Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:56, 26 February 2015

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Frank Waters, Brave Are My People: Indian Heros Not Forgotten

I'm seeking input regarding the reliability of Waters, Frank (1993). Brave Are My People: Indian Heros Not Forgotten. Clear Light Publishers. ISBN 9780940666214. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

According to our biography of him, Waters was not a college graduate, but became a moderately successful writer. He was primarily a novelist, but also wrote non-fiction. Here's how our article describes one of his books:

"For instance, in 1975, he wrote Mexico Mystique: The Coming Sixth World of Consciousness. In the book, he makes the case that December 24, 2011, a date he got from Michael Coe's The Maya, will be the closing date of the Mayan Long Count cycle and would initiate a new wave of human consciousness."

This indicates that, in at least some of his writing, he embraced fringe views. I recommend caution about using his books as sources for anything more than his opinions. If he makes a factual assertion, please try to find a better source to back that claim. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but 1) Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, and the above claim isn't even cited in the unreliable article, and 2) Are you calling Hopi prophecy fringe views? That work is about religion, and all books about religion are fringe-like. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Did Moses really part the Red Sea? Are all books about religion fringe? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I am not saying that his Misplaced Pages biography should be used as a source in any other article but rather that the biography raises the concern I mentioned. Quite a few books have been published about Hopi religion and we ought to use those from high quality academic sources as much as possible. I consider much of the discussion of the Mayan calendar in popular books to be fringe views. I certainly would not use a book that argues that Moses really did part the Red Sea as a source for any factual assertion, but only for the author's opinion, in a biography of the author, for example. As for the claim that "all books about religion are fringe-like", that simply isn't true. There are countless objective academic books about religion that are descriptive and include no preaching or religious advocacy whatsoever. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right that books can be about religion without being fringe-like, but what I meant was that all religious beliefs are fringe-like in Misplaced Pages terms. Certainly belief in a man who died and was resurrected would be a fringe belief for our purposes, but the Misplaced Pages article asserts that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. I also meant that to use a Misplaced Pages article to declare an author is unreliable is wrong. If Waters is an unreliable source, that information should be confirmed by something other than a Misplaced Pages article that does not even source the claim that made you distrust Waters in general. 2012 phenomenon was on the Misplaced Pages main page, BTW, but I suppose the article's tone is dismissive. Waters' book on the Mayan calendar asserts that it does not predict the end of the world, but rather that the calendar marks a period of change starting c. 2012, so I'm not sure the book is fringe-like after all. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Any assertion that a calendar developed long ago has predictive value for events of 2012 is a fringe view. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's not a fringe view to assert that the Mayan believe this, which is what Waters wrote about, not that the calendar actually predicted anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect in two ways. First of all, mainstream scholars of Mayan culture agree that the Mayans predicted nothing about any events that would take place at the end of their long calendar in 2011/2012. Assertions to the contrary are fringe, held by a small group of crank enthusiasts. Also incorrect is your claim that Waters was writing just about Mayan beliefs instead of about his own beliefs. I found a review of the Mexican Mystique book in an academic journal published by the University of Nebraska Press that said that the book is "almost cranky in its dismissal of traditional scholarship and embracing of esoteric lore", and saying that the book enters the "no-mans land of esoteric theology". The subtitle says it all. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

All that being said, Frank Waters was, by all accounts, a respected novelist and engaging writer with a very long career. I have problems with the reliability of the specific book we have been discussing, and that must be considered when evaluating his work overall. But that does not mean that everything he wrote was unreliable. Context matters. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I agree with your assessment of these particular works and Waters in general. Thanks for the guidance! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Taddlr.com

I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on whether Taddlr.com satisfies WP:RS. I came across it while checking this edit made to Melissa McBride. The same IP editor who made that edit also used Taddlr to support this information added to Mayim Bialik. Taddlr pages are also being used as references on Bastian Schweinsteiger, Booboo Stewart, Willa Holland. I tried looking for an "About Us" or something similar for the site, but couldn't find anything. I did find the following statement at the bottom of the site's Melissa McBride Page: On Taddlr you can find the 2015 boyfriend, husband, lover or kids of celebs. Also biography info and trivia about the ancestry and origin, age, height, weight, bra-size, hair style, diet, fitness routine & tips or whether she smokes (cigarettes or weed) or has a tattoo. And read about her net worth, salary, house and car. Almost everything is based on factual information, but sometimes we are forced to speculate. Has a couple broken up or gotten a divorce? Or does someone earn more salary this year? You can edit this yourself!

