I say "appeared" because I've just checked Balgill1000's original edit and it was he/she who had wanted to use C–E as a replacement. Your edit summary led me to my bad conclusion, though I do not seek to put the blame on your for my mistake. My errors are my own. Anyway, just a simple mistake on my part that I wanted to clarify. I am strongly in favour of not replacing/deleting alternative views, even ones I don't like; Misplaced Pages should be a place were all views are aired and the reader can come to their own conclusion.

3) I did not "insist" that your motive for disagreement "must" be a personal dislike of C–E; it was a potential conclusion to be based on a simple point of logic. Let me explain things: I made a conditional statement: if you couldn't point me to where C–E have been ruled out as RS on topics that are to do with US foreign policy, then I could assume that it was nothing more than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. After all, if you have no objective basis that rules them out as RS to which you can point me, the only possible conclusion is that you have a merely subjective basis for not regarding them as RS. Just a simple point of logic. The mere existence of this discussion on this noticeboard tells me there is no Misplaced Pages policy or whatever that excludes C–E as RS, hence my suspicion about a lurking WP:IDON'TLIKEIT appears to have been validated.

To be honest with the admins or whoever deals with this noticeboard, dealing with this clearly and deeply unhappy individual is just so unenjoyable, I am minded to let him just get on and do what he wants with the article. Actually, I'm not minded, I am certain: just let him get on with it. I am not going to make any further posts here. Thank you. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky's been brought to this noticeboard many times, and the response has always been exactly the same as the one User:A Quest For Knowledge provided above; therefore, I could not point to a single "Misplaced Pages policy" that states "Chomsky has been ruled out as RS". I truly thought it would be more informative to discuss this particular matter here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky's writings on recent U.S. foreign policy had been published by academic publishers. There is no reason to believe that a book by him published by Pantheon Books in 1988 is less reliable than a book by a journalist, William Shawcross, published by Washington Square Press in 1979.

The difference in the facts presented by the two sources is that Shawcross said Sihanouk was silent about U.S. bombing, while Chomsky says Sihanouk's government condemned the bombings on 26 March 1969 and Sihanouk furthered condemned the bombings in a press conference two days later.

I would give more credence to Chomsky's version, because it was written later. If Chomsky is wrong then the onus is on TheTimesAreAChanging to provide evidence of that. If he thinks only sources published by the academic press are acceptable then he cannot defend using Shawcross.

TFD (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, when evaluating sources, the main issue is the publisher, because it indicates the degree of fact-checking. Academic publishers for example have independent peer-review while reputable publishers do not publish non-fiction books that are likely to contain substantial errors. Also, they will "withdraw" books that are found to contain substantial errors or plagiarism. The main issue with Chomsky's writings is however not whether he gets his facts right, but whether or not he makes the correct conclusions. But that is a separate issue from reliability. TFD (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Academic publishers for example have independent peer-review - it's a common misconception that academic books are peer-reviewed. They almost never are - at least not in the formal way academic papers are. This is part of the reason that good academic books have extensive footnotes and clarity about sourcing, where relevant. Podiaebba (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction between Shawcross and Chomsky, nor do I even doubt the legitimacy of the quote. The cherry-picked quote has not been demonstrated to have any historical significance, and User:Balgill1000's edit was sloppy. Shawcross is a widely-cited expert on Cambodia, whereas Chomsky has no such expertise.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between Shawcross who said Sihanouk said nothing about the bombings and Chomsky saying he protested them. Kenton Clymer (United States and Cambodia, 1969-2000, Routledge, 2013), confirms that Sihanouk indeed condemned the bombings in a press conference, but that Kissinger had interpreted his earlier statements as an invitation to bomb his country and ignored his later complaints. It could be that Shawcross was relying on the misleading statements of pro-war politicians, either directly from other sources based on their accounts, and was unaware of the press conference.

Shawcross btw is a journalist, not an academic. Note the brief mention of him by Ben Kiernan in "The Cambodian Genocide" (Routledge, 2008), p. 292: "Shawcross, author of Sideshow, a good study of the pre-1975 U.S. intervention and wartime destruction of Cambodia, hung the label of "genocide' on the Khmer Rouge's opponents.... He warned of "2 million dead by Christmas. Fortunately, he was very wrong."

People who write books are not oracles, and even the most reliable sources will have errors. Saying that something must be right because the writer is an expert is an appeal to authority. If you doubt facts in reliable sources, then the best approach is to compare them with other sources.

TFD (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Even in Kiernan's recounting, Shawcross didn't continue to stand by his predictions regarding the Vietnamese invasion after they were discredited. Since Kiernan is a former Khmer Rouge supporter, neither comes out looking very prescient. Sihanouk talked out of both sides of his mouth, but I'd have absolutely no problem with using Clymer's book in that section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Shawcross is the standard account of the US bombing of Cambodia. Kiernan is reliable for the history and politics of the KR, except of course the early stuff that he recanted. Using Clymer seems to be the solution here. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@LudicrousTripe: Actually, you did use the word "criminal" in Misplaced Pages's voice:

On 26 March 1969, one week after the bombings began, the Cambodian government publicly condemned the almost daily bombing by U.S. aircraft, alleging that these attacks were directed against peaceful Cambodian farmers and demanding that these criminal attacks be stopped immediately and indefinitely.

There are no quotation marks surrounding this text at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

LudicrousTripe User:A Quest For Knowledge I will add the appropriate quotations marks to the correction I am making so it will be clear it is not someones opinion or Misplaced Pages's opinion, but the direct quotation of the Cambodian government. Balgill1000 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesTheyAreAChanging, you need to distinguish between facts and opinions. Facts, unlike opinions, are either true or false, and are independent of opinions. I do not know why you think Kiernan is a former KR supporter, but the fact is his article was published in an academic book and does not appear to support Pol Pot. If you have a source that says when Sianouk condemned the bombing out of one side of his mouth, the other side of his mouth said nothing, then please provide a source. TFD (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that academics like Chomsky often provide sources in their books. In this case, even without access to the book, the provision of a quote allows me to find this, which says the relevant quote was sourced by Chomsky/Herman to a US Senate hearing. (This is slightly unsatisfactory as the quote doesn't seem to have been given to the hearing, so was likely cited by someone in it... but still.) Podiaebba (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This Chomsky work isn't an ideal source because its purpose is to critique media constructions, not to tell the history of the period. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes it any less reliable for a quote cited in it. Academics do not generally go around making up quotes. Interpretation and conclusion can be argued about endlessly, sure, but that's not the issue here. Podiaebba (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your link is to Alex J. Bellamy's book, Massacres and Morality (Oxford University Press, 2012). Bellamy uses Herman and Chomsky's book, Manufacturing Consent, p. 270, as a source and says their source was a 1973 U.S. Senate hearing. I have only a snippet view of the senate hearing, but it shows Senator Symington presenting a document that says, "Sihanouk denies he would not oppose bombings 28 March Press Conference." Obviously Chomsky would not quote someone's testimony as established fact, which is why Bellamy feels comfortable in using his book as a source. Scholars frequently use reliable secondary sources without checking all the source documents. Do you think the Senator forged the document about the news conference? TFD (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC):

Do you think the Senator forged the document about the news conference? - that seems like an odd question. Your clarification of the sourcing allows me to clarify: it would have been better if Chomsky/Herman had given more details on the sourcing: cited the document, or the Senator's use of it at Senate hearing X, instead of the vague "Senate hearing X". Podiaebba (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Problematic sources aren't just a simple matter of making false statements. There is a broader and less obvious problem around their focus; Chomsky will focus on different arguments and use different emphasis, compared to a reliable source, so it's not simply a matter of taking a snippet from Chomsky and then verifying it elsewhere; more reliable and neutral sources on that topic area may well make different points, cite different primary sources, put emphasis on other parts of the topic. It's even more important to recognise this problem when writing about controversial episodes of recent history. bobrayner (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to recap. Shawcross claimed that Sihanouk's silence constituted consent. Herman and Chomsky, in their section about about media coverage of the wars in Laos and Cambodia, say Shawcross, who is a journalist, misrepresented Sihanouk. Bellamy reported both versions. Here is a link to the Senate hearings, pp. 158-160 that Herman and Chomsky use.

bobrayner, Chomsky's books from reputable publishers are as reliable as those publishers' other books. In fact it is typical of high quality sources that their writers have opinions, and it is up to us to be neutral not them. No one took a snippet from Chomsky. They took a snippet from Shawcross, then other editors checked to see whether or not he was accurate, and found he was not. Shawcross btw like Chomsky has opinions and like everyone else is not always correct. We could avoid these discussions if instead of challenging sources because we do not like what they say, we instead check facts that we question. That btw is what was done when Chomsky's source was added.

TFD (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we just use Bellamy for this bit? Itsmejudith (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, because Bellamy's book is more recent and came from an academic publisher, unlike Shawcross and Chomsky. I would also add a link to the Senate hearing. The source used by them btw was the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, part of the CIA that openly gathered local news for U.S. government. Bellamy also mentions that in the months leading up to the news conference, Cambodia had complained 100 times to the U.N. about the bombings, confirming that they were not silent about them at the time, as Kissinger and Shawcross claimed. TFD (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD, as someone who actually has a (2004) copy of Clymer's book, I can attest that Clymer describes a more nuanced situation than your cherrypicked quotes: "Three days later when Chester Bowles met Sihanouk, however, the Prince expressed a willingness to have American forces attack Vietnamese communist forces inside Cambodia. Contrary to what he had told Ambassador Deschamps, he did discuss the question of hot pursuit: "In a general discussion of the likelihood of increasing use of Cambodia by VC/NVA sources, Prince said that he would not mind if US engaged in hot pursuit in unpopulated areas. He could not say this publicly or officially, but he would be glad to have this kind of US help in solving his problem. If US engaged VC/NVA on Cambodian territory, both would be guilty of violating Cambodian soil, but the VC/NVA would be "more guilty." He said "You would be liberating us from the VC."...In cases of hot pursuit in remote areas where no Cambodian population would be unaffected, he would "Shut my eyes.""" (pg. 14) "In the first weeks of 1969, Sihanouk's verbal attacks on the Vietnamese communists and the Chinese continued...Later he complained that he could not even visit parts of his own country, because the Vietnamese occupied it. The Americans were encouraged... maintain that on 13 May Sihanouk "for all practical purposes invited us to continue" the bombing. In the press conference, Sihanouk said he had not protested the attacks "because I have not heard of the bombings." No Cambodian had informed him about them, he said, and the Vietnamese would not do so because that would prove they were on Cambodian territory." (pg. 15) "Sihanouk did acknowledge that his army of 35,000 was unable to control the frontier, and those Americans who wanted to bomb Vietnamese forces in Cambodia could take comfort in some of his remarks that suggested he would look the other way. Given his anger at the Vietnamese abuse of his territory and his belief that they were also supporting his domestic opponents, the Khmer Rouge, Sihanouk shed few tears over their casualties. He did, after all, renew relations with the United States, even as the bombing was well underway, and, as President Nixon pointed out, invited the American President to visit Phnom Penh." (pg. 17) In Clymer's summary, there are several notable opinions regarding Sihanouk's role in the bombings (especially because Sihanouk gave the Americans targets to bomb), but Chomsky's is not among them: "What have scholars and other informed observers concluded? The journalist Stanley Karnow, who interviewed Sihanouk at the end of 1967, finds Kissinger's case compelling. Sihanouk "shut his eyes to the bombing," Karnow wrote, and even provided information to the Americans about Vietnamese communist bases. Others are not so certain. Shawcross argues that the Prince's alleged acquiescence was "at least questionable." Historian David Chandler doubts that Sihanouk granted "permission to conduct a full-scale program of bombing." Australian scholar Justin J. Corfield contends that Sihanouk "welcomed the restoration of full relations, in spite of the bombing."...Jeffrey Kimball, in his recent study of Nixon and Vietnam, writes "No one has yet deciphered what Sihanouk really thought."" (pg. 14) Clymer's actual position has a subtle distinction you failed to grasp; namely, while Sihanouk approved of hot pursuit of North Vietnamese forces in under populated areas, he never sanctioned the widespread B-52 bombings: "Sihanouk remained as committed as ever to demanding that all powers respect his territory, and the question of B-52 attacks (which were not closely related to the concept of hot pursuit in any event) was never discussed with him" (pg. 15); "In sum, Sihanouk was never asked to approve the B-52 bombings, and he never gave his approval" (pg. 16). Finally, TFD, if you are not aware of Kiernan's past support for the Khmer Rouge, I really have to question your knowledge of this topic. Kiernan's denial that the KR were murdering millions is at least as offensive as Shawcross' incorrect prediction that the Vietnamese would murder millions, and Shawcross (far from being pro-war or pro-bombing) actually argues against the idea that Sihanouk supported the B-52 strikes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, note that LudicrousTripe has just admitted to being another Iloveandrea sockpuppet.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there still a sourcing question here? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesTheyAreAChanging, if you had a copy of Clymer's book, which confirms the facts reported by Chomsky, and brought this report to challenge those facts, that is very disruptive. You should have said Chomsky correctly said that Sihanouk complained about the bombings and held a press conference rather than misleading us by claiming those facts were false.

The disputed text per your link, is "On 26 March 1969, one week after the bombings began, the Cambodian government publicly condemned the almost daily bombing by U.S. aircraft, alleging that these attacks were directed against peaceful Cambodian farmers and demanding that these criminal attacks be stopped immediately and indefinitely. Prince Sihanouk called a press conference two days later on March 28 in which he emphatically denied denied reports circulating in the United States that he would "not oppose U.S. bombings of communist targets within my frontiers." Your reference to "cherry-picking" btw is misleading and offensive. The issue was merely whether the facts reported were true, and Clymer confirmed them.

BTW, I never claimed to be an expert, I am merely replying to the a thread discussing reliable sources, the criteria for which does not change depending on the subject. As for Kiernan, I never check the backgrounds of scholars, because it is absolutely irrelevant to the factually accuracy of their writings. His article is reliable because it appear in Routledge's Century of Genocide, which is now in its third edition. That the editors, Samuel Totten and William S. Parsons chose indicates that it for the section on Cambodia shows that it is reliable. I notice you have no problem in accepting The History of the Vietnamese Economy (2005), published by the Institute of Economics of the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, which is a division of the Communist government of Vietnam. It seems to me that you apply standards against writers when you disagree with he facts they report and in this case you made no effort to determine if the facts you were challenging were true.

TFD (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason I brought up Kiernan's past was not to discredit him as a source. As Kiernan is the preeminent scholar of the Cambodian genocide, it would be absolutely insane of me to suggest that he fails RS criteria. You brought up sources' pasts by mentioning an inaccurate prediction Shawcross made in 1979.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page, I'd definitely suggest that you include a mention of Sihanouk's public denunciation of the bombing, while also maintaining all contested references by historians and journalists that Sihanouk tacitly approved of or even invited intervention.

There's no reason not to mention Sihanouk's public statements, nor is there reason to delete informed commentaries by academics on the actual position of his government. -Darouet (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Enquiry concerning the RT Network

Can someone tell me, is the RT network (formerly Russia Today) a reliable source? I ask because some editors use it and I would happily do so for some things but I always thought the state-owned nature and the existing dislike of the network in established quarters may have dampened its "reliability" on Misplaced Pages. Can someone please confirm the verdict as I don't know where to look. Thanks.

Also - concerning blogs and material considered non-RS (not forums), are these ok to add on articles as external links? Provided of course no content is drawn from the source in question. Any thoughts? --Zavtek (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the topic. What content do you have in mind?