FWIW, the same statement seems to appear at the bottom of every celebrity bio page on the site. This leads me to strongly believe that the site fails as a RS per WP:UGC, WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. Since none information being supported by Taddlr cites seems particularly harmful to the subjects of the articles per WP:BLPREMOVE, I just thought I see if others felt the same before deciding what to do next. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not reliable. Spumuq (talq) 10:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. Let me ask a follow-up question. What should be done if the consensus is that Taddlr.com is unreliable? Should the information be removed altogether, or just the source removed and the information tagged with "citation needed"? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove the text, because it is about people and it does not have a reliable source? Spumuq (talq) 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is anything written about a living person that can't be backed up by an RS it should be removed without question. If it can be attributed to a reliable source (and isn't UNDUE) at a later point in time, it can be re-added. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and clarification. I once removed unsourced info from a BLP, only be told that was overkill because the material wasn't contentious and that I should've added a "citation needed" template instead. So, I just wanted to make sure this time around. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly, you're undoubtedly correct and fully justified in removing unsourced content in a BLP. The use of a {{cn}} template is often useful for other areas of Misplaced Pages but, for the purposes of a BLP, I adhere to an 'if in doubt, throw it out' attitude. We do need to take the WP:HARM principle seriously (regardless of its only being an essay). It's fine to remove the unsourced or dubiously sourced content out and create a new section on the talk page of the article in order to qualify why you removed it. Dependent on whether you consider that the content may violate WP:NOTGOSSIP or similar concerns (therefore preferably shouldn't be immediately visible on the talk page), either cut and paste the content or leave a WP:DIFF pointing to the removed content. In that manner the unsourced content won't be lost if someone can find RS for its inclusion, and provided that there is consensus that it's WP:DUE. 'Not contentious' is a subjective argument (i.e., the onus is on the user who added the information to demonstrate that it isn't simply a case of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSIMPORTANT on their behalf). Good for you for being conscientious! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna Harpy. Actually what you wrote is essentially what I did. Even so I was told my action was excessive. It was something that happened almost 6 months ago, but I've been wondering ever since if my interpretation of not using "cn" templates on BLPs was correct. For reference, the discussion took place at Talk:Mike Tyson#Nicknames (infobox). - Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Having read through that talk page section, I'd wholeheartedly agree with your evaluation, most particularly as it involved appropriate content for the infobox. Whether those developing the article are certain that everyone has heard a particular nickname and believes it to be common knowledge is irrelevant. We're not writing for ourselves. Nothing about a BLP can be assumed to be self-evident. If other editors involved don't like it, it's their problem. Being a pedant happens to be a requisite skill for bios. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

SEC filings: corporate 10-Ks and non-profit form 990s as a source for financial information

Are financial statements submitted to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission reliable sources for the finances (revenue, expenses, amount spent on marketing, etc.) of an organization? Specifically I am referring to the annual statements (10-K) and quarterly statements (8-K) of companies, and the annual statements of non-profits (Form 990). The Corporate forms are independently audited, usually by one of the Big Four accounting firms. The Form 990s will be audited or not audited depending on the organization, and the auditors are likely to be local CPAs. thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

They are reliable sources for the reported statistics of the company in question, but do not demonstrate the notability or relevance of the figures in question. They are primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you expand on that? I'd like to understand your thinking better, but don't want to ask more specific questions so as not to influence the answer. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

10-ks and 8-ks and 990s are reliable sources for the filers self-reported metrics. I don't know how I could be any more clear than that. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

They are reliable sources, but primary sources, which means they often require quite a bit of interpretation before non-experts (our presumed readers) can understand what they mean, and we, the editors, can't do that interpretation ourselves, we need secondary sources to do that for us. Also since pretty much all companies and most organizations file forms like these, they are usually not important enough to include in our articles ("do not demonstrate notability or relevance"). Finally, they're self-reported, which means they are often slanted by the company or organization (in many complex ways, for example by deciding whether to take a gain or a loss in this period or the next). In short, we usually don't use them, for all these reasons. But in theory we could, in certain limited ways and cases. What exactly do you want to use them for? What article, and what statement in that article? --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

well, I was going to try to avoid saying much to avoid influencing direction, but I can see that won't work. I can certainly see the need for caution as indicated in your remarks. Would statements like "Spacely Sprockets reported $2.3M in revenue in 2013, with $500K, $1.2M, and $500K coming from the widget, sprocket, and interplanetary tourism divisions respectively" be acceptable provided that the revenue was allocated in the source in that way? Formerly 98 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is that important or notable? If it were important or notable, wouldn't someone other than the company have commented on it? For instance, Apple did 42.1bn of revenues in the quarter that ended Sept. 27 - Source NYTimes (), not Source Apple (). Reliable secondary sources provide explanation and context that primary sources do not. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Different take: I guess it's okay to consider those primary sources, but primary sources CAN be used, with care (per wp:PRIMARY?). Those statements about Spacely Sprockets reported revenues would definitely be okay, in my view, for use in an article about Spacely, as they are a) uncontroversial b) not yet contested by any other editor c) sourced and absolutely verifiably true: the documents show that Spacely did report those numbers. You don't need them to have been discussed in secondary coverage. And it does not require an expert to pick out the revenue number or other basics. Note the 10-k documents are probably on-line and directly linkable and should be linked in footnote. And the nonprofit 990s, if not too old and also not too new, are probably available for free at Guidestar (requires free account), and that should be noted in footnote. It's POSSiBLE that the "true" revenue numbers could be different (due to fraudulent reporting or error not caught by any auditors), but what was said is that Spacely reported those numbers, which is proven. Further, unless there's a sourced reason to suspect fraud or other cause for doubt, the numbers simply can be stated to be the actual revenues: "Spacely had $2.3m in revenue in 2013", etc. That is practice in Wall Street Journal or any other news publication discussing firms; it's understood that those are the reported numbers, and it is very rare for there ever to be any restatement/change later. All the 10-k numbers would be audited by SEC requirements, and some nonprofit 990s are audited (other 990s may be merely "reviewed" by a CPA or may be self-reported without any review. The existence of 10-K report does go indirectly toward establishing notability of Spacely, as it must be a publicly traded company and there is therefore investor demand for info, and it is pretty well assured there will be coverage by analyst reports and so on, perhaps not yet found or not widely available. The existence of form 990 report for a nonprofit is less helpful, as there is typically little/no demand for that info and little/no coverage can be expected. However the size of a nonprofit in revenues or assets is relevant to establishing its importance; there oughta be a rule-of-thumb that any charitable nonprofit of size greater than $1m or some other cutoff is notable, but that's not established. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the "filing a 10-k is evidence of notability." Filing a 10-k is evidence that the corporation is a public company - nothing more. Every public company must file a 10-k. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that 10-k and other filings required for a public company are not multiple independent sources establishing notability of firm under wp:GNG (or wp:COMPANY. About automatic notability of public companies, wp:LISTED indicates there's no consensus; my belief is that we know there exists a lot of coverage and anything publicly traded should be assumed notable, while you disagree, which is fine. --doncram 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view tax filings should be attributed in-text to make clear that they come from the subject being discussed. Effectively they fall into WP:ABOUTSELF. They can be used if they aren't unduly self-serving, but should generally be avoided in favor of reliable secondary sources when possible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As primary source documentation they are of limited usefulness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're not really disagreeing. The question was not about using financial information to establish notability. It was about whether it can be used in an article, and we all seem to be agreeing that it can. I'm sorry I brought up my view that financial info could help establish notability, which was a tangent. Over and out. --doncram 03:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not only are 10-ks reliable sources, they are the best possible source (most up to date) for infobox data such as revenue, profit, assets under management, and other items. However, they should only be used by information that belongs in the article by de-facto, and not where weight and neutrality may be an issue. For example, you wouldn't want to use an annual report to discuss a controversial issue or talk about how great the company's prospects are, or create a massive amount of information about their finances in the article-body. It would be useful if you shared the article in question and the exact use of the source. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Without context, it is difficult to comment. Primary sources should not be used to assess or assert notability. If an organization is notable, you don't need a 10-K as a source. And if a specific figure in the 10-K is notable, you need secondary sources to assert the importance of that figure to be added to the article.- Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The information is as accurate and reliable as any we can find on organizations, but that isn't the same as WP:RS. You will never use all the information on any of these forms, and there is no commentary within it, so inevitably it is the WP editor, not the source that determines what the editor is including - the primary problem with primary sources. If there is information that undeniably HAS to be in the article, and it can be sourced to the federal filing, that is fine; otherwise, you have good information, but no justification for including it.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Obituaries as reliable sources