RT is not appropriate for foreign politics, international relations &c - and if editors are already using it on controversial topics because it says what mainstream sources don't, that's a red flag right there. Maybe it's worth considering on uncontroversial Russian current affairs though. bobrayner (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm awaiting official word on the status. It is hardly relevant what Spiegel.de thinks of it because that netowrk dances to the tune of CNN and the like - they can criticise the "nature" of RT by citing its relationship to the regime but that does nothing to rebut the stories presented and how most of those in turn serve to expose the truth behind the favoured regimes of Spiegel.de. Also what are "mainstream sources"? Those unified in projecting the same vision they like the world to see? My question is whether if something is reported in RT, albeit a figure, an event etc., can this be used? We can use BBC as and when, we can use UN reports as and when, so I just need someone in administration here to clarify the point. Zavtek (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories worsen the problem, rather than remedying it. bobrayner (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mainstream" media shamefully lobbying for western interest is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hard established fact that some people prefer to block their ears to. Zavtek (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To qualify as a RS, RT would need to have in place a system of editorial oversight and fact checking, and have a reputation for accuracy. I assume that the first is not a problem. The second - do we find that RT is trusted as a source by other media organisations? If there are examples where positive comments on its work by otehr media organsiations that would suggest so. On your second question, WP:EL discourages the addition of links to sources which would not qualify as RS. Martinlc (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take it RT does not qualify for citation purpose on reporting facts, and non-RS links should not feature on articles. All clear now. Zavtek (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's safe to use RT as a source for facts, though like any source if they are reporting facts which conflict with facts other RS' are reporting, such may occur aroung highly controversial topics, consipracy theories, WP:REDFLAG would be applied. Being government funded and having a bias viewpoint is more the rule than the exception for newspapers. Sepsis II (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. It is a difficult one. If you're familiar with round the clock news networks, you'll also be aware they tend to go round and round in circles and after two hours, you've seen it all for a whole day. As such, I do watch RT daily but I'll also take in the BBC News Channel (or sometimes SKY/FOX) to get the "wider picture". In my experiences, they don't normally report contrasting facts but they apply their own spin on events. To give an example: whereas CNN for instance will hail elections (in a country which has recently experienced regime change resulting from western action ousting a dictatorship) as free and fair (and all things beautiful), RT will explore the negative aspects such as "how free is it really?" by pointing out voter intimidation, organisational irregularity, violence which serves to spoil the occasion, etc. Now CNN in turn probably won't deny this, and they might even mention it briefly but they'll concoct a report which appears to make the free elections trump the side effects. This gives the impression it is the election itself which is the main headline and that by playing down other events, the western action was justified. RT by exalting the negative elements (such as by deliberately interviewing persons to have supported the ousted regime and now with nobody to vote for and living under threat from loyalists to the new regime) will sell the story that the western actions have not improved things. So it is all about what angle you choose. So bottom line, RT is fine, but to be used cautiously and not as an overriding factor if it contrasts with other sources. Thanks Sepsis. Zavtek (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Just want to point out that RT has been brought up several times on this board - you can find them on the archives. Here is a list

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Is_Russia_Today_a_valid_source
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Russia_Today
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article
• and here is the criticism section from its wikipedia article: Russia_Today#Objectivity.2C_bias_and_criticism

My takeaway from all that, is that RT is probably fine for simple facts ("there was a plane crash on Oct 3..") as it is a news org with editors and fact checking, but that it should not be considered a RS for anything controversial. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got the picture, if it should contrast with anything in other RS sources then this is where to exercise absolute caution. Though naturally the best thing to do on an encyclopedia is to say: ABC reported this+source, though XYZ reported that+source. Cheers. Zavtek (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that we are an encyclopedia. We are meant to provide an enduring, authoritative perspective that reflects reality as best we can. So creating content that is just "he said/she said" is a cop-out and fails our readers. We are WP:NOT here to right great wrongs; if things are getting too ideological and hot in a given article, it probably means that at least some editors involved are forgetting why we are here and are getting lost in WP:RECENT too. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully those occasions when one source states one thing and a rival organisation something else are rare, as I stated earlier, it is the spin they apply to their stories which create the impact. Though if not for "he said this, she said that" then we have the dilemma of choosing one source over another or avoiding mention of crucial information which we know exists. Anyhow, when the time comes, I am sure we will all find a way of presenting things in the encyclopedic manner. Thanks Jytdog. Zavtek (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Source in Art Pope

Is this article a reliable source for the statement of fact:

In 2008, the John William Pope Foundation provided more than 80% of the total budget for each of five leading conservative non-profits in North Carolina.

The relevant quote from the article is

Facing South looked at five of North Carolina's most influential conservative research, advocacy and legal groups -- many of which Art Pope created, or helped create: Capitol Monitor, The John W. Pope Civitas Institute (named after Art Pope's father), the John Locke Foundation, the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law and the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Tax records show that Art Pope sits on the board of directors of all but one of the groups, which by law confers a high degree of power to Pope in managing operations, setting policy, and approving their annual budgets.

Most crucially, Pope supplies at least 80 percent -- and in some cases, nearly all -- of the operating budgets of the groups, a level of purse-string power so dominant that the Internal Revenue Service classifies all but one of them as a "private foundation," a relatively rare designation used only by non-profits who disproportionately rely on a single benefactor.

The source is The Institute for Southern Studies, a non-profit media and research center, which has run a number of pieces on Art Pope's political engagements. Research on this topic by the Institute for Southern Studies has been used in articles by a number of news outlets including The New Yorker and The News and Observer a13ean (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is clearly an opinion-based site, and thus is problematic except for its opinions ascribed as opinion. For instance -- its definition of "leading groups" might simply be "groups associated with Pope" or the like - it does not appear, on its face, to be a dispassionate source for factual claims. What you are left with would be: 'Facing South', the online blog of the Institute for Southern Studies said " Art Pope has structured his relationships with North Carolina's leading conservative organizations in a way that ensures Pope holds a high level of organizational and financial control -- far beyond that seen in most other nonprofits in the state," and that the head of one of the non-profits opposed 'the suggestion that "the existence of organizational or financial relationships between free-market groups in North Carolina must create a locus of control ... the Dark Side of the Force as personified by Art Pope.". Or thereabouts. Collect (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So you don't feel that its a RS for the calling these organizations "leading conservative non-profits", although I assume you would agree that it is a RS for summarizing public records of donations? I don't see issue with using a source which is far from dispassionate for uncontroversial statements of fact (for example the John Locke Foundation is an excellent source for facts about the state budget) but if others disagree with that characterization (which seems quite reasonable to me, being familiar with the organizations in question) then I'm sure a different source could be used. a13ean (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a RS for its opinions stated as opinions. The article is apparently an unsigned editorial piece, and is clearly aimed at promoting its opinions more than anything else. The "80%" bit is not sourced by it to a reliable source for facts, thus fails WP:V. Again -- if there is the remotest problem with a source, states its opinions as opinion, and recall that WP:BLP always applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The 80% bit is sourced by the article to the primary source of tax filings, which are publicly available and plastered all over the internet. Your characterization of the source, an article with a byline published by a well-known research organization, as "unsigned editorial piece" is inaccurate, and the implication that this type source is inadmissible for simple statements of fact has no basis in WP:RS. It's not an opinion that the JWPF donated some amount of money to an organization, it's a simple fact. Fortunately, in this case the selection of the source is independent of the article's content, as there's a number of news articles that make nearly identical statements. a13ean (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to claim the article was written by the organisation? Alas -- that does not pass the risibility test. In general "organisation" articles are, indeed, editorial in nature. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Collect is way off base here. The Institute for Southern Studies has won several Polk Awards for their journalism. These awards are among the most prestigious in journalism, and are generally not given to "opinion-based sites" but rather are given for high-quality investigative journalism. Thus, I think it reasonable to consider Facing South a reliable source for the content in question, and I don't see a coherent policy basis for Collect's objections. MastCell  04:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The source appears to have the byline at the bottom, and is written by Chris Kromm, who according to is the executive editor and publisher of the Institute for Southern Studies. The institute's mission has a strong political bent according to :

The Institute draws attention to the national importance of the South and offers an exciting vision of the region-a place brimming with a capacity for progressive change that challenges its reputation as a monolithic, conservative stronghold. Throughout our history, the Institute has maintained a strong commitment to developing research and publication projects that directly support grassroots organizing, especially efforts for corporate and government accountability.

MastCell is correct to observe that the organization has won awards for journalism and seems to be well regarded for its research and investigations. The tone of the piece itself is quite dispassionate: a blend of facts and analysis but no evident editorializing. The statement in the WP article that the source is intended to support is a concise summary of the facts presented in the piece, and the only part subject to interpretation is the adjective "leading". While caution is merited in general when relying on agenda-driven journalism (from whatever political angle), in this case the reputation of the publisher, the tone of the piece, and the article text it supports all combine to satisfy the determination of reliability. I demur somewhat on the basis of being unable to determine whether the piece (or any of the institute's pieces) is fact-checked, but the publisher's history of journalism awards is a reasonable indicator that they aren't irresponsible in that respect. I say reliable. alanyst 06:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me since the writer and the publisher are respected journalists and the fact appears to be very well researched. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rockforlife.org

Is rockforlife.org reliable for this edit?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if this source were considered in principle reliable (which I doubt), it does not actually support the specific edit. Nor does either of the aoher sources noted in the talk page (except for a claim in a reader's comment on one page). So you were correct to remove the edit. If a source can be found confirming the assertion, there would still be a question, to be discussed on the article's talk page, aboout the weight to give this, and whether it deserved mention. In the absence of a source, it clearly cannot be included. RolandR (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Regnerus used as a source in sexuality articles

Back in August of this year, concern was expressed that Mark Regnerus is a questionable source to use for sourcing sexuality material, especially with regard to adolescents; see Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 2#More POV articles from same author, where NorthBySouthBaranof explained removing sexual material because "the text expressed a negative POV with regards to sexual behavior and it was heavily reliant (in some cases, basically completely reliant) on the questionable work of Mark Regnerus, whose studies involving same-sex parents have been entirely discredited." Other editors have followed in this regard, Meteor sandwich yum at the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article and Saltybone at various articles (for Saltybone, so far November 13 regular time or Misplaced Pages time, and November 14 in Misplaced Pages time); see Saltybone's contributions. Saltybone has even been removing Regnerus from situations that provide WP:INTEXT attribution to Regnerus.

In the discussion about Regnerus at the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article, Student7 stated, "It doesn't seem to me that Regnerus has been proven non-WP:RS. Rather the reverse. See Witherspoon_Institute#Regnerus_Study. This subsection contains pointed criticism of the author, but defense, as well. The criticism seems to be mostly directed at his SSM parenting and not his other research. But even there, many sociologists/psychologists support him. Erasing Regnerus instead of offering an 'answer' to his research denotes WP:BIAS if he is WP:RS, which I believe he is. If we erased all citations where the author held an strong opinion, we would be mostly unable to conduct citation in Misplaced Pages. Gone would be the NY Times, The Washington Post, CBSNBC, and most of the media, and many think tanks, as well. For the record, teenaged births have reached a record high. Sure, birth control. Right. Anyway, these children of teens are most likely to be 'in trouble' with the law later on and to have 'diminished careers.' Right now, it is a national blight, and thwarts all efforts to conduct a War on Poverty or improvements in outcomes with education."

I brought this matter here to this noticeboard because this clearly needs to be significantly discussed among the wider Misplaced Pages community. It is important to remind editors of WP:NOTADVOCATE; do read the Misplaced Pages:Advocacy essay. While I understand the reaction to exclude Regnerus from matters concerning LGBT topics because of his LGBT research, there is nothing that gives us the right to remove him from Misplaced Pages entirely. In some cases, Regnerus is reporting what many or the vast majority of sources report (and I'm not talking about his LGBT research). And like I also often state, WP:Neutral is not about giving equal validity to matters. The WP:Due weight aspect of WP:Neutral makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections), there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources.

Other editors involved in, or related to, this Regnerus matter are Illuminato, Maunus, NinjaRobotPirate, AndyTheGrump, Jaytwist, EBY3221, NatGertler, Zad68, IPs noted at the end of the Talk:Hookup culture#History section discussion, and mostly recently...Dmol (seen reverting Saltybone here; Saltybone's reply is here). Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll quote what I already stated, I saw news reports questioning this researchers methods and the more of his uses on Misplaced Pages I saw - the more suspicious I became. I've seen now two articles that entirely hinge on his studies. Doesn't that seem odd? Doesn't that go against having a neutral point of view? That one questionable researcher's study from 5-6 years ago is the basis for at least two full articles? I hope to be proven wrong but it doesn't seem likely.

At least for the two articles (Pornography and adolescents, and Sexual behavior of American adolescents) that solely rely on this researcher I think Misplaced Pages should be careful of being his mouthpiece, or whatever is being promoted.Saltybone (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Saltybone; there seems a concerted effort to create and rewrite human sexuality articles with a highly biased, reactionary viewpoint, and I think it's veering into WP:PROFRINGE territory. I've essentially given up on editing sexuality articles, as my interest in the topic is simply not matched by my toleration for drama, but I find this trend troubling. I don't know about Regnerus citations being purged from articles without discussion, but I believe that Regnerus could be considered WP:FRINGE. Google News results claim Regnerus and his research to be "discredited", "debunked", and "infamous", among other negative descriptions. Granted, some of these results come from advocacy sites, but this is not what I'd expect to find from a reliable source. At best, discretion and care should be used in citing him and his work. Obviously, biased sources are allowed; it's explicitly stated in WP:BIASED. However, Regnerus' reputation for controversial, non-mainstream opinions and poor scholarship may be too strong to allow him to be used on anything but trivial statements of opinion and non-controversial statements of fact (as determined by consensus on the appropriate talk page). If Regnerus is reporting mainstream opinion, then it should be easy to source such statements to a more reliable source. I would discourage the use of Regnerus as a reliable source, but much of the problem is actually WP:NPOV violations and thus more appropriate to that noticeboard. I have no problem with articles being purged of citations to Regnerus, but I think we should probably discuss it here first and determine consensus on this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As someone very familiar with Misplaced Pages human sexuality articles (as many at this site know), I have not seen a "concerted effort to create and rewrite human sexuality articles with a highly biased, reactionary viewpoint," unless of course referring to Illuminato; Illuminato, for example and as you know, heavily cited Regnerus in a few articles (including "Pornography and adolescents" and "Sexual behavior of American adolescents," two articles he or she created) -- all about adolescent sexual behavior in the United States. Regnerus was already used in several human sexuality articles, but without much emphasis, as partly shown by Saltybone's aforementioned recent edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather not get into that whole discussion here, as it's off-topic and everyone involved has already had their say multiple times, across several article talk pages, RfCs, and deletion discussions. I shouldn't have even mentioned anything. In fact, I think it would be best if I just struck it out and we all just ignore that bit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

On a side note: I usually don't consider advocacy sites with regard to Misplaced Pages content, per the Misplaced Pages policy and essay I cited above. Many advocacy sites disagree with what researchers state, including advocacy sites with regard to what mainstream research states. Nothing new there. Like Saltybone, I also edit LGBT topics...as also seen by my participation at WP:LGBT. But I never let the fact that I disagree with how the mainstream is in some respects with regard to LGBT topics get in the way of my editing Misplaced Pages neutrally. I don't go around trying to give "equal validity" to LGBT matters; this would be against policy anyway, as pointed out above. I accept the mainstream on Misplaced Pages because that is what we are supposed to do, per WP:Due weight. And for a LGBT editor to go around removing Regnerus from any and every Misplaced Pages article, that can certainly be considered as having a biased opinion of/advocate reaction to that source. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you want opinions on whether works by Mark Regnerus are reliable sources in Misplaced Pages? Well, for a start, any study that has been condemned by the American Sociological Association is fringe social science. Not reliable for fact, and probably not worth mentioning as opinion either. Most definitely not good as a main or exclusive source for an article. Having said that, Regnerus is still a practising academic. Any studies he has had published in peer-reviewed journals, and that have not received the opprobrium of the academic community, may be reliable, but we will decide on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Studies in respected peer-reviewed publications are generally credible. In creating encyclopedic articles, such studies should be viewed in the context of the general research conducted on the given topic and weighed appropriately. Certain POV-pushing editors have a tendency to selectively choose research that supports their POV and omit research that conflicts with it. This should not be taken as indicative of the validity of the research, but rather as indicative of a particular editor's attitudes.Jaytwist (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reddit

Hi all, is Reddit is a reliable source? Specifically their AMA or ask me anything ? I ask because a Reddit AMA has been cited, twice, as a source at the Captain Phillips (film) article. The AMA is an online, interactive Q&A with, in one case, Hollywood director Paul Greengrass. However, the only 'proof' that it is supposedly him, is a picture of him sitting in front of a computer, on a third party image hosting site. Does anyone know more about this, and whether we accept this as an acceptable reference? Thanks - thewolfchild 02:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, no, I would not accept that as a reliable source. It's self-published and of questionable authenticity. In the past, Usenet posts by J. Michael Straczynski have been upheld as reliable, as he has a documented history of interacting with fans over the Internet. There's probably even a Misplaced Pages article about that. In a case like this, it's completely unverifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for Cantonese NDA?