In the article for Juliano_Mer-Khamis, several bold claims are made about incidents in the subject's life. The claims come from an article by Adam Shatz printed in the London Review of Books. The LRB is not a news source, it publishes essays and reviews. The fact-checking for an essay is not the same as a newspaper. The claims that I have attempted to delete from the article (myself and two other editors have been discussing the issue on the talk page) include the idea that Mer-Khamis, while a soldier in the Israeli Defense Force, was conducting target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it. There are plenty of sources for the IDF being cruel, but this doesn't seem like a realistic claim.

I looked for other sources to back up this and other claims from the Adam Shatz obituary, and I've found none. There is no record of Mer-Khamis ever mentioning this incident. There is no other source, including obituaries from Al-Jazeera, the Economist, and Haaretz, that mention the shocking and damning incident. Only Adam Shatz has made this claim about the life of a dead man in an essay/obituary.

Am I wrong to say that the obituary is not a strong enough source for this type of claim?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSWP1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, February 18, 2015‎

It was in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 2007. --GRuban (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that " was conducting target practice" is not quite the way it was put in the article. The other solders were, and the implication was that he didn't approve. Anyway, the LRB does do fact checking. Here is a source on that, about another controversial story. Shatz himself is a reputable writer who has written for top-flight publications, so I think he qualifies as a reliable source. Whether it belongs in the article or not (due weight) is another question. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not confident enough in the reliability of this source for such a bold and contentious claim about a BLP. It smells fishy, though I can't tell where the stench is coming from. It has a "Foreign Policy Committee" filled with politicians and the its self description is exceedingly complicated. It states that it covers stories that nobody else does (a common statement in POV pushing publications). Their About Us reads like the kind of thing you see from political front groups.

The London Review of Books appears to rely heavily on "contributors", which is almost never reliable as they are basically crowd-sourced. However, he use to work for The New Yorker and I am not sure if a person that worked for a reliable publication once is therefore reliable at other publications that are less reliable. I would lean towards it being reliable for most things, but not such a bold claim as accidentally killing a girl with a bazooka. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, it's not a BLP. nableezy - 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a description of the LRB for librarians. Under editorial process, it says that "All articles are closely edited and rigorously fact-checked by a team of professional editors led by Mary-Kay Wilmers, who has been an editor at the magazine since it was founded in 1979." The "contributors" are "many of the leading writers and intellectuals of the modern age." This is true. It's probably the leading intellectual publication in the UK, so I wouldn't describe it as crowd sourced. Shatz is a freelance journalist with an excellent reputation, but if we are still not satisfied with the LRB's fact checking we can attribute it to him instead of stating it as a fact. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why this is not reliable. The information may be startling, which is I guess why the author chose to include it in the obituary and sifted out all the occasions on which Mr Mer-Khamis ate a sandwich. But it doesn't seem implausible and, absent anything to suggest it isn't true, there's no particular reason to exclude it from Misplaced Pages. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem implausible to you that a military unit would conduct target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it as a target? Really? Can you name a single instance, reported by reliable sources of something like this happening? In any military? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk)

Bold claims require bold proof. If the events Shatz wrote about (again, in an obituary, not a news article) actually happened, there should be other sources. But there aren't. In fact, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has Mer-Khamis himself telling a different version of the story. His version is much more believable. For example, he says that the donkey was hit accidentally, while Shatz claims the unit was aiming for the donkey (that had a little girl on it). I think the more believable story is the one the man told himself, not the one from the obituary.

In fact, now that a more direct source has contradicted Shatz's article, it calls the whole obituary into question. Although LRB is normally a reliable source, each citation in Misplaced Pages must be independently evaluated. An emotional obituary with at least one known error is not strong enough for its assertions to be repeated in a factual, encyclopedic voice. CSWP1 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

London Review of Books is a highly prestigious literary journal, and I don't see any basis for claiming that it is not as thoroughly fact-checked as a news source. In fact publications such as LRB (and comparable ones such as New Yorker, New York Review of Books, The Paris Review etc) are highly selective in who and what they publish, and given their longer preparation times, such publications (as well as obituaries in first-tier publications such as NYT) should be regarded as more reliable than news-articles published on a tight deadline. This is not to say that such publications never make mistakes; and one should be aware that as literary publications the articles published often represent a POV (which is not an issue of reliability per se) and thus may require attribution. However dismissing the source as crowd-sourced or "an emotional obituary" is thoroughly uninformed.
PS: User:CSWP1 appears to be misreading the WRMEA article in claiming that it contradicts the LRB article. The former says that "soldiers accidentally shot dead a 12-year-old girl sitting on a donkey", which is consistent with "shot at a donkey, but instead killed the 12-year-old girl who was sitting on it.". In both sources the implication is that the shooting of the girl was unintentional, though perhaps careless, and improperly covered-up. Abecedare (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem implausible to you that a military unit would conduct target practice with a bazooka using a donkey that had a little girl on it as a target? Really? Can you name a single instance, reported by reliable sources of something like this happening? In any military? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

My, or your, subjective opinion is not really relevant here; that is why wikipedia relies on reliable sources such as LRB. But for what it is worth, IMO errors and cover-ups by military units are neither that rare to raise WP:REDFLAG concerns, nor so common to be be passe and not worth noting. Abecedare (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but we are not discussing errors nor coverups - the LRB claims this military unit was conducting target practice for a shoulder-launched missile, using a donkey with a little girl riding it. See WP:REDFLAG for why such an implausible claim needs much stronger references. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There is not a shadow of doubt that both Schatz and the LRB are extremely good sources. There is nothing unusual in the report, which we have in two versions. Children are deliberately shot by IDF soldiers quite often (Iman Darweesh Al Hams, Khalil al-Mughrabi): there are even statistical analyses of head/heart shots that show a remarkable incidence of accurate fire, killing on average a child a week during the second intifada, take as one example of the latter this. There is a slight variation in two sources, so one simply gives both versions, Schatz's and WMREA's. Neither should be pushed as 'the truth'. That is a very simple prose exercise, gentlemen.Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither of your examples are remotely similar to a case of a unit conducting target practice with an anti-tank weapon on live persons. The only thing we can state, based on the two sources, is that Mer-Khemis says this fantastic incident happened. But unless multiple reliable sources can attest to this actually happening, it can't be stated in the article as fact. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk)

'Fantastic'. Do you ever read the news? 'Neither' refers to two distinct items. I referred to 4 sources. That is dumb grammar. Your objections are silly. You are saying nothing can be referred to on Misplaced Pages unless (a) an identical incident is attested to show such things can happen and (b) there are multiple sources for the incident. IDF targeting of Palestinian children has been widespread, everyone knows that. It has a considerable academic literature. That you think something odd about a soldier's memory of shooting a donkey for target-practice and, accidently, killing a child on it is suspect, shows unfamiliarity with that weird universe that is the I/P killing fields. Killing donkey drays by firing missiles at with people on board is not rare in the I/P conflict, and it is reported that on occasion suicide bombers have approached Israeli positions on a donkey loaded with explosives: while occupying Lebanon the IDF put out a military order forbidding farmers from riding donkeys, after one such incident, so there is a military rationale. In the latest war, Israel systematically targeted all of Gaza's poultry and livestock farms. Anyone recall what happened to all the exotic animals in the Rafah zoo when the IDF smashed it? You can see the aftermath on youtube.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Daily Kos Elections

We've long established that Daily Kos is not a reliable source in general due to the self-published nature. In doing some cleanup, I tripped up on Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014 and Nevada gubernatorial election, 2014, both of which use Daily Kos Elections for electoral race projections, often putting them in the same breath as well-established, highly reliable political specialists like the Cook Report and Larry Sabato. Are their projections reliable for this sort of commentary, or should they be handled similarly to other Kos uses? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, polls are the detritus of election campaigns, and the fewer used, the better. Yet some articles have several hundred poll results listed - which I consider outrageous. You will find some people who say "If I find it on the web, it must be notable enough for Misplaced Pages" and they can be quite obdurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