The first reference is to what seems to be a forum post at MIT BBS. I used Chrome to get a translation of the entire page which starts "Sender: lzmm (people do not make me, I do not prisoners), the letter area: Military Title: China and the East Asian descent ---- DNA data zz " - looks like data from the " Origin of Chinese Civilization Project". The second source is a peer reviewed paper used for "Among Guangzhou Genetic evidence shows evidence of Caucasian maternal mtDNA in Guangzhou. Yao Yonggang et al. reported that Kivisild detected one W mtDNA out of 69 Guangzhou Cantonese population (1.44%), an common Middle Easterner and Iranian marker with a slight difference to other Cantonese." The paper doesn't use the words 'Caucasian', 'Iranian' or 'Middle Easterner'. When I removed it the first time it was replaced by the IP who added it with the edit summary "Editing a genetic paper.mitbbs for 中国各地DNA数据. This is a popular study edited in many Chinese wikipedia. The other is a Phylogeographic Differentiation of Mitochondrial study in Guangzhou with a mtDNA W marker". I deleted it again and it was replaced with an edit summary saying " Please do not remove this popular Chinese editted on Chinese wiki. The other is also a Chinese study that proves persian presense in guangzhiou". Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, the section is Cantonese people#DNA.Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From Huangzhou science university

Is not a forum..... that's mitbbs ------> http://www.mitbbs.com/ a website regarding military and genetics from the famous university " Huangzhou science and technology "

Iranian marker from the middle east

Haplogroup W (mtDNA) is found in only Caucasoid in significant frequencies especially many Middle eastern/West Asian Iranic groups. It's found in the ethnic Iranian Kurds from Persia/Iran who have 10% mtDNA W Quintana-Murci et al. 2004,and in the Zoroastrian of Iran also known as the Parsi who now lives in India and Iran, they have 17.9% of mtDNA W although their population is less than a 100,000 but they have migrated everywhere. Svan population a Caucasus/West Asian Iranic ethnic group is found 8.3%. This strongly proves the theory that Persians did migrated to Guangzhou and contributed their DNA.

Although mtDNA is also found quite signficant in Europe there is no way this mtDNA W Caucasian marker in Guangzhou came from Europeans

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-W-map.png

The maximum frequencies of W are observed in Finland (9.6%), Hungary (5.2%), Latvia (4.1%), Macedonia (4%) and Belarus (3.7%, but over 5% if we exclude the south). The Finns and the Hungarians are both speakers of an Uralic language, which would imply an Uralic connection with haplogroup W. However other Uralic people have much less and often no W at all. For example the Saami have only 1% and the Udmurts 0%.

Regional hotspots in Catalonia, Brittany-Normandy and Ireland mirror those in the same regions for U5 and V, which are also typical of Finland and Karelia. It's hard to see how all these regions could be connected historically, unless all of them share a common Mesolithic ancestry.

Haplogroup W is also well represented among some ethnicities of the North Caucasus, such as the Karachay-Balkars (8.1%), Avars (8.1%), Adyghe-Kabardin (5.2%), three peoples who also share nearly 5% of haplogroup X.

Outside Europe, haplogroup W is also found at high frequencies among the Tajiks (6.2%), around 1.5% among the Uzbeks, Turkmens and Kazakhs, and at trace frequencies (< 0.5%) among many North Asian ethnic groups (Tuva, Yakuts, Buryats, Mongolians, Koreans, Japanese). The most likely explanation is that W was a minor lineage of the Indo-Europeans. A founder effect in the female Indo-European population could explain their oddly elevated frequency of W.

92.236.36.173 (talk) 8:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Give me a break. No sane person who can read Chinese would consider this particular post on mitbss.com a reliable source. The post begins with a sentence that roughly translates as: "Japanese bastards ... shut up!" The DNA claim in the article should be deleted unless a reliable source can be found. -Zanhe (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A student from Mibbs posted the data that came from Zhenjiang university. It didn't say Japanese bastard just told them to shut up because of the accusation from a Japanese sciencetist who uses blood samples and that said that people from south China are not Chinese but haplogroup Y-DNA and mtDNA shows otherwise that all South Chinese including Cantonese have heavy Chinese blood. But the DNA data is absolutely reliable but I agree you can produce a better source.

Here is the original

http://www.xici.net/d145212234.htm < ------ genetic paper >

Here is the translated

http://translate.google.es/translate?hl=es&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xici.net%2Fd145212234.htm

92.236.36.173 (talk) 5:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A bona fide forum post on a internet portal site (anyone else tries to state otherwise are either legally blind or tries to deceive other editor's lack of language skill)...the author might as well be Albert Einstein and there wouldn't be a snow ball's chance in hell this source can be used as reliable scientific literature. And yes, I am a native Chinese speaker. Jim101 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is posted in almost every site about genetics even in Baidu and Chinese wikipedia. If you can really read Chinese than you will know what the hell this means 《中国人种源头分布一览表》

中华文明探源工程初步结果----DNA数据

92.236.36.173 (talk) 8:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• And besides the fact that Eupedia is not an RS, I still don't see any sign that the peer reviewed article mentions Caucasian, we seem to have some original research here. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• The xici.net link you provided above is another forum post, not a reliable source. Please stop wasting everyone's time unless you can provide an article published in a respectable scientific journal, or at least a reliable news source that quotes the research. -Zanhe (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Zanhe, I sincerely hope you double check next time before making such claims it's not forum. It is a genetic article not a forum because if it was a forum it would have mentioned it on the address bar and comment box would have been given. What about Baidu/Wiki? it clearly mentions the source here and you can't edit the source unless you locked in.

Isn't this reliable enough? SOURCE -------> http://www.baike.com/%E3%80%8A%E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%A3%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E3%80%8B ???

I HOPE TO GOD YOU USE YOUR NATIVE CHINESE READING SKILLS AND READ THIS

Population research 2010

> http://tupian.baike.com/a0_32_85_01300001156138130584852795988_jpg.html

Another source shows Guangdong Han have 68% Han Chinese paternal DNA but only 15% maternal Han Chinese DNA which is also very close to the original study.

SOURCE -------> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I2OMVmp-7mwC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=a+100+percent+paternal+contribution+from+northern+Chinese+Han+but+only+a+34&source=bl&ots=JMzUSnTap_&sig=gPCE7bCmYgNHDdlKOk8ZjTmbqMM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tTmJUvXILomAtAar3IGICw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=a%20100%20percent%20paternal%20contribution%20from%20northern%20Chinese%20Han%20but%20only%20a%2034&f=false

As for the second source. Why must the paper mention Caucasian? would you prefer they mention Mongoloid. How much intelligence does it take to figure out mtDNA W is a Caucasian marker? it doesn't take a genius to understand Haplogroup W (mtDNA) is a Caucasian marker because is dominant in Iranic speaking and Indo-European people. Unless you're telling me Europeans, Iranians and Kurds are not Caucasians. Why such a lack of commonsense?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384943/

92.236.36.173 (talk)10:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an admission of original research if there ever was one. IP is edit warring to keep this in. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And user-edited sites such as Baidu Baike are not reliable sources. If the data were really published on the journal Renkou Yanjiu (Population Research) as the Baidu article claims, we need to find the source of that article (issue no., date, author, etc.) -Zanhe (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a common problem on human population genetics articles that our editors think they are stating an obvious fact when they equate the modern geographical place where a haplogroup is most common, with being the place where that haplogroup must have originated. In fact haplogroups which have spread rapidly for whatever reason tend to show highest frequencies in areas where the wave of expansion has expands to. Serious publications look more at other indicators in order to determine likely places of origin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeanddate.com

I would like to get the community's opinion on whether timeanddate.com can be considered a reliable source. Another user expressed their interest in using it to source various time zone statements in the articles, but I am not convinced this site qualifies (even though the information it contains is most likely to be accurate).

As per WP:RS, a reliable source is one that qualifies as a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Timeanddate.com is published by what looks like a private company whose only claim to fame is running this website, it does not say where the data come from, gives only vague assurances that its "employees are experienced and trained in their fields", and its list of accolades includes praises about the site's usability, features, and breadth of coverage but not on its accuracy. There is no "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" to speak of, and that's the most important aspect of a source that can be considered reliable.

An outside opinion on this would be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2013; 14:59 (UTC)

I am the other user that Ezhiki refers to above. Time and Date appears a reliable source to me, and it is mentioned in various sources. However, my query was a wider one, relating to the availability of English-language time zone sources in general, so it would be useful to have views on other such sites as well e.g. , or indeed any other potentially reliable time zone sites you are aware of. Eldumpo (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the US Naval Observatory page: http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/images_aa/TimeZoneMap0210.png/view

It may not go into some of the fine detail that some sources do, but it certainly has a reputation as a reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That one is most certainly reliable, but unfortunately it is the fine details (populated places, specific political and administrative divisions, etc.) that are in need of being referenced. The USNO map can be overlaid onto a detailed map, of course, but then it would be original research...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2013; 17:04 (UTC)

I have used Timeanddate for many years in many countries and never caught it making a mistake. It has also received quite a number of favorable reviews in third-party sources. So I think you should consider it reliable, though it can depend on exactly what information you wish to take from it. A higher source you should consider is the IANA time zone database (known as the tz database until IANA took it over, if I understand things correctly). There are lots of bits of software that use the database and these could be considered reliable if their copy of the database is up-to-date. I notice on their software list that Timeanddate is one of the places using it. Zero 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As I previously pointed out, the concern is not about the accuracy of the source, it's about its meeting Misplaced Pages's reliability criteria, which explicitly require the source to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis mine). None of the "favorable reviews" (and I assume you are referring to these) mention the site's accuracy, only its usability, breadth of coverage, and convenience. While those are good features to have, none of them count towards the reliability criteria. The website itself does not clarify where the data actually come from, which is another reason why it can't be treated as a reliable source.

As for the IANA database, that's a very helpful suggestion; thank you. I see no reason why it can't be used directly instead of the websites which lift the data from it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 18, 2013; 17:46 (UTC)

Vulture.com

I am wondering if Vulture.com is a reliable source. I am not familiar with the source, and I immediately believe the source is questionable at best. The source is this one, and was added by an IP editor here. From regular news sources, I am not seeing anything about status downgrading of the injury from a stab to a severe scratch as the vulture source claims:

• CNN

  • A Comic-Con attendee stabbed another near the eye with a pen Saturday after they got into an argument over whether one was sitting too close to the other, police said.

• USA Today

  • A stabbing Saturday night in a packed auditorium at the Comic-Con International pop culture convention temporarily brought the presentation of some of the most highly anticipated films to a halt.

• Washington Post

  • A stabbing occurred today at Comic-Con in Hall H, the largest auditorium in the San Diego Convention Center.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Vulture.com is New York Magazine. It's definitely a reliable source. I've used it in a few articles, myself, but, like you, I was initially skeptical. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, but the source does not provide where they got this updated information, whereas the three sources I linked above do. So would including it without other reliable sources verifying the Vulture.com source, would including it be giving it undue weight?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

They probably got it from the police, but who knows. It's a reliable source, though, so we have to assume that it went through their fact-checking process. For something this minor, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If it still bothers you, you could always attribute it to the source: According to Vulture.com, the stabbing was later downgraded to a "severe scratching". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go with that suggestion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Might statements by academic writers sometimes be Primary?

I would appreciate comment on whether my view or Astynax's is the more correct interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy, as reflected in our exchange at Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements#EST

• I said:

So are you saying that anything written by an "academic" is automatically a secondary source? I should have thought it was obvious that writings that cited primary sources and analysed them would be secondary sources, whereas writings that did not cite other sources, but expressed an opinion of the author (which presumably does happen from time to time) would be primary sources establishing that the author in question does hold that opinion. DaveApter (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• And he replied:

A scholar's published works within their field of study are secondary sources. A work by an academic could still be a primary source if the person is writing about him/herself or about experiences outside his/her field of study. • Astynax talk 18:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing special about academic writings that make them secondary sources. An academic could perform a scientific experiment and report on it. That's a primary source. Or he could write a review of other people's experiments; that's secondary. Or he could write a textbook or an encyclopedia article summarizing secondary sources. That's tertiary. As with independence and reliability, determination of primary, secondary or tertiary status must be made on a case by case basis according to content of the work and sources cited. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes from an experiment or isolated studies are not the type of thing DaveApter is disputing. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars." That should answer his question, though coming from me it likely will not. • Astynax 21:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

While what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says is correct, "secondary" and "reliable" are two different concepts. If I do an experiment, write about it and publish that in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, that publication may be reliable, but it is still primary. If I read a bunch of papers on moon rock composition and write in my blog that in summary, the moon is made of cheese, that publication is secondary but unreliable. Both WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:WPNOTRS recommend that not only the sources be reliable, per WP:RS, but the best sources for writing WP articles should also be secondary. A more detailed explanation of primary, secondary and tertiary as WP defines them is at WP:PSTS. --Mark viking (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources referenced which were DaveApter has been questioning are all clearly secondary sources, and hopefully your explanation has made that clear. What DaveApter has been questioning is the synthesis of primary sources made in secondary sources authored by academics. • Astynax 22:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A scholarly work is a secondary source for the facts it presents and a primary source for the writer's opinion. When it discusses opinions expressed in other works, including those by the writer, it is a secondary source for those opinions. TFD (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mark viking's two posts: a scholarly work can be primary, secondary or tertiary or a mixture of the three (which is not always easy to untangle in any useful way), and reliability is a separate concept to both being scholarly, and the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction. I think this is not inconsistent with what TFD says. I would ask Astynax to explain a bit more about the position posted above. At first sight I do not agree with Astynax. A scholar can be primary in their specialised field: when they are doing something "original". OTOH that does not mean we can not cite such primary works. It might be good to give more specific details from the case at hand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I had already noted, in the quotation from me that DaveApter gave in his original question, that secondary sources can contain primary material. I'm quite aware of that. The works in question are instances of eminent scholars pulling together threads of research from various sources and producing a meaningful presentation. By its very nature, producing a secondary source involves author synthesis, which is not at all a problem with reliable scholars working under reliable editors publishing under an academic imprint. Author synthesis is intrinsic to every aspect of producing a secondary source, and it is wrong to suggest that this renders a secondary source into being a primary source. These are clearly (to most anyone) secondary sources unless the term is to be parsed into meaninglessness. In the case at hand, there are multiple citations for the entry DaveApter has attempted to blank (and a much greater number of backups are possible that it seems ludicrous to add at this point). Full quotations are provided in the footnotes for the EST entry at List of new religious movements, should you wish to examine them. • Astynax 19:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion just emphasizes how useless the primary/distinction is for basing policy on. The boundary divides too many different things at different places and has very poor correlation with either verifiability or reliability. Zero 10:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your extremely helpful comments to clarify the general issues. It would indeed be helpful to get some feedback on the specific case from non-involved editors if anyone has the patience to trawl through the discussion at Talk:List_of_new_religious_movements. The situation as I see it is as follows: Astynax has a strong desire to have Erhard Seminar Training (est) included in that list. I (and several other editors) feel strongly that this is inappropriate as it was a personal development training scheme which was offered between 1974 and 1984, and was neither religious nor a movement as these words would normally be understood. Astynax argues that several authors have described it as a NRM and this is definitive, despite the fact that several other authors have stated clearly that it is not. Those who have referred to est as a NRM generally have not provided any references to primary sources elsewhere to back up their categorisation, or have merely mentioned it in passing, or have referred to it with explicit qualifications. Astynax has also claimed that the expression 'New religious movement' is a specialised term used by academics in some way other than the meaning of the words in everyday language, although he is unable or unwilling to say what this specialised meaning might be or to point to any reliable source to back up this assertion. Astynax has also modified the lead to the List of new religious movements to better accommodate his interpretation in a manner that seems to me to violate Misplaced Pages:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Selection_criteria. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop impugning my motives and shopping your baseless accusations to yet other talk pages. • Astynax 19:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

the actual difficulty is trying to categorize something by a single word. The world of philosophy/religion/self help/etc. is not divided into things that are or are not "new religious movements". An author, scholarly or not, can use the term however they please, and it's the sort of thing where no statement is really authoritative. If I say it is, it means really that I think it has some basic characteristics of one, and if I say otherwise, it means I think that t any apparent similarities are not fundamental. All we can do here is give an accurate description and the reader will think of it as they judge best. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it OK for "In popular culture" sections of articles to contain unsourced lists?