These should be treated differently than other Daily Kos pages, since they're being used as primary sources about Daily Kos polls rather than as secondary sources about non-Daily Kos subjects. From a verifiability/RS standpoint they can be used, but only carefully and they should generally be avoided in favor of secondary sources reporting on the same polls, when possible. From a neutrality standpoint these polls might not be robust enough to be placed alongside more widely accepted polls such as Cook and Rothenberg. And then there are the valid WP:RECENTISM and WP:CBALL concerns that Collect identified. But those are other matters. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What about them makes them somehow more reliable than standard Daily Kos pages, though? This isn't a situation of polls, but of electoral race projections, which, while based on polling, are a different beast. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, you're right. I believe Daily Kos does do some polling and without looking too deeply I thought these were poll results, but instead they're poll ratings and analysis. Self published, not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, DrFleischman is correct, SPS and not reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Easy call - Kos Elections one of the LEAST reliable parts of Kos, not a WP:RS by a long shot--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above - not reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of the website www.austadiums.com

Can anybody check and confirm it whether the attendance data recorded for all venues for all sports played in australia and New Zealand in this website is correct or not? I mean can you confirm it whether this website is reliable or not? Arka 92 09:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) (Originally posted on talk page, moving here. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC))

It might depend on the specific content being cited. According to this page, Austadiums gets its news from Fox Sports. Presumably most Fox Sports article are reliable but you should be citing the original Fox Sports articles themselves rather than Austadiums. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Fox Sports publish the attendances for all matches? What about those matched where Fox Sports don't have the broadcasting rights, eg BBL?? Arka 92 03:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. Remember that the editor seeking to add content has the burden of showing that content is reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So I can assume this website to be marginally reliable and we can use these data in Misplaced Pages. Right? Arka 92 06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

idiotbox.co.uk

I just wanted a couple of second opinions about the website http://www.idiotbox.co.uk/. They are reporting that Chris Pappas is leaving Neighbours here, but appear to be the only ones doing so at the moment. The article is a GA, so I'm just being a bit cautious about leaving a source there that I'm unsure about. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Looks like a blog run by two enthusiasts. There is no evidence of editorial oversight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with DrFleischman EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll remove it and wait for a better source. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill Hicks' "Hitler had the right idea" rant

I am wondering if it is acceptable to source the statement "Another of Hicks's most famous quotes was delivered during a gig in Chicago in 1989 (later released as the bootleg I'm Sorry, Folks). After a heckler repeatedly shouted "Free Bird", Hicks screamed that "Hitler had the right idea; he was just an underachiever!" Hicks followed this remark with a misanthropic tirade calling for unbiased genocide against the whole of humanity." with this clip from Youtube. I don't think it satisfies WP:RS so I was bold and removed the link from the article Kevin Matthews (radio personality) and replaced it with a "citation needed" template. I, then, checked Hick's article and saw that that the same link was also being used for essentially the same thing. If I'm wrong, I return the link to the Matthew's article, but the clip appears to be a bootleg of Hick's Chicago show. Instead of the YouTube clip, I am wondering if either this, this or even possibly this would be acceptable per WP:RS. Thanks in adavance. - Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is reliable or not, the YouTube clip cannot be cited - we do not cite links to copyright violations. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AndyTheGump. It seemed like an obvious copyvio to me, but just thought I double check before removing the link from the Hick's article as well. Any opinion on the three alternatives that I listed? Do you think any of them would be acceptable as a RS? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