I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question but here goes anyway. The article Jezebel which I went to a lot of trouble to re-write and improve as it had been in a very poor state for years, has a list at the end "In popular culture" which grows longer and longer with editors adding unsourced and, it seems to me, unverifiable information such as somebody called a hurricane "Jezebel" in some movie, a character in a video game has "Jezebel" as a first name, there is a long list of pop songs called "Jezebel". How does anybody know that any of this stuff is even accurate if it is OK just to stick in such bits of trivia with no source? My inclination is to delete all of it except what is cited to a verifiable source, but is that an OK thing to do? Or would it be better to move it all into another article "Jezebel in popular culture"? but I still don't see how it is OK to have an article consisting of a list of unsourced tidbits of trivia. Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If a particular movie, video game, or the like, is claimed to have mentioned the topic of the article in a certain way, that IS a citation. Of course, the source must be published, and sufficient information must be given to identify the source. The source need not be online. Ephemeral sources ("Joe Blow at the University of Podunk commencement in 1965 stated that Jezebel...") are not acceptable. Policy does not say that a statement may be removed because the citation does not adequately specify the location of the supporting material within the source, but I'd be inclined to remove the statement if finding the supporting material within the source is unreasonably difficult (I'm not gonna view a two hour movie to find one sentence if the person citing the movie fails to give some idea of where the sentence is within the movie). Jc3s5h (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas - all too often such "lists" are lists of unsourced trivia which, frankly, are neither encyclopedic in nature nor value. Collect (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

To verify that something was 'in popular culture', rather than just 'mentioned in some random video game', one would need a secondary source - how else would one know that 'popular culture' had noticed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And WP:UNDUE applies as well. Only the appearances that have had impact and notice by third parties are really worth including. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When compiled by someone knowledgeable of the topic (provided they are kept to a reasonable size with respect to the rest of the article and only the most influential appearances are documented), those lists are in some cases one of the most valuable resources that Misplaced Pages can hold, and one that can only be compiled by our collaborative process. To that end, it's recommended to include an inline reference for each item, preferably from third parties whenever possible, or else a reference to the work containing the mention.

For those other entries that aren't covered in reliable sources, the relevant policy advise is to move them to the talk page to provide an opportunity to other editors to study them and eventually include them in the article if some quality sources exist. It's a good idea to maintain a list at the talk page of those removed entries, as many could belong in a proper article. Diego (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and AndyTheGrump on this point; firstly, these "lists" are usually just collections of unsourced trivia, and secondly, we shouldn't really say that something is a touchstone of popular culture if it's not actually supported by any secondary sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Such items are only acceptable when accompanied by citations to sources that have identified them as being relevant to the portrayal of the item in popular culture. It's not enough to have a citation that verifies that Hello Kitty appeared in an episode of a random sitcom, you need a citation that analyses the relevance of that appearance of Hello Kitty.—Kww(talk) 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the helpful replies. I will act on your advice.Smeat75 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Japanator.com reliable for reviews?

Is Japanator.com reliable for manga and anime reviews?

I'm drawing from an archived project discussion.

Japanator has been interviewed by Anime3000 and Anime News Network's ANN Cast. Extremepro (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a reliable source of criticism of its journalists who are more familiar with the topic, but this is not Ebert & Roeper and their opinions are still just opinions. Like all things, the actual content of the review would be subject to analysis and the depth and insight of the reviewer ultimately is affirmed or rejected by whoever cites it. In disputes, it should be case-by-case and ultimately be included or removed on the grounds that the review is accurate and complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Huffington Post/Daily Mirror

What are the feelings about using the Daily Mirror and the Huffington Post as sources for claiming a death is "unusual", as was done in this edit to List of unusual deaths?

Daily Mirror link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-having-sex-railway-tracks-2323644

Huffington Post link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/train-tracks-sex-run-over-ukraine-_n_4017485.html

—Kww(talk) 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Dailly Mirror is a screaming healine tabloid whose bread and butter is sensationalizing content. They are not a reliable source for much of anything.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Huffington Post passes as a WP:Reliable source, and is generally accepted on Misplaced Pages as one, but all WP:Reliable sources have their limit. Whether or not the Daily Mirror is a WP:Reliable source, it generally is not accepted on Misplaced Pages by very experienced Misplaced Pages editors; it seems that it's tabloid journalism, not simply a newspaper employing tabloid (newspaper format). Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In any case neither article uses the word "unusual" or any synonym or near synonym, so they are not evidence for the statement. That they are in a section entitled "weird news" is not sufficient to make the claim. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually of the opinion that any column used to collect "weird news" is inherently unreliable for classifying things as unusual, even if it uses a synonym in the text. There's too much of a motivation to classify things that way simply to fill column inches.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

More important, I am less willing than I used to be to trust the HP as a RS in all cases: consider the similarity of their article to that in the Mirror. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

while parts of the Huff Post are generally reliable, look at the other headings along with the "Weird News" section under the "Huff Post Live" banner: Dumb Crime, UFO, Conspiracy Theories, World Records, Paranormal, Ghosts editorial snark, "Ghosts" aren't "Paranormal"?, Anatomical Wonders, Zombie Apocalypse.

This is definitely their "Tabloid" pull out section and not the work for which they get Journalism awards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Huffington Post used to be under community restriction for use in sourcing facts. That has been slowly changing as editors are able to demonstrate that some material from HP is original (not repeated from another source) and was written by a journalist accredited in their field and is a straight forward news story and not a blog or opinion piece. The reason why Huffington Post gets a lot of editors in an uproar is that we did have restrictions on them when they were more purely a blog site. That has changed greatly and discussions on this board have covered that and consensus seems to recognize that HP can be used as RS in some cases. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid publication in the sense that it is generally seen as gossip, sensationalistic and little editorial over site allowing for outlandish claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: On October 29th, an IP changed The Huffington Post Misplaced Pages article to partly state that the newspaper is a tabloid; I changed it back to "blog" earlier this hour. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Hassan as "cult expert"

Steven Hassan is a self-described "cult expert" who has self-published three books on the topic of "cults". The title is largely a marketing term, as he isn't held as an expert by published cult researchers, and his testimony as an expert has been rejected from a court case in the past (see Kendall vs. Kendall).

In the article, the term re-appears in the sidebar, backed by two references - one by the New York Magazine

"Data Mind Games". New York Magazine (New York Media Holdings). July 29, 1996. p. 52.

Jump up ^ "Ex-Moonie says cult groups are preying on russians; Analyst sees Ex communists as easy targets". The Globe (The Globe Newspaper Company). November 22, 1992. p. 9.

and one by The Globe.

"Ex-Moonie says cult groups are preying on russians; Analyst sees Ex communists as easy targets". The Globe (The Globe Newspaper Company). November 22, 1992. p. 9

"Cult expert" is an extraordinary claim, and one that researchers in the area do not agree with, with Michael Langone, David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo and Kevin Garvy expressing their wariness about his methods. (Recovery from Cults, Michael Langone (ed), 1993, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, ISBN 0-393-70164-6, p. 173-177)

So the claim is clearly an extraordinary one, and one that doesn't appear shared amongst others in the anti-cult movement. The media isn't qualified to make the distinction, and therefore the sources provided are not reliable in context to establish that Hassan is a "cult expert". Academic sources by researchers in the same field are required. Zambelo (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The designation is descriptive rather than any sort of official title. The term is sometimes applied to other notable people who study religious movements in reliable sources, so I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with its usage. I did a quick search and found several mentions of Hassan as a "cult expert" in scholarly sources and have added those. Hassan obviously rubs some people the wrong way, and there are references (particularly from the 1980s and 1990s when he was criticized for advocating deprogramming) out there that label him as "self-proclaimed cult expert" as you have already noted. There is no reason that both positions may not be noted and cited to sources, though disputes over whether this is notable and how to present is more a subject for WP:NPOVN than here. • Astynax 12:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

"Expert" has specific meanings and connotations beyond that of "writer about cults" which is what the sources appear to support. One may write about a topic, and be noted for such writing, without being a source for "authoritative knowledge" on a topic. Using a non-contentious turn of phrase is likely the way to go. Collect (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My issue with that is that the reliable sources don't say that he has "authoritative knowledge" of cults, they say he is a "cult expert." Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A title on a local news video is not a "reliable source" for such a claim as the program does not make that claim at all -- the host only says he is an author and a mental health counselor-- it is merely what someone at the station thought would be a "neat title" for the segment, nor is his self-published biography usable as a source here. Now can yu provide an outside absolutely RS source for the claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

well since there are no licencing agencies for "cult experts" we have to depend on the reliable sources and stick with their verbage according to my read of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, that being said, I believe that Astynax added two other sources which will probably satisfy your call for an "absolutely rs." Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

here are the sources Astynax provided us with:

• Chalcraft, David J. (2011). "Jews for Jesus: Occupying Jewish Time and Space". In Stern, Sacha (ed.). Sects and Sectarianism in Jewish History. Leiden: BRILL. pp. 220–221. ISBN 978-90-04-20648-9.
• Jones, Kathryn A. (2011). Amway Forever: The Amazing Story of a Global Business Phenomenon. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-470-48821-8.
• Szalavitz, Maia (2006). Help at Any Cost. New York: Penguin/Riverhead. p. 66. ISBN 1-59448-910-6. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking about specifically. Misplaced Pages uses secondary sources and does not accept original research (for or against). That said, are you arguing that there aren't reputable sources to describe him as a 'cult expert', that most reputable sources don't describe him as a 'cult expert' or, some reputable argue against describing him as a 'cult expert' (and a counter statement for balance is required)? AnonNep (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• • The new references:**

The first, Chalcraft, David J. (2011). "Jews for Jesus: Occupying Jewish Time and Space". In Stern, Sacha. Sects and Sectarianism in Jewish History. Leiden: BRILL. pp. 220–221

refers only to Hassan as a "cult expert" when it quotes the Globe article

“when the Boston Globe reported the story, they quoted cult expert Steve Hassan (executive of the US anti-cult Freedom of Mind Centre

the second is written by a business writer, Kathryn A Jones.

An expert is defined by peers in the same area of study. An extraordinary claim such as this demands reliable sources per WP:RS. Zambelo (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

AnonNep, I'm asking whether the title "cult expert" is neutral, given that no published cult researcher, academic or court has given him this title, and that it is a self-given label that is more of a marketing tool than anything else. Cult researchers have questioned his methods and findings. At best I think he should be described as "cult couselor" as per his profession, and then the assertion of "cult expert" should be included within the article and formulated "Steven Hassan has been referred to as a "cult expert" ". Zambelo (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I tend to agree. Placing 'has been to referred to as...' in the article, with relevant sources, but changing the infobox, as suggested by Coffeepusher, below. The latter is in Misplaced Pages's 'voice' and should take the more neutral wording.

You said "An extraordinary claim such as this demands reliable sources per WP:RS," all of the sources given do qualify under WP:RS.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

do you have a policy which supports your use of the word "expert" being someone who "is defined by peers in the same area of study."Coffeepusher (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

However the third reference should qualify your request for a academic, peer reviewed, reliable source where Hassan is identified as an expert by peers in the same area of study. The book is academic, called a "must read" in a review by Dr. Steve K. D. Eichel within the peer reviewed publication "Cultic Studies Review", and notable enough to have generated a wikipedia article Help at Any Cost. The text is "As former Moonie and cult expert Steven Hassan puts it..." Coffeepusher (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Chalcraft clearly is not making a distinction apart from his sourcing the term to the Boston Globe article which is not exactly a source strongly regarded for such valuations. The term was specifically in reference to the rest of that section ... where it is clear that Hassan wrote a letter to the paper saying he had been "misquoted" making the claims in that article pretty much useless as far as deeming him an "expert" is concerned. The Amway bit states that MLMs are cults in collusion with the FTC and the Republican Party -- dare I say "conspiracy theorist"? Hassan was mostly cited as favouring legislation signed by President Obama. I rather think that if one does not agree with Obama, that does not make them a "cult." The author has no scientific background whatsoever to deem anything a cult, or anyone a "cult expert." In short, neither source presented is sufficient to make the contentious claim that Hassan is deemed a "cult expert". You need sources written by folks remotely knowledgeable in the field of cults. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

please see comment above.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

also I am unclear as to what policy you are quoting where "you need sources written by folks remotely knowledgeable in the field of cults." I've read through WP:RS and from what I understand it is the editorial process itself that vets the material not specialized knowledge, especially when I can't find any WP:RS that dispute the claim.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your are reaching WP:IDHT territory. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for contentious claims -- and no source you have furnished thus far meets that standard, and you appear not to note that you have a very small group of editors here supporting your position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree about WP:IDHT... I see opinion as pretty evenly split here, which makes sense since this is hardly a black-and-white question. The most practical answer is probably to describe Hassan as "an author who has written extensively on cults", thus avoiding the "e" word while retaining descriptive accuracy. MastCell  23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources are context-specific. (see Reliability in specific contexts - Biographies of living persons). Accordingly a reliable source, especially for an extraordinary claim, must be strong enough to support the claim.

Also see the section on Academic consensus, in particular regarding blanket statements. Also see WP:RSOPINION.

Stating that Hassan is a "cult expert" is a non-neutral blanket statement, and doesn't support or allow for other viewpoints on the matter A neutral title should be chosen (counselor, per his degree) and the matter of whether he is considered an expert or not should appear in the article body with sources for and against this claim.

Sources should be strong, therefore from academic sources in the same community of practice (ie. academic writings about "cults"). Zambelo (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

you misread WP:RSOPINION, which states that some reliable sources publish opinion pieces so you should be aware. But as said above, Help at Any Cost should aliviate all of your concerns as it is a reliable source, has great reviews by the cult studies communities, written by a member of that community, and identifies him explicitly as a "cult expert." Coffeepusher (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not use the term per "Puffery". Context is usually provided when the term is used, i.e., someone is considered an expert in academic circles, in the courts, or even a small group of people. Better to say he specializes in cults, explain what others say about his work, and let editors for their own conclusions. TFD (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears we have reached a loose consensus, I have kept the above stated references, and changed the infobox from "Cult Expert" to "Mental health counselor, specializing in cults." That would appear to satisfy what everyone has been saying to do with the verbiage in the sources. Are there any objections? Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It'll do. Although this is still far from objective, since he follows his own definition of what constitutes a cult, and has created his own lists. Zambelo (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard article

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.

Article: Murray Rothbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Rothbard endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke."

The source is James Kirchick, "The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid", The Daily Beast, 25 April 2013. Kirchick wrote that Murray Rothbard "published a separate newsletter with Rockwell that, among other Lost Causes, supported the gubernatorial candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke." He provided no sources.

I assume Kirchick is referring to The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, published April 1990 to November 1998, as I can find no evidence that they published another newsletter together at that time. Here is a link to the newsletter. However there is no mention of an endorsement of Duke, although his campaign is discussed in the January 1992 issue in Rothbard's article, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." That article, which was written after Duke ran for governor, is already extensively discussed in the Misplaced Pages article.

While I disagree that Kirchick's article is an opinion piece rather than a news article, and therefore would not be reliable for facts, per the "Statements of opinion" section of the Reliable Sources policy, I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing.

The main issue is that the secondary source incorrectly reflects the primary source it is reporting. I would welcome comments on whether Kirchick's article should be used.

TFD (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable, for the reasons you give. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD and Judith, could you each elaborate on the reasons for "I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing." ? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable. Find a decent academic or similar source that has made the point in the intervening 20 years. That's a long time to pass before some journo decides to make a passing remark - if it is of any significance then I'd expect it to have been referred to more recently. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the standards for fact-checking in journalism are not as high as for peer-reviewed academic writing, partly because journalism operates under tighter deadlines, and also because journalists and their fact-checkers typically do not have the same expertise as people who have PhDs in the subjects they are writing about. Also, the less relevance of the topic of a source to the topic of a Misplaced Pages article, the less likely it is to be correct. For example a book called The Biography of George Washington is likely a better source for what his teeth were made of than a newspaper article called "Demonstrators gather outside Washington Monument" that mentions his "wooden teeth" in passing. Your user page says you have " published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals." Would you normally see those two sources as equivalent? TFD (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable. Kirchick clearly gets his facts wrong, as can be seen in the primary source. As intelligent Misplaced Pages editors we have the choice to ignore faulty sources. This is a case in which that decision should be exercised. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying we have a reliable source, but we should ignore it because it conflicts with your own interpretation? MilesMoney (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We have two reliable sources for what the newsletter said, the newsletter itself and a secondary source that reports what is in it, and must choose between them. TFD (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We have the primary source for the words and we have a secondary source to interpret them. I don't see how Carol's personal interpretation should be treated as more reliable than that of our reliable secondary source. If that source really is wrong, why can't she find another secondary source to impeach it? This is the very worst sort of original research, where an editor just disregards sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Two points: I think Kirchick's Daily Beast article is an opinion hit peice, not a news story, because it reports only on the most negative things possible about all the individuals he mentions in order to scare people out of giving an organization any credibility. I recognized the smear tactics against the people I was familiar with and have to assume there's a good degree of exaggeration about the others who I don't know, though I'm not going to go fact checking it.

The reason Kirchick is inaccurate is it says Rothbard "supported the gubernatorial candidacy of...Duke". However, anyone who verifies by reading the article sees Rothbard's talking about Duke's anti-government "populist" platform, that he also mentions a couple other "populists" who did well in elections, that he says that reformed Klansman like Robert Byrd aren't all that different than reformed Weathermen (wasn't a reformed one]], Bill Ayers in fact a major influence on our current president?), and points out the platform/campaign has issues "paleo" conservatives/libertarians agree with. (A wikipedia editor goes even further than Kirchick to turn the dubious "supported" candidacy into an OR interpretation, writing "endorsed endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy." User:Carolmooredc talk 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're uncomfortable with "endorsed" and want to stick to the actual word used by our source -- "supported" -- then I wouldn't object strongly. But you can't just remove the whole thing just because some people would be bothered by it. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What's your non-Kirchick source for "supported"? Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

To MilesMoney: I wrote: The reason Kirchick is inaccurate is it says Rothbard "supported the gubernatorial candidacy of...Duke" He's already wrong. Note that several higher quality sources that discuss the article, which I mentioned on the talk page, write only in terms of Rothbard agreeing with the "populist" platform. See NY Times, Slate and Reason; they do not mention Rothbard endorsing or supporting the campaign per se. And the platform already is discussed in the same paragraph, so it's both inaccurate and redundant. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of policy, I believe the community consensus has been that it is not a violation of WP:RS to decide to NOT to use something in a source based upon common sense editor rationales, such as that an isolated source contains an error or is not consistent with other sources. Indeed WP:RS never tells us we have to use any source, only which ones we can use. Sources commonly contain minor errors or points where they disagree with other sources, and such real world complexity needs to be taken into account when interpreting WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the eminently sensible comment from an uninvolved editor. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

St Peter's College, Auckland

The book Rick Maxwell, St Peter's College, Auckland, Simerlocy Press, Auckland, 2008 is being used in multiple BLPs. uses of book. The author Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (the editor who has inserted all uses of the book self identifies as the same name) does not appear to be recognised as an expert. The publisher Simerlocy Press, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is not an established or well known publisher. I am of the opinion that this is not a reliable source. Before I remove all uses of it I'd like a second opinion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any sign that this "press" has ever published anything but this single book. It's not utterly clear that the publisher or the book even exists, given that every reference I can see traces back here. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Perth Group website

The Perth Group website is a dissident (or "denialist") HIV/AIDS web which main claim is that the existence of the HIV virus is not proven. I think the next text which describes who belongs to that group here should be a reliable source :

The Perth Group ... The three original members are the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar F Turner and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou. Over the years several other scientists have contributed to or joined the Group. These are physicists Bruce Hedland-Thomas, David Causer and Barry Page, Florida USA biochemist Todd Miller and Colombian physician/medical researcher Helman Alfonso.

I think a sufficient condition to consider that text as reliable would be to show the people responsible of the web are certainly Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues, because if that is the case, with the text they would be simply speaking of themselves.

In this site (not a dissident site), it can be read:

the HIV “dissidents” led the way, with Valendar Turner and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth group taking the stand, giving a link to The Perth Group web.

In this site (an official HIV/AIDS web), it can be read:

the Perth Group of medical scientists and physicians from Australia. The Perth Group (led by Eleni Papadopulos); A small band of Australian scientists and physicians; The Perth Group appears to have only two active members: a medical physicist called Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and an emergency physician called Valendar Turner; and it's given a link to The Perth Group web as a reference (see below, references 3 and 40)

And there are several other dissident sites in which it's acknowledged The Perth Group web are certainly Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues. For example here, in which it's written exactly all the text under evaluation, and a link to The Perth Group web.

The article which would be affected is the HIV/AIDS denialism article. The text "Eleni Papadopulos et al." would be substituted by The Perth Group, which is a Misplaced Pages article.

Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Groups don't publish articles, authors do. That is my view on this. When I write an article it is not attributed to my university, but to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The matter here is if I have shown The Perth Group (i.e. the people responsible of The Perth Group web) and Eleni Papadopulos et al. are the same people. If that is the case, they have chosen "The Perth Group", voluntarily, as an alias identifying themselves. So I see no problem simply using that alias here in Misplaced Pages. Likewise, I see no problem you using "Dbrodbeck" instead of your real name. Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Scientific articles are published by individuals. Oh and my real name and identity are clearly visible on my user page, if that, for some reason, interests you.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

And "The Perth Group" denotes individuals, as any alias. Peter the Roman, --2.136.95.135 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In academia, a principal investigator may publish an article within their capacity with a larger group and credit the group or institute within the article, while at the same time publishing an article that is not affiliated with the group or institute. It would be inaccurate to say that that second article was credited to the institute or group. Basically, whether the authorship of an article can be credited to a group needs to be by individual article. The "Perth group" hosting articles on their website is not an explicit claim of authorship. As a more general question, if this "group" is two or three people why are we needing to credit their work in-article to the group, anyways? VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment in any article where "the Perth Group" label is to be used (and it does appear in reliable sources, as I said on Nov 7) then it should be defined on first use using the authors' names as reflected in RS. From that point in that article, we should adhere to clarity and common usage to guide selection of the label versus the authors' names. It would be important NOT to imply that others are included in "the Perth Group" unless reliable sources indicate that clearly to be the case. -- Scray (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

imdb as a source for credits

I recently discovered an imdb help page that is similar to Misplaced Pages's help desk. I found something encouraging. While a lot of the information on imdb is not reliable, I saw someone on that help page advise that before a certain person could be added to the credits, a person working for imdb would need to be shown a screen shot of that person's name in the credits. I should have saved a link to that information, and when I get to another computer where I feel safe going to imdb, I will do that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't usually need a source for credits; the work itself is a primary source. I use the IMDb to refresh my memory when I can't remember character names or other trivial details, but I prefer to use primary sources (poster, the credits sequence in the film, etc) for credits. When the IMDb credits are listed as certified by a union, that's pretty authoritative; however, once in a while there are discrepancies in minor areas, such as a producer listed as an executive producer (or vice versa). I don't have a problem with people referring to the IMDb when they're filling in an infobox, but they should at least use common sense as a sanity check and have the good sense to defer an editor with a more reliable source; Variety, for example, is a good secondary source. The IMDb is on my personal blacklist, and I usually remove any citation to imdb.com that I find, as it's either redundant (citation for credits) or notoriously unreliable (trivia, biography). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here, here. Agree with NinjaRobotPirate. I'll interview actors, and they will have no idea why they're listed on IMDb as being in certain movies — particularly upcoming ones, but also extant films. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to take a more blunt approach and don't see IMDB as reliable for sourcing facts. If it is listed on IMDB as a fact, it should be found in a reliable source acceptable to our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've used imdb many times for credits. If you know of a better place, I'd like to hear it. It may not be anywhere else. Looking for the actual credits is kind of a problem. Unless you have the DVD in your possession or something.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as was stated the best source for credits is the primary source, not a site that allows anyone to edit any piece of inaccurate information.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually put imdb in a footnote. Most of the time it's just a filmography or something and they don't tend to have sources. I know of one time when imdb was the only way I could find when a certain actor first appeared on a show.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the link I was given. I don't guess it proves anything, but it does establish that they go to a lot of trouble, most of the time, to make sure credits are accurate.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hearsay in a reliable source

In her book, Alice writes some things about what her philosophical arch-enemy Bob said to her. We don't have any statements from Bob regarding his side of the story. Charlie, writing in a reliable-source newspaper, mentions what Alice said about Bob.

Does the fact that Charlie relayed what Alice wrote about Bob make it suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages? An editor is claiming that, even though we don't have Bob's side, Misplaced Pages should nonetheless state Alice's side, because Charlie reported it in a reliable source. Bob is a famous individual. vzaak (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If an rs reports what what Alice said about Bob then we have an rs about what Alice said about Bob. Note that editorials and columns in newspapers are not rs.

The issue is WP:WEIGHT. If the news media report one side of a story then ignore another, then we follow news media. News media may be unfair, but it is not our role to correct that. There are exceptions however. If an investigative journalist or obscure publication mentions something and the rest of the media ignore it, then we should take that silence as meaning that what Alice said was unimportant, and should not be included.

Journalists have standards they must follow, and should ask Bob his view before publication. And Bob may complain about Charlie, either to the editor, the press council or other media.

TFD (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping to keep the article unnamed because it is already on several noticeboards, but it would seem that specifics are necessary, so here is the section in question. It's completely weird to me that Misplaced Pages is reporting what Richard Dawkins is alleged to have said according to his philosophical enemy. We don't know the Dawkins side of it, which would almost certainly be different. vzaak (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Rupert Sheldrake said what he did so the sources are rs for that. But I do not see it has any relevance to the Dawkins article, especially since it did not receive wide coverage and Dawkins did not reply to it. Telepathy is a fringe theory and that Dawkins does not believe in it is insignificant to his article. TFD (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the Rupert Sheldrake article, not the Dawkins article. In any case your point about a non-reply from Dawkins indicating WP:UNDUE could also apply to the Sheldrake article. Whether a newspaper can launder hearsay is a separate issue. vzaak (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability, notability and neutrality are separable issues, but concerning the topic of this noticeboard it seems like TFD is correct: Sheldrake is RS for what Sheldrake has published as having happened. There is no real neutrality concern with reporting a POV either. If there is some risk of the POV being read as the voice of Misplaced Pages we can attribute the words to make sure it is clear that we are reporting the POV of a specific person. So the issue remaining seems to be notability, which is something which will be different for different WP articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to use legal terms like Hearsay as metaphors, we'd better get it right. Hearsay is something the person reporting has no direct experience of; it would be Alice writing that Bob told her that Charlie said something, i.e. Alice has no direct experience of what Charlie said. The issue of it being hearsay is generally only relevant when there is no confirmation available from Bob of what Charlie said and of what Bob said to Alice (if there is, Alice's evidence is just corroboratory). To come back to the concrete: Sheldrake is saying that Dawkins said something to him, and Sheldrake putting this claim in writing is absolutely not hearsay. (It is hearsay for Dawkins' claim about the programme. Content and statement are not the same thing.) Podiaebba (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Charlie has no direct experience of what Bob said. Charlie says what Alice says about what Bob said. Since Charlie is writing in a reliable source, editors want to use Charlie's statement as evidence, which I think is fair to characterize as hearsay evidence. Does a reliable source launder hearsay? vzaak (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The statement isn't hearsay, and Charlie writing about the statement doesn't make it so - and please drop the "laundering" term, it's neither relevant nor helpful. As to Misplaced Pages use: Charlie's writing about Alice's claim in a reliable source (without expressing any scepticism as to the veracity of Alice's claim) contributes to our evaluation of Alice's report of Bob's statement as both trustworthy and noteworthy. To a lesser extent it also contributes to our evaluation of Bob's statement being accurate, if reliable sources report it without scepticism or contradiction. Podiaebba (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I said that Charlie's statement is hearsay. It was never claimed that Alice's statement is hearsay. In this case Charlie is not an investigative journalist reporting news; he's writing an opinion piece in a newspaper in order to advance Alice's point of view. vzaak (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, there is no rs problem, so I suggest we close the thread. I do not see any POV issues, but that is better discussed at the POV noticeboard. TFD (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your first comment didn't initially register with me, that "editorials and columns in newspapers are not rs". The article in question is an editorial supporting Sheldrake. It seems that the editors wanting to push it as a reliable source for what Dawkins said are conflating an editorial with a hard-news article held to journalistic standards. So my assessment is that there is an RS issue; Misplaced Pages shouldn't relay these alleged quotes which were relayed through an editorial. vzaak (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the editors wanting to push it as a reliable source for what Dawkins said - well if anyone's trying to do that, obviously it's not. Unless there's some indication that the author of the editorial or news piece has verified the quote from its author, it isn't attempting to verify anything (and therefore the reliability of the editorial/news piece is irrelevant). All it does, as I said above, is provide some indication that Sheldrake's report is considered trustworthy by a mainstream media commentator - but this is irrelevant for reporting Sheldrake's claim (the reader can make up their own mind as to Sheldrake's trustworthiness). NB It slightly passes me by why this quote is so significant as to merit mention; it's a cute anecdote for an autobiography, but why does it matter to us? Podiaebba (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the WP article might as well quote directly from the original source instead of going through the editorial, which simply relays the quote from the original source. The strange part, to me, was that editors were suggesting that some kind of special reliability status was conferred upon the quote by virtue of it appearing in a newspaper, suggesting a confusion between hard-news journalism and an editorial. But as you say, all the editorial does is indicate that a media commentator believed the quote. vzaak (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Memory of water issues

I have been interested in the memory of water debate from the start, having heard a lecture by Jacques Benveniste on his research even before the publication of his paper in Nature. As a theoretical physicist, I have been interested in the way fallacious arguments are frequently used in an attempt to prove that the claims are impossible. In an invited lecture in a meeting organised by the Foundation of German Business (SDW), I addressed a number of these arguments, demonstrating why they are incorrect. I think it would be good if some balance were given to the memory of water article by including a link to the lecture, which has been archived on our university's media server (the section dealing with memory of water begins at 6:55).

Re the reliability of this as a source, I note first my own credentials, e.g. as having a Cambridge Ph.D. in physics, being a Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), and having published in notable physics journals such as Physical Review Letters. On the verifiability issue, my discussion of flaws in the usual arguments is very straightforward, and comprehensible to anyone with a basic understanding of the issues involved (for example, I cite the difference between ice and water, a matter of common knowledge, to argue that one does not have to add molecules to water to change its properties significantly).

This reference would support a statement along the lines of

According to Josephson, many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound.

. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1422061. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Don't think this is an RS question, since Josephson is presumably a reliable source for Josephson's view. The questions here would be around weight and neutrality, starting - I suppose - with a question about whether this view has been discussed (or otherwise expressed) in reliable, secondary, published sources. Alexbrn 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how a short report of a lecture (oddly, in German) can be deemed a reliable source. Assuming that you are Josephson, you should be able to place your talk on a personal blog or website which would be identifiably yours, then it would be a matter of the notability of the view articulated, as Alexbrn says. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. That is just what I have done -- look for the link to it in the last sentence of my first paragraph ('link to the lecture'). As regards notability, I see that there is remarkably little discussion in the article as it is at present on the question of whether memory of water is theoretically possible or not, only the red herring relating to networks that really should not be there. But I can say at least that the first point re water memory in my talk, that you don't need extra molecules for there to be an effect, is very well known to people in the field and there must be many references to it. The point is so obvious (except to the sceptics who keep bringing up the false argument) that I would not expect much note to be taken of my reiteration of the same point.

Again, I would guess that another false argument, the last one mentioned in this part of my talk, that if water had a memory it would remember everything it had come into contact with, must have been addressed in the literature, even if not with the precision that an experienced theoretician can bring to bear on such issues.