These two YouTube clips were also be used as inline citations in Hick's article. This one says it's licensed for fair use and this one says it's from a BBC interview. Are these also copyvios or would they be OK per WP:EL/P#YouTube? - Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright is an issue, but it's also a primary source. Including it means we're relying on original research to determine what's worth including. In other words, we can't say something is one of his "most famous quotes" or representative of his style if reliable secondary sources haven't said so. If copyright weren't an issue, we could include the primary link for good measure, but it's not enough to include anything at all on its own. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Rhododendrites. Would any of the three sources I gave above, in your opinion, be sufficient to use in support of the ""Another of Hicks's most famous quotes (...)" statements in both the Hick's and Matthew's articles or should the two statements be removed altogether? Also, do you think the other two YouTube links I mentioned that were being used in the Hick's artice (the BBC interview and the "fair use" ones) are also copvios? Should the information they are being used to support in the Hick's article be removed? FWIW, there are also two other YouTube links being used as inline citations. The "Bill Hicks on Austin Public Access" clip is being used in the lede. It appears to be a copyvio to me, but I'm not sure if the "public access" makes it OK to use. The other clip is "Bill Hicks Outlaw Comic Documentary" is used to support NBC at the time about a certain topic Hick's was using in one of his jokes. Again, I'm not 100% sure if this is a copvio. If these both are copyvios, then the satements they support should also be removed, right? If they are not copyvios, then the question is whether they satisfy WP:RS, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to go to YouTube. If you do a Google search for "bill hicks" "hitler had the right idea", it pulls up plenty of reliable sources that discuss the clip. I didn't notice anyone specifically call it is his most famous routine, but there was plenty of commentary on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info NinjaRobotPirate. I actually did google that which is how I found the three alternative to YouTube I listed above. But, most of the commentary I saw was user-generated stuff that basically linked to the same YouTube clips. BTW, do you think the three sites I listed above are reliable? - Marchjuly (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A lengthy description/transcript of the rant can be found in Hick's biography

True, Cynthia American Scream: The Bill Hicks Story. London, HarperCollins, 2002. ISBN 0380803771

around page 140. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Abecedare. That would work fine. I'll check if that book is available online just to get the actual page number. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Um -- the Google search on it does not show that rant inthat book. AFAICT, it is a "squelch line" frequently used by comedians. Many of Don Rickles' best lines, quoted out of context, sound pretty horrid. Casey Kasem did a Hitler impersonation in honor of Rickles. Tweet: Don Rickles on polite Bob Newhart: If Hitler had lived, Bob would have chatted him up. I suspect Misplaced Pages is cooperating in making a mountain out of a comedic molehill. Squelches are generally meant to throw a monkey wrench (or barrel of monkey wrenches) into the heckler's position. If we ran an article on squelches, it might fit in. In a biography? Not. As for calling for the destruction of the world: However, why should anybody want to save the human race, or damn it either? Does God want its society? Does Satan? (Mark Twain) See also , "Every comedian has a different opinion. George Carlin talked about his preferential method of vanquishing hecklers. He said “Some comedians like to have a stockpile of witty lines stored to use when they need them. I always prefer to use a verbal sledge hammer to the base of the skull.” Collect (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is in the book, on page 127. I don't think anyone doubts that it is used to squelsh the heckler, so I've no clear idea why you are arguing that point or what you mean about "making a mountain out of a comedic molehill". The question is simply whether or not the line is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in his biography. It does seem to be one of his best known. According to the biography it was an important moment in his career, but the issue at the time was that he was ranting at the heckler by repeatdly calling her a "drunk cunt", which is apparently what caused most of the audience to leave. No-one seems to have cared about Hitler at the time. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure it is - but Google books search does not let me find it. Some of the other cites I found trace straight back to Misplaced Pages <g>, or to people remembering bootleg recordings. I suspect he said close to that a number of times - but as to whether he did it out of actual belief of any sort - dubious. It should not be used except with the nature of the interaction being clear, for sure. Collect (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh I don't think there's any suggestion that it implies pro-Nazi or genocidal ideology on Hicks' part. Paul B (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Try the Amazon 'Look Inside' reader and search for 'Hitler'...although you perhaps will need to sign in and there may be user/region based restrictions. And agree with Paul that there is no implication of Nazi-sympathies in Hicks' (quite funny) rant as the context, as well as the full quote after the underachiever line, makes clear, "Kill em all, Adolf, all of 'em. Jews, Mexicans, Americans, Whites, Kill'em all. Start over! The experiment didn't work" Abecedare (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- usually Google does a "full search" showing stuff not in preview mode as in plain sanserif form -- rarely does it miss like this. Can't tell precisely how the book attributes the material though - does it say it used a transcript or used a report from another source? Amazingly enough, sometimes "quotes" have a mysterious life of their own, and I would prefer a more solid source if this book does not tell what source it used for the transcript. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's (bootleg) video of the event, so transcribing it would not have been a problem (although we cannot use or cite primary/copyvio sources on wikipedia, that's not an issue for biographers, scholars, news-media etc). And agree that the line needs to be contextualized properly, but that is best discussed on