Even though the meeting was held in Cambridge UK, the audience consisted exclusively of native German speakers, so it is not that surprising that the summary of the meeting was published in German by the German sponsoring organisation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I clicked on the wrong link. I'm listening to the recorded version of the lecture now. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but for me this falls into the category of "expert outside his field of expertise". With regards to weight: the fact that some fallacious arguments are used by one side in a debate is not, per se, remarkable - I'd expect this for both sides in any discussion that involves more than a very small group indeed. I'd only include this if there is evidence that the criticism has been picked up as significant by some outside sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside my area of expertise? You are clearly the person speaking outside his area of expertise and I demand a retraction. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is (I suspect) a case of an editor who (for reasons I will not speculate on here) latches on to the fact that my comment suggests that I'm not that familiar with the literature on homeopathy (not my area of expertise), and wrongly infers from this that I am not expert in the particular technical issues that I am addressing in my comments. This kind of superficial analysis by editors is what gives wikipedia a bad name. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You suspect wrong. You are an expert in physics. Water memory, on the other hand, is a pseudo-science - it may appear to use the apparatus of science, but it's not science. Dealing with this is a special skill different from physics, or indeed science in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you say that is not your reasoning. But the 'reasoning' you give above is a textbook case of 'proof by declaration', which is no proof at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let the people here judge whether or not the memory of water work is scientific. A lecture given by Benveniste at the Cavendish colloquium is available on the web. In what way is that kind of activity pseudoscience? Does Schulz consider that the mere investigation of a phenomenon that most scientists dismiss is pseudoscience as such? --12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As Alexbrn notes, the chief issue here isn't really one of "reliability" of the sources with respect to the attribution of the opinion or any quotes—there's not really any question that Josephson said what he says he said, when and where he said it. The question is whether or not Josephson's personal opinion on this topic is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant special mention in water memory. It would stretch WP:WEIGHT past breaking to juxtapose Josephson's personal opinion (commentary made at a – presumably un-vetted, non-peer-reviewed – speech to the UK chapter of the Foundation of German Businesses) and proper, published, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles. As an aside, it also strikes me as disingenuous to wax eloquent about fallacious arguments and the narrowmindedness of the mainstream scientific community while ignoring completely the fact that the American Physical Society offered to fund and carry out (another) double-blinded test of water memory in response to a challenge by Josephson himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister (as Randi and others try to make out) about the fact that the proposed test involving the APS never took place (by the way, you can't do 'double blind tests' on a system such as a sample in a test tube that doesn't know what is going on; 'blind test' is what you mean). Considerable negotiation about a possible test took place between Benveniste, and Park acting on behalf of the APS. The difficulty was that it was not enough just to 'do an experiment'; the experiment had to be such that if it gave a positive result sceptics would agree that the result was positive (and sceptics are very good at finding reasons for not accepting a positive result). Some proposals by the physicists were just not practical. Various possibilities were discussed and in the end Benveniste, who thought it of more value to investigate the phenomena further than to satisfy sceptics, announced that he did not want to proceed further. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

...And I'm sure that that perceived lack of value or practicality had nothing to do with the fact that other properly-blinded trials attempting to reproduce his previous work were negative in their outcomes. But seriously, you're attempting to turn an article on a scientific non-phenomenon into a soapbox for your personal opinions on the nuances of scientific debate, and that just isn't what we're here for. Stephan Schulz hits the nail on the head up above. The fact that a few of the arguments made against 'water memory' as a plausible physical phenomenon might be specious – or might be interpreted in such a way that they become specious – is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades comment of 23:27 19 November, this is a weight issue. Where is there any substantial discussion of the material from the suggested source? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Demos blog criticism in BLP

The issue is whether Demos (U.S. think tank) in a "Policy Shop" blog entry by Matt Bruenig in can be used to criticize Hans-Hermann Hoppe for "comparing LGBTQ people to pedophiles" - and any other purpose - in this article: "Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarian Extraordinaire". (Note "discussion" section included to prevent unnecessary discussion in other two sections.) User:Carolmooredc talk 17:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

• No, it is a BLP violation. I have removed it. The guy is not a member of the Demos staff, so this is obviously just as blog post. I see no statement on the site which says they retain editorial control over the blogs either. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong claims require strong sources, and that raises doubts about this one. I can understand the rationale that if HHH said these things we could cite him as a primary source about his own opinions, but that is not what we are doing as I understand it? Any chance that supporters of this material can find it in a better source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors

Originating editor writes:

• Demos (U.S. think tank) does not indicate that its blog is edited, so this may well be self-published. Matt Bruenig is not listed as part of the staff, board, fellows, or experts at Demos; a Huffington Post article describes him as a college student. His webpage states he has written for a few publications but lists no academic or other evidence of expertise. Bruenig obviously is first and foremost an advocacy opinion piece writer.
• When I added Hoppe's quote at this diff (starting with "Hoppe had written"), it became clear that Hoppe listed a lot of different types of people he didn't like, both were on the list, and Hoppe made no one on one comparison. This is just Bruenig's highly POV opinion writing not journalism trying to be accurate.
• User Steeletrap removed a verify credibility tag at this diff falsely claiming there was no ongoing discussion and MilesMoney reverted deletion of the section on BLP grounds saying there was not a BLP issue -- even though four out of six editors discussing Bruenig in this section were opposed to using him for criticism in a BLP.
• FYI, another use of Bruenig in the article is as a secondary source to point out what Hoppe said on free speech, which also is quoted. But I'd rather see a primary source used than let in a nonRS secondary source which before long will inevitably be used for critical purposes, against WP:BLP.

As regular readers of this board know, editors have to keep bringing examples of poorly sourced critical material in Austrian economics BLPs and other articles here to get community comments one at a time, time after time. At what point do community sanctions on Austrian economics kick in? Very frustrating. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I do not think it is a good idea to split discussion into two sections based on whether an editor is previously involved or not.
  Regarding the Bruenig bit, I am in favor of keeping him for his uncontroversial affirmation of free speech not being allowed in Hoppe's vision of covenant communities (as described clearly in Hoppe's book), but I am not in favor of giving Bruenig voice in the controversial bit about pedophiles and gays. Bruenig is not significant enough for controversial opinions of his to be quoted prominently. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Binksternet. Indeed such delineations are not good ideas. I've become fed up of trying to understand and discourage this and other idiosyncracies deployed by the various combatants (for that is what they are). Much more of this sort of thing, which extends the "them" and "us" mentality, & I'll be proposing that all who are presently involved are topic banned: the disruption ins tiresome and ridiculous. Then we'll all get some peace. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that people tend to ignore the rules anyway, I'd a agree. User:Carolmooredc talk 02:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Question for OP. Trying to follow your rationale for excluding this source. How is Demos different than the Mises Institute (other than the many women working at Demos?) They both seem to be research and policy advocacy organizations. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises blogs are written by academics and experts and I haven't seen the Troika of Mises critics coming down on any of them. Did I forget something? Do you have any example? I know I objected to the use of a LewRockwell.com blog entry that Steeletrap and MilesMoney supported the use of, but I fixed the OR problem, so now it's just and irrelevance problem. (And there are far bigger POV issues on Rothbard hit piece article anyway.) User:Carolmooredc talk 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tucker is one of the most prolific contributor to Mises.org. Is he an academic? His only editorial experience appears to have been with the Ron Paul Newsletters (though admittedly this is only alleged). Steeletrap (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see it as a POV issue rather than rs. What degree of expertise does Bruenig have? To what extent has he influenced mainstream views of libertarianism? How often are his works cited in political science textbooks? I would say that his article does not meet the grade for inclusion. TFD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this and the previous RS posting were weight/pov issues rather than RS issues. However to your other points -- Hoppe is to my knowledge not discussed by any mainstream political theorists or economists, either in textbooks or elsewhere. Therefore it would not be surprising that a journalist or other investigator would have done the best, most thorough, and neutral research on HHHH. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Blogs that lack editorial control are not reliable except for comments made by the author about the author. Blog entries that relate to living people need to meet a higher standard than other such entries. This is a blog entry about a living person, written by someone who seems neither to represent Demos nor to have been subject to editorial oversight and, as such, should not be used. If Hoppe is not discussed by mainstream political theorists or economists then we have nothing to say, period, because we cannot give more weight to the fringe than to the mainstream. It might be an indication that the entire issue is not notable. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic is worth mentioning since his exposition is a rather insensitive and inaccurate way of describing a libertarian principle which WP:RS have commented upon. However, it only deserves a paragraph. Instead it's been blown way out of proportion as a WP:Coatrack. But I'll say no more :-) User:Carolmooredc talk 02:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It was never a BLP issue because Bruenig referred directly to HHH's own words, which were indeed summarized accurately. If I were to say that neither French people nor child molesters were allowed in my restaurant, I would be grouping the two categories together as if they were somehow equivalent. HHH does this with homosexuals and child molesters. In short, there can be no defamation because the claims are true: HHH really did say this stuff.

As for Bruenig, the technical term for his occupation is "journalist". He's as reliable a source as the equivalent from the institute-whose-name-I-cannot-speak. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, instead of taking the view that readers are unintelligent people and our role is to steer them away from evil, think of social scientists, police officers, psychiatrists or political strategists who have come to this article because they have come across the name. They do not need guidance in order to steer them away from wrong decisions, but need facts in order to make rational decisions. TFD (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Miles, how do we know that he accurately summarised what Hoppe said and meant? Your analogy seems to be drawing a conclusion that is not said - it is an opinion. If you think that journalists are inherently reliable then you've got a lot to learn. And if he *is* a journalist then why doesn't he publish this in a mainstream news media outlet? TFD, if social scientists etc come to Misplaced Pages as an authoritative source then they're in the wrong job. We don't even have the confidence cite ourselves, and rightly so. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

They do not come to it as an authoritative source. However, if someone doing research comes across the name in passing, this article is probably the only source that assembles biographical detail, and the first Google hit. In fact the other sources on the first page of Google hits (other than wikiquotes) are all sourced to him or the LvMI. Anyone reading this article would think that his major significance to people who read his books is a libertarian justification for the exclusion of LGBT people from society. Of course researchers are aware that many if not most Misplaced Pages articles about political topics are misleading or biased. But that does not justify their being so. TFD (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, TFD. If only one could get more of a response at BLP about these heavily biased articles. However, in the past on other articles, I've had admins come in and take out a lot of WP:UNDUE negative, advocacy-sourced material and a few weeks later POV editors who put similar material in a number of articles put it right back in again. So it's a very frustrating failing of Misplaced Pages trying to get sanctions for editors who continually abuse BLPs. At least this board usually will remove non-WP:RS material and support RS material falsely claimed to be non-WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc talk 04:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@TFD -- I don't think the article says anything about who reads 4H's books or who those people might be. However his most prominent notability in the public eye today (and perhaps in histories written 50 years hence) is that he's the guy who said all that LGBT stuff. That stuff was in the national news, whereas very very very few folks know or care about his libertarian principles or his PFS. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

When LGBT-advocating editors are busy dumping poorly sourced, POV, WP:UNDUE material in there requiring hours and hours of discussion on talk pages as they defend it with questionable arguments, necessitating multiple visits to noticeboards, etc., other editors can become too burned out to even look for other evidence of notability. And even if it is the most notable (newspaper wise) fact about him, it's () still way too much material and totally WP:UNDUE. User:Carolmooredc talk 04:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You still have to establish the weight that your sources have. How many other writers for example have cited Bruenig's opinion? TFD (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

GERAC

1a) Three primary sources:

• Endres, Heinz G.; Diener, Hans-Christoph; Maier, Christoph; Böwing, Gabriele; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C101–C108.
• Endres, Heinz G.; Victor, Norbert; Haake, Michael; Witte, Steffen; Streitberger, Konrad; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Knie- und Rückenschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C109–C116.
• Scharf, Hanns-Peter; Mansmann, Ulrich; Streitberger, Konrad; Witte, Steffen; Krämer, Jürgen; Maier, Christoph; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Victor, Norbert (2006). "Acupuncture and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Three-Armed Randomized Trial". Annals of Internal Medicine 145 (1): 12–20.

1b) One secondary source:

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss / Federal Joint Committee (Germany) (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013.

2.) German Acupuncture Trials
3.) These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances. The sources are being used throughout the article.

a) The primary sources are being challenged on the basis that according to MEDRS, primary sources should better not be used. As far as I know, that applies only to claims of medical efficiency or conclusions/results of trials. In this case, however, the primary sources are only used to describe the set-up and findings of the trials.

b) The secondary source has been challenged to be not reliable (no rationale for this assumption given yet).

Thanks, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Assessment from involved editor. The primary medical sources can't be used for health related content per WP:MEDRS. The German Federal Committee are a reliable source for information about themselves, but not for health-related content. If they are to be used for information about what they've done, a secondary source discussing their actions should exist to establish weight. Alexbrn 07:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MEDRS doesn't ban primary medical sources, it just makes a big deal out of trying to make sure that they're not mis-used. I don't see how the use of these sources in GERAC presents a reliability issue. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Using a primary study from six years ago to state (e.g.) "this implied both real and sham acupuncture being significantly more effective than standard therapy" is about a clear a misuse of a primary medical source as it is possible to get; even if this was a secondary source it would be getting to old for this per WP:MEDDATE. Alexbrn 11:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way is that a misuse of the source , which states " Low Back Pain Improved After Acupuncture Treatment For At Least 6 Months. Effectiveness Of Acupuncture, Either Verum Or Sham, Was Almost Twice That Of Conventional Therapy."?? WP:MEDDATE is also not relevant since the article is about these specific trials - you can hardly apply the same standard of "recent publications preferred" as you would to the main acupuncture article. At most you could argue that the out-datedness is an argument for deleting or merging the article. Podiaebba (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The primary sources in this case are simply background information for the main point, which is that the German committee approved acupuncture for reimbursement. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge"? This article takes the majority of its space relaying the findings of out-of-date primary sources which have subsequently been questioned by reliable secondaries. Alexbrn 12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an argument for deleting or merging the article, not for complaining about reliability of the sourcing as it stands. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have nominated it for deletion. This thread was started by an editor wishing to defend the sourcing (and keep the article as-is). Alexbrn 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR / WP:DUE. We need sources independent of the subject matter. I share Alexbrn's concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR - no it isn't, and it's absurd to say so. It's a line of thinking which basically asserts not merely that primary sourcing needs to be used very carefully (and avoided if possible) but that it's banned completely. It's a tenable position I suppose, but not one supported by WP policy at all. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of normal Wikijargon I think Podiaebba is right. This is a case of a primary source, and not what we would normally call an OR or DUE problem. Primary sources are not forbidden but we use them carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources seem to support that there were trials in Germany that lead to approval of reimbursement. There doesn't seem to be an RS issue with that. It seems a due and notability issue. What source supports that this is notable? The claim of notability is a WP editor's statement, "These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances." that is an editor's opinion/OR. What source supports the statement that the trials are notable? Where is the due weight argument to support an article on such a narrow topic that is supported by outdated and disputed studies? This seems like it might warrant two sentences in the existing acupuncture article. Summary: Marginally RS for content no RS support for weight or notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not really a subject for this forum, but I would say notability is not normally a case of finding a source which directly says something is notable. Often it necessarily involves "common sense" discussion between editors, because notability is relative to what an article is about. If there is an article about government attitudes to acupuncture, then...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Section break

See GERAC. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. Editors think it is okay to use any source they like and continue to ignore policy. The primary sources in this case are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. Here is the current discussion on the talk page. An editor thinks identifying a primary source is pointy. The editor's explanation on the talk page makes no sense. The source is indeed a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Using sources to describe themselves is very common and accepted on Misplaced Pages. That does not mean there is no other problem here, for example perhaps the lack of MORE sources in addition to that. A very common warning made about using primary sources is not to ONLY use primary sources for any specific article. Is that closer to what you want to argue? OTOH, if there are now newer sources, the best thing to do normally would be to add them, rather than subtract something else. It is not necessarily a good idea to delete sources' own primary comments about themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic/AMG as a source for biographical info

I can't seem to find a clear consensus for AMG as a source for biographical info. (The specific article is Perri "Pebbles" Reid.)

It is obviously widely used on Misplaced Pages, not that that means much. More telling, IMO is that AMG is used by the New York Times. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The metadata looks like it is in part user-submitted. I would not trust the metadata. The biographies and reviews are all licensed from Rovi, and neither All Media Guide nor Rovi seem to accept user submissions in this area, though they do seem to accept corrections. The corrections are requested to have a citation, but it is not required. Who knows what that means in terms of reliability. I try to avoid using Rovi/AMG as a source, but the reviews and biographies seem to be the most reliable aspect of the site. If you simply must use Rovi/AMG, I guess that's the part to use. If you do a web search, you can see that the author of this bio, Greg Prato, is a veteran music journalist, and he's published several books. I'd say that anything he says is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Its reliability may not be the real issue anyway, since I've seen many reliable sources misreport ages, simply because often lie about how old they really are. This was an issue at Audrey Tautou for years until it was settled by Tautou herself just last month, but you can see how it was handled until then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability is the issue: Did the material come from a reliable source. As a result, this it the "Reliable sources noticeboard" not the "Is it correct noticeboard". - SummerPhD (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if Allmovie is deemed "reliable" for her age, it doesn't get to trump other reliable sources in this regard. This book by a music historian states she was born in 1965, while another music writer states she was born in 1964. The magazine article posted on the talk page clearly contradicts the 1966 date too. While all three may meet the basic RS criteria (professionally published with editorial oversight) only one of them is correct in regards to her age, so it's basic common sense here to include either all the sourcable dates or none of them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The biographies and reviews are reliable sources - several of their writers are well established and respected music writers. The chart information (listed under 'Awards') is also reliable - taken from Billboard. The lists of genres are often pretty meaningless and shouldn't be trusted, not sure about dates of birth - most I've checked against other sources seem pretty good. --Michig (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

NSNBC International

What the heck is NSNBC International? It's apparently a domain from Montenegro. I have discovered it is used four times at Misplaced Pages as a source, but am unfamiliar with it. It's confusingly close to MSNBC. I can't find an article here: NSNBC International or NSNBC. Is this a RS, or is it a copycat fringe website? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You can take a look at their about page here. Seems like a new news publishing operation (Feb 2013). I don't see any support for RS in the form of mention in other RS, notable editorial board members etc. The editorial policy is vague and seems more a political statement than anything else. For each use I would suggest checking the author, other RS mention etc. My basic impression is not RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I was just doing some research for a speech I'll be giving on "The Vaccine Controversy" (which doesn't even exist within science and medicine), but which is kept alive in fringe circles, and I ran across an extremely unreliable and deceptive article on NSNBC. There, at the bottom of the page, was this description of NSNBC:

• "In March 2013, nsnbc ínternational was started as a daily, independent, international on-line newspaper to provide high quality news, analysis and opinion from contributors throughout the world. nsnbc has a number of high profile contributors, and has a partnership with a number of other independent media, to guaranty you the best possible coverage. nsnbc is in a permanent mode of expansion to break, what we perceive as corporate and government controlled misinformation of peoples´world wide. Starting from a personal blog in 2011, it developed into a daily newspaper in 2013, and during 2014 - 16 we plan to have independent contributors in, and cover most countries. nsnbc is free to read and basic subscriptions are free of charge, but we appreciate donations. We also offer you to become an nsnbc insider by signing up for special, paid subscriptions, which offer you additional services, and access to an informed community." (Source)

The author first published this trash in fringe publications , so it's secondary BS, which doesn't increase its accuracy. I think we should be extremely cautious about using this source. - Brangifer (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic, but I'm not sure how fair you're being to the author; a cursory glance at the piece suggests he seems to be relying on other sources, and some of the sources look worth following up. Podiaebba (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Contributors list has some notable names, like F. William Engdahl and Michel Chossudovsky. Its editor-in-chief is Christof Lehmann, who isn't, and doesn't have any journalistic background or publishing pedigree etc that I can see. In addition, nsnbc shares 50% of its ad revenue with contributors. In short, nsnbc is similar to something like globalresearch.ca - any judgement of reliability is based entirely on the author attached to the piece (like a self-published blog), with the publication adding nothing to it. Podiaebba (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the comment immediately preceding. As for being fair to the author of the specific articles. If his work is published only in non notable places that have no standing as RS, what is the author's standing as an expert or as a journalist? A well sourced article in a non RS publication (like say WP) is not a reliable source for WP content. Regarding it being secondary, the same author publishing the same (or essentially the same) material in three different places does not make it secondary. A secondary source would be someone else commenting on or citing this material in a separate work (like if an article appeared in a newspaper about Samuel's claims). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. He seems to be the only source for this conspiracy theory/accusation. No RS report it. Unfortunately Gates, being a public person, can't sue for libel and have any chance of success, at least in the USA. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be the only source for this conspiracy theory/accusation. - well yes and no. The excess NPFAFP in India analysis clearly comes from here. I can't see a source for the Gates Foundation funding OPV (oral polio vaccine), but have the impression OPV is the standard used in India and the Foundation funds the programme. One point worth making is that the headline is misleading - it refers to "paralysis death" rather than "paralysis and death", as appears to have been the author's intention originally (look at the URL of the original story , and note the misleading removal of "and" doesn't appear in the body text). Podiaebba (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Connections to folk like Egdahl and Chossudovsky can only increase concerns that this source has inherent problems with neutrality and accuracy. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bukharan Jews, lost tribes, etc.

1. Is the sentence

   Some ancient Jewish texts claim that during the reign of King David, in the 10th century B.C., Jews were already travelling to Central Asia as traders.

   of the source see p.75 of an associate professor at Columbia reliable for the following statement?

   According to some ancient texts, there were Israelites that began traveling to Central Asia to work as traders during the reign of King David of Jerusalem as far back as the 10th century B.C.E.

   I had revised the above sentence in the to more accurately reflect the sentence in the source so as to read

   According to some ancient Jewish texts, there were already Jews travelling to Central Asia as traders as far back as the 10th century B.C.E.

2. Is the sentence

   The Jews of Bukhara, in today’s Uzbekistan, have been speculated as hailing from the tribe of Issachar because the name Issachcaroff is common among them.

   of the source see p.84 by Amotz Asa-El reliable for the following statement?

   Among Bukharan Jews, there are two ancient theories of how Jewish people settled in Central Asia. Many Bukharan Jews trace their ancestry to the Tribe of Napthali and to the Tribe of Issachar of theLost Tribes of Israel who may have been exiled during the Assyrian captivity of Israel in 7th century BCE.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

At first sight your edit of the first sentence seems an improvement. Concerning the second sentence obviously other sources must be involved, and you are not pointing to any particular point of potential dispute, so harder to comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence, the only other reference is this webpage. I'm assuming that the webpage itself is unreliable to begin with, but there is no mention of "Napthali", for example, only an unsourced claim that "the Bukharan Jews themselves trace their heritage (to the 7th century BC when the Jews were exiled by the Assyrians(II Kings 17:6)". The webpage does cite a passage from the bible in relation to the exile by the Assyrians.

There are two academic sources, one a book by Parfitt and another by Benite. Parfitt's index has no listing for Bukhara or Central Asia, and it's been some time since I read it so I don't recall if there was any mention at all. This link is to a search of "Bukhara" in the book by Benite, and it can be seen to be mentioned almost exclusively with respect to a 19th century German Jew that converted to Christianity and became British named Joseph Wolff e.g., pp. 213-4-214.

So basically, the only other source cited doesn't appear to be reliable, and even that doesn't support all of the claims being made. In that respect the sentence in the article would appear to be WP:OR based on personal experience. The IP editor has basically identified himself as a Jew from Bukhara that has immigrated to the USA (Who is IP search), and he has rejected statements from another reliable source on the basis of his personal conjecture (see his comment on my Talk page and edit summaries, for example), basically. I filed this post after first filing a report at AN/I here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Or it might be based on sources that someone had read but forgot to note. This does happen, and often it is a good idea to do a quick search for sourcing yourself before assuming the worst.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've done a bit of checking, and there is the context of the claims of descent from lost tribes. There would appear to be only two academically published books by scholars in that field, as I mentioned. I have one and the other is available for preview on google books, as per the link above. I've done a fair amount of work to the Ten Lost Tribes and related articles, and there are few reliable sources on this topic because the lost tribes theories have been refuted by scholarship and genetics.

I did track down some pages on the Wayback Machine by the author of the text cited on the abovementioned webpage, but she is not a reliable source, and the text includes not references. This is a link to the relevant page, archived from 1998. The content is informative, but it only makes recourse to heresay regarding a supposed oral tradition that no scholars mention. And here webpages are cited as a source by this website also unreliable, I presume.

FYI, here is a Guardian article from a few years back, in which it is claimed that there are only about 300 Jews left in Bukhrara. Here is another article, from the Jerusalem Post stating

The Jews of Bukhara are an ethnic and linguistic group in Central Asia, claiming descent from 5th-century exiles from Persia.

If that is a reliable source, then I would think that the claim of "5th-century exiles from Persia" should suffice.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That reasoning appears correct to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through some of this material. Since you've done so, please don't hesitate to contribute to the article after its unprotected. There would seem to be some gaps in the available information in the sources. For example, if that old synagogue is the only synagogue in Bukhara, then what about the purported population of Jewish immigrants from Russia? A google search returns almost no other results. This webpage has some scant information, but is of questionable reliability. It mentions two synagogues in Samarkand, but none in Bukhara.

There is a long history related to the topic of the article, but I arrived there checking advocacy of fringe theories related to claims of descent from "lost tribes", of which there is a significant amount at various articles. I've ordered the Benite book, incidentally, but it won't even be shipped to me for another couple of weeks. There may be something in that relevant to the article at issue.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

a policy proposal at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy) regarding Lack_of_references_and_citations

Hi,

I have listed a policy proposal pertaining to dealing with_Lack_of_references_and_citations_through_Edit_filters at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy).Please do join in to give your valued openions.

Mahitgar (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

When can the work of amateurs and volunteers be considered reliable sources? What about the User:Geo Swan/boatnerd site?

Can the work of amateurs and volunteers ever be considered reliable sources? Well, Benjamin Franklin, for instance, is recognized as a serious scientist, even though he never heald a teaching post. Amateur astronmoer David Levy was a respected colleague of the Shoemakers, as acknowledged by his sharing credit for the discovery of Comet Shoemaker-Levy.

When I worked on the BLP of an individual who was a prominent bird-watcher, it seemed to me bird-watching was a serious field of study, where all the RS were drafted by amateurs and volunteers.

Well, it seems to me that the information maintained by the boatnerd organization, is reliable. Boatnerd tracks the vessels that traverse the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence Seaway. It provides a fairly extensive profile of every active lake freighter, an extensive collection of vessels that formerly traversed the Great Lakes, aswellas significant non freighters, lie the USCG Mackinaw

A 2008 profile of the organization by the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that the site had 20 million visitors a month (in 2008). The article quoted one of the volunteers over how professional mariners monitored their site:

The boat nerds are fully aware that some will scoff at this level of obsession. "Most of the professional mariners, they all make fun of us," says Mr. Wobser. "But I guarantee you they read (Boatnerd.com) every damn day. I know because any time we get something wrong they're on our ass correcting us right away. The Coast Guard, especially, they watch us like hawks."

The reason I am asking is that another contributor has nominated an article I started for deletion, implying the boatnerd site I referenced was not a reliable source.

I'd like to add that there seem to be fields where there are no controversies. Great Lakes Maritime Commerce seems to be one of those. There are no warring factions, with warring POV we had to balance. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the question? The boatnerd website's reliability should be gauged per reference, not validated or damned across the board.

It kind of looks like you want to know whether the Boatnerd article can be written without getting deleted. At your sandbox, it looks like there is not enough dedicated coverage of the group. You can't write an article without showing more notability. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the original question relates to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Saginaw (ship, 1953). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that Boatnerd may well be reliable on many points, but contributes little to notability if Boatnerd is explicitly trying to profile every ship.

The White Pages would be a reliable source for people's phone numbers, but that doesn't mean every person in the phonebook is notable. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the simple availability of a complete listing of a certain class, however reliable, does not confer notability on everything listed. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• While I too agree that the availability of an RS with a list with a list entry for every ship of a certain class would not justify creating stubs about each vessel in that list. I will point out that the boatnerd profiles are far more extensive than a list entry. They include all the specifications, beam, draft, length, tonnage, manufacturer of the powerplant, and its power rating. They include the shipyard where the vessels were built, where they were retrofitted or repaired. They describe the vessel's name was chosen. They describe incidents in the vessel career, including those that were not spectacular. So, they are completely different from a telephone listing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bobrayner, I am interested in replying to your comment on the notability of multi-million dollar vessels, like the Saginaw, that carry something like a bllion dollars worth of cargo over their lifetimes. But Misplaced Pages talk:Notability or Talk:Saginaw (ship, 1953), or some other fora would be the place for that.

You wrote you recognize "Boatnerd may well be reliable on many points". Does this mean you have specific concerns there are points where boatnerd will not be reliable -- or were you just being cautious? Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mostly cautious :-) We can't really give sources carte blanche. RS/N focuses on "Is source X reliable for content Y?".

It's the indiscriminate nature of a listing that undermines notability. How can inclusion in list mean that something is notable, if the list strives to include all the things? bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In some areas we have accepted specific, well-regarded amateur (i.e., non-credentialled) sources. US lighthouse articles almost without exception rely on sources which could, at some level or another, be regarded as amateurs, because there is a complete dearth of genuine pros (the USCG articles are in fact all written by volunteers). We have referred to Kraig Anderson's LighthouseFriends site because we can see that he's doing good research, even though it's technically a personal site. That said, I wouldn't use this as justification to write an article about his site. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'd say boatnerd.com is top-notch, so I'll interpret your comment as an endorsement of the continued use of its information as reliable source references in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I can't speak for the shipping project, and I would defer to them within reason. I'm simply stating that we have precedents for widely acknowledged not-really-pro sites as reliable sources. Again speaking to the lighthouse example, for US lights we generally go by the USCG site in establishing notability, not any external site, acknowleding that the official site has some faults in that wise. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Let me say a discouraging word: Here's the standard: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per SOURCES and "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." per SPS, both part of V. Amateur sites do not ordinarily satisfy the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" part and are then damned by SPS. They can be redeemed by showing that they have been relied upon by — not "20 million visitors a month" (Google gets far more than that, but is not a RS just because something shows up in a search result) - by sources which are, in fact, RS and which themselves have such a reputation. It is in this manner that they gain such a reputation. Does Boatnerd (or LighthouseFriends) have that reputation? I don't know. What's the evidence that it does? (They can also be redeemed by the "established expert" path, but in my experience that's a much tougher route to follow though on first blush it appears easier.) The fact that amateur sites have been used elsewhere is in no way a "precedent" except for the fact that their use is possible, they may (or may not) have been misused in those other places; see OTHERSTUFF. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think we're really disagreeing. My "precedent" was to establish your "possible", not to imply that there was some support inherited from one case to the other. In the case of LHF there's no controversy that I know of concerning its actual reliability (as opposed to our formal standards), and I gather that this isn't the case for boatnerd.com. Such doubt would be, it seems to me, fatal. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool <cyber-five>. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

inter-disciplinary.net

I found this on google scholar posted on inter-disciplinary.net by Jacquelyn Bent, Theresa Porter, and Helen Gavin. Is it a reliably published source for use on their discussion of the cartoon character Elmyra Duff? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at the basics of RS, it doesn't look like inter-disciplinary.net (IDnet) has any editorial oversight or peer review (can anyone just post their OR without any review?), I don't see IDnet cited or discussed in other RS. I didn't find any other published work by the three authors elsewhere (any journal or magazine articles or book chapters in the field?) or citations of them by other RS authors nor did I find bio's of the authors giving credentials in the field. I have not yet checked the literary criticism databases so I may just not have found it yet. I don't mean to be hostile in any way just giving my 2 cents as a part of this noticeboard. My impression is this is non published OR by authors who are not experts in the field. If you have anything to show otherwise please post here for consideration, likewise if you have a reason why this source is important to the particular subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, but it came up in the google scholar search and I wasnt certain what criteria the scholar search used. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a non-traditional publishing model where professionals and amateurs work together with no distinction in status, and writers' credentials are not presented. I do not think the model meets Misplaced Pages rs requirements. However, we can assess each paper on its merits. In this case, two of the authors, Gavin and Porter are psychology professors who collaborated on a book published by Wiley-Blackwell. Hence the paper meets WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In this case they are writing about the psychology of a cartoon character. TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think TFD has a point. Evidence of publication of two of the authors lends credibility to the claim of established expertise in relevant field. I am not sure how established or how expert, are they full professors? Where? Is a single book enough to establish them as experts?

I am also not clear exactly how relevant the field is. I think we are talking literary criticism here not psychology. The field of expertise is clearly human psychology and the subject matter is definitely fiction. I think literary analysis is a clearly defined independent field with it's own publications and experts, how exactly do the authors qualify as experts in the relevant field for the discussion of a cartoon character? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read about Gavin's background here. The article provides psychological profiling of evil cartoon girls, which is within the competence of a forensic psychologist. In fact, Cleckley and other psychologists have analyzed fictional characters - Cleckley wrote about Iago and Edmond in Shakespeare for example.

Looking at Gavin's page, I found the paper in question has been published

Reflist

1. Bent, J.; Porter, T.; Gavin, H. (2011). "Sugar and Spice, but Not Very Nice: Depictions of Evil Little Girls in Cartoons and Comics". The Evil Body. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press. p. 152-60. ISBN 9781848880740.
2. Bent, J.; Porter, T.; Gavin, H. (2011). "Sugar and Spice, but Not Very Nice: Depictions of Evil Little Girls in Cartoons and Comics". 3rd Global Conference: Evil, Women and the Feminine. Warsaw. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I think that qualifies as RS. The listing of publications on Gavin's page do establish her as published on the subject of how women are portrayed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Shoebat is reliable source for citing a sacrifice?

http://shoebat.com/2013/03/07/the-promotion-of-human-sacrifice-and-cannibalism-in-egypt/

That source would be reliable? It's from Walid Shoebat, containing different sourced information. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not rs, because he is not an expert. Also, the sources he uses are mostly primary and probably could not be used either, unless their interpretation is supported by secondary sources. TFD (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No - judging by his article he can't be considered a reliable source even for his own background. Podiaebba (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr - over emphasis on spread spectrum invention due to poor sourcing.

This is primarily about Hedy_Lamarr and the invention of Spread Spectrum - a claim that has been extended to include it's use in technologies including by not limited to CDMA, Bluetooth, WiFi and others.

I've done a lot of research into the claim that Lamarr created (along with George Antheil) a form of spread spectrum.

• What is not in doubt is that a patent (1941) exists and that Lamarr is credited as being one of the inventors.

• What is in serious doubt is the claim that this patent, in any way, formed a crucial part in the development of advanced signalling. A factor that forms a large section of the Lamarr page and implies that this single development gave us the above.

Prior to Lamarr/Antheil's patent (which made it impossible for enemies to jam control signals to remotely steered torpedoes) the technology had been invented and patented as early as 1903 Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum#Multiple_inventors although this reference neglects the earliest attempts and the only reason we even know that this patent exists is because it was discovered during a routine prior art search - and Lamarr sued. Yet, even from Misplaced Pages's own sources, it's pretty clear that neither Lamarr (nor Antheil) had any claim to this technology. That hasn't stopped the PR machine from making a fair attempt at changing history. I should remind the casual reader that discovering/inventing something is not what counts, what counts is who invented it first. Had the military not classified the claim it's likely that a due-diliganace search would have shone light on this decades ago.

As to the reliability of sources surrounding this claim. Except for the patent that we know exists anything else is largely hear-say and based on flimsy evidence from two sources which have spread across the web over the years. Comparing any number of articles that make the claim or some reference to it, the same book or award pops up.

Hedy's Folly by Richard Rhodes and the 1997 EFF award for innovation spearheaded by David Hughes. Having spoken to Mr Hughes, he appears to be the single source of this claim since he was interviewed by Rhodes for that book. I haven't read it, but I'm assured that it contains a lot about George Antheil and comparatively little about Lamarr. And just for the record, he's damn nice chap. It's also worth mentioning that neither the EFF nor David had access to the information I have available to me today; and that's the difference.

As to those sources: I have been unable to find a single piece of corroborating evidence that cannot be traced back to misreadings or slavish copying of the Lamarr memoirs, Hedy's Folly or the EFF award.

Take a reference (13 as of this writing): http://www.insidegnss.com/node/303 - this states that "Today, No. 2,292,387 is considered the foundational patent for spread spectrum technologies."

Says who (I'll get to that)? The author of this piece, from the grandiose sounding "Gibbons Media & Research LLC" is non other than Eliza Schmidkunz who is co-owner of Gibbons Media and Research LLC. That is, as people are so fond of telling me, original research.

Perhaps Ms. Schmidkunz considers it so - I can't find anything else to back that claim up and it's central to the idea that Lamarr's patent gave us those technologies. The only expert in patents I can find is rather cynical about the whole thing, where he notes "Call me skeptical, but I suspect George Anthiel had other motivations for including Hedy as a co-inventor.

Now reference (14) http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture7/hedy/lemarr.htm (no citations) but the paper compares well with the facts distributed by David Hughes and expanded by Richard Rhodes in 2011.

Again we come back to David Hughes EFF nomination (and Lamarr's win) as the press release states: "Actress Hedy Lamarr and composer George Antheil are being honored by the EFF this year with a special award for their trail-blazing development of a technology that has become a key component of wireless data systems. In 1942 Lamarr, once named the "most beautiful woman in the world" and Antheil, dubbed "the bad boy of music" patented the concept of "frequency-hopping" that is now the basis for the spread spectrum radio systems used in the products of over 40 companies manufacturing items ranging from cell phones to wireless networking systems."

Yet we know, from earlier patents that the pair DIDN'T invent frequency hopping. The EFF award - and subsequent book - are based on flawed evidence (even if it was the best at the time).

A technique of frequency shifting is described in US Patent 1869659 filed in 1929 and granted in 1932 ; and there are others. It's a matter for others to decide why this prior art wasn't spotted by the examiner - my guess would be that the world was at war and folks had other things on their mind. But this IS prior art and the EFF Award, which is questionable at best, sets the precedent for everything that came after.

(Physics professor) Tony Rothman's 2003 book "Everything's Relative and Other Fables in Science and Technology" devotes a chapter to this myth - including SIGSALY and other mentions of using frequency switching - with citations to the material. Smidoid (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Need of inline Refimprove template

Hello,

Seasons greetings.

To express need of additional citations for verification english wikipedia has got multiple formats of Template:Refimprove, but all of them are box templates to be used for whole section or whole article.But I did not find any inline template simmiler to citation needed to fullfill need of inline template asking for additional citation for cross verification.Please let me know if there is one, or if some one can help in generating one would be a welcome step.

Mahitgar (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

How about {{Better source}} or {{Verify credibility}}? There are more in Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul dundas is reliable source?

Paul Dundas is a reliable source for citing about religions other than Jainism? His reliability has been questioned here at Talk:Jainism and Hinduism, due to the original research and false interpretation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti's main reason for asking this appears to be his statement "Dundas is a pro-jain source, certainly lacking the account for writing about other religions." Writing about Jains doesn't make one anti-Hindu. And of course that he (Bladesmulti) disagrees with Dundas's view. He's reliably published academic and the only objection seems to be a disagree with his views (and a claim that he is fringe, which doesn't seem to have any basis). Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I didn't called his claim to be Fringe, only questioned that if he's presenting wrong information about Vedas, it should be accepted? Like other user had pointed too. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then attribute it. If other academics disagree, show their views also, attributed. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In subjects where there are differences of opinion amongst experts, the best solution is normally to find MORE sources, showing the other arguments, not to try to delete the sources we have on the basis that they have a POV. In such cases, trying to argue that one source is more POV than another is often a never ending discussion, so not very practical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dundas is an established academic, working on Indian religions generally. Reliable for such topics Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Using patents as reliable sources

The public (and from what I can see) Misplaced Pages seems to think that a patent is Reliable Source in the context of who did what and when. This is not the case - and I think we should be wary of using them. A patent grants rights to the inventor(s) to exclusively use their invention for gain for a set period. Many (most?) inventors assign their patents to other people/companies - often because they don't have the resources to exploit them. Some points worthy of note:

1. The person(s) named on a patent is not, necessarily the inventor. (I have personal experience of this.)
2. When, as is commonplace, more than one person is named as inventor, there is no way to be sure from that document who made what contribution.
3. Patent offices do not check to see if the invention works or is practical: just to see if something like it has already been "invented" (prior art).

I believe that these three points of patent law which are not well understood outside the field of inventors, are confusing enough to consider them unreliable witness for a Reliable Source.Smidoid (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Smidoid

Patents, in themselves, are "primary sources." That noted, they are reliable for the date of issuance (and, in some cases, of application), and for the wording of the claim made therein. Edison held many patents for which the credit should have belonged to his employees, but you are correct about how "work for hire" goes to the employer's credit -- just as it does for copyright, and awards for books. And Misplaced Pages accedes to the normal practice of crediting such authors and inventors as listed on the patent or authorship notice. Collect (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Collect except on the last sentence. If there's significant controversy about where the credit should go, Misplaced Pages would report the controversy using secondary sources, and would not rely on a primary source (such as a patent) on that issue.

But this board discusses specific cases. Is there a specific case to discuss? Andrew Dalby 13:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how important Hedy Lamarr's frequency hopping patents are and whether they actually contributed to current use of the technology. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe is correct (I'm sure there will be other examples but this one has entered the public consciousness). Lamarr didn't invent frequency hopping; she won an award from the EFF and everything has snowballed from that. The original source material came from David Hughes who proposed Lamarr and Antheil for it. The confusion arises because of a bit of arcane patent law which we might see as a citation. Lamarr's "discovery" of frequency hopping was preceded by several others and at least one example in an early text book. IF Lamarr should be credited with anything, it's the technology designed to proven the jamming of WWII radio controlled torpedoes; and that's it. While we could argue about the level of her contribution until the sun dies and never get any further. The references to CDMA came from a patent prior art search which cites their patent long after it had expired. But the spread spectrum part of CDMA was invented separately and clean room - if it should cite anything, it should be siting the older patents - as far back as 1903. What appears to add to the confusion is that Lamarr sued - even though the patent had long expired; and was in the public domain.Smidoid (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Institute profiles/bios for views

• In Joseph R. Stromberg article at this diff removal of with special interests including United States foreign policy, and the "War on Terrorism". He has been a fellow for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute from The Independent Institute profile/bio here. Edit summary reads in part "Remove undue and non-RS content. "
• In Ralph Raico article at this diff removal of he writes about the history of liberty and the connection between war and the state. from Ludwig von Mises Institute bio here. Edit summary reads "Remove primary source description of vMI publications"
  

These are two bio stubs I just started beefing up and it seems views described by Institute sites are useful for providing a context for the article as well as a focus for further research. Thanks Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

For consideration, seeing as you 'just started beefing up' these articles, are these the only sources that make these claims or have you found more? AnonNep (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are asking for on this noticeboard. Per the instructions above, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." But the two talk pages have developed very little/no discussion on the edits. I suggest the question be re-stated as a BRD on the two article talk pages. In any event, the straightforward institution descriptions of Stromberg & Raico should be considered RS in context. – S. Rich (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As SRich knows so well the editor(s) in question are highly biased against the sources in question, and the subjects of the biographies, so given there are two similar incidents, it's a waste of time to hear the same biased arguments I've heard a thousand times from them on two different talk pages. And it would be against BRD for me to revert their edits.

To User:AnonNep: Really just starting and obviously better additional sources needed. I like to get a listing of all sources before I start adding more, so I start with easiest overviews like those. Unfortunately, the editor (and his close collaborators) keeps me and a couple other editors busy dealing with their activities on a number of bios of individuals they distain, i.e., deletions of NPOV material, threats of AfDs, adding of loads of questionable, often poorly sourced material that requires repeat visits to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN, etc. So it's a process of putting out the worst fire every day. With all the disruptions it's hard to get enough done given I'm just a volunteer with just a couple hours a day to spare.

Anyone know any way to get them to hold off for a while as we actually get some constructive addition of material done? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit nonplussed when I saw this. Stick with the processes and (how many more times?) skip the sniping, please, If people are being disruptive then get some admins involved. The sources s/b ok for basics such qualifications unless they are contradicted by other sources. I don't see any particular problem with using them for the quotes that you give but it probably would be better if you could find other sources because someone, somewhere might say that it is just publishers' spiel etc, the sort of stuff you see on the back cover of a book. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking whining. Thanks for advice. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review the rest of your edits for the past week or so and strike the rest of your PA and other off-topic remarks. You have able collaborators here and your fellow editors are here to strengthen WP -- even when you disagree with, or do not understand, their thinking. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc Halo page

Sources: John Lynn (2013-03-28). “HIPAA Compliant, Secure Texting Doc Halo App Lands Key Contract with Premier Healthcare Network” (http://www.emrandehrnews.com/tag/doc-halo/). EMR, EHR & HIT News. Retrieved 2013-11-05.

Joanne Maly(2013-09-27). "Doc Halo Reports That Omnibus Implementation has Healthcare Organizations Scrambling for 100% HIPAA Compliance for Secure Messaging" (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11164305.htm). PR Web Retrieved 2013-11-05.

• These sources and the majority of the content were deleted from the Doc Halo page by an editor. But I believe them to be reliable, legitimate references and informative content.

Article: Doc Halo

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582291368&oldid=582289527

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582289527&oldid=582288153

25.35 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

demographia.com

http://www.demographia.com/

We really need some viewpoints on this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Note reliable. Here is a link to an article about them in Vancouver Magazine. It is run by Wendell Cox's company, and its objective is to promote automobile use and road construction. TFD (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If this isn't considered reliable, then the UN urban agglometation data and the CIA country population data should be removed as well in my opinion. Just because they are considered reliable sources, that doesn't mean that they area reliable. I've already worked to disprove that the CIA is a reliable source at User:Elockid/Source Comparison. The UN's World Urbanization Prospects, is a poor source and was so poor in fact that it was nominated for deletion. Demographia's data in my view is much reliable than the UN. First off, unlike the UN, Demographia has a consistent definition that can be used to compare entry by entry. Since there is no universal definition of what a metropolitan area/urban area/agglomeration is, other lists become problematic since they employ different methodology for each entry. Probably the best one I've heard is the London vs. New York argument. The common argument is that if London had the same definition as New York, the population would be X million. At least with Demographia, there's an explanation of their methodology and in doing so, readers can actually compare between entries. Even with an official data available, the UN has grossly underestimated data for some entries. Demographia has some consistency with official data. See below for some examples:

City	Official	Demographia	CityPopulation	UN
Jakarta	23,308,500 (2000)	26,746,000 (2013)	26,400,000 (2013)	9,769,000 (2011)
Osaka	19,342,000 (2010)	17,175,000 (2013)	16,800,000 (2013)	11,494,000 (2013)
Seoul	25,721,000 (2012)	22,868,000 (2013)	25,800,000 (2013)	9,736,000 (2011)

There are other entries where the UN grossly underestimates data. Comparing it to the sources available, Demographia has more consistency than the UN. Elockid 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

UN figures are lower because the use the population for the city rather than the metropolitan area. They say they get their info from national governments. However Democraphica says (p. 4) that it gets its information national governments too, when it is unavailable they make their own estimates or use UN estimates. Citypopulation also says it takes its figures from government sources. There is no reason to use Demographica, you just need to decide whether to use city or metropolitan figures. TFD (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For major cities we surely need to give all the main population estimates, explaining any discrepancies. All this stuff is in the public domain. Each country publishes its census results and these publications are reliable. The UN estimates are also worth mentioning. I can't see that this website adds anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-open wiki

Can the Ohio History Central wiki be reliable for topics within its purview? See its Lazarus Bonham article and how I'm using it at Hunting Lodge Farm. I'm guessing that it's reliable because:

1. The main website, ohiohistorycentral.org, is the official website of the Ohio Historical Society, which is scholarly and definitely reliable
2. It's a closed wiki; see this page's history and look at what happens when you try to edit the page
3. Check the about page; it's written by history professionals

Against all of these things, I need to stack the fact that it's still a wiki. Can wikis ever be reliable sources? Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A wiki is just a tool, like Microsoft Word. In this particular article, the content was put in by a user called "Admin", so it would appear no less reliable than anything published by the Society on a normal webpage. If there were multiple users and all were professional historians given permission to edit by the Society, that would be something like a collaboratively-written book where every contribution is traceable to a particular person - which arguably ought to give more confidence in the result. Podiaebba (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oral Citations (2)

Background info

• Related discussion from Dec 2012
• detailed investigation
• Wikimania 2013 slides

Request

I'd like to approach this noticeboard before actually adding any oral citations. There was a discussion in December about Achal Prabhala's (aprabhala) WMF-funded project. The community here wasn't very perceptive of the idea, partly due to concerns about intellectual property (uploading files on Commons to back up article claims), partly due to a general resistance to the idea.

My colleague Maja and I found several weaknesses in both the general approach of the en.wp editor community and in the particular roll-out by Achal. We pre-released a book chapter, and I gave a talk at Wikimania Hong Kong, both with the aim to re-activate the discussion. Roughly, we claim that:

1. Indigenous knowledge (IK) is knowledge
2. Misplaced Pages wants to be the sum of all knowledge
3. Misplaced Pages therefore should aim to include IK

and that

1. All knowledge is documented in reliable sources (RS) of some sort
2. IK is documented almost exclusively in non-written form
3. Therefore some non-written sources are reliable

I would be happy if some of you had the time to go through this argument and the supporting documents, and either prove us wrong or allow oral citations. If neither happens (which is the expected result, of course) we plan to put this to a test in 2014, taking a few topics for which no/little RS can be found, and develop content based on oral citations. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0307742954
2. http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/12/05/the-truth-about-hedy-lamarr/#sthash.xGRGAHWA.dpuf"
3. http://www.google.com/patents/US1869659

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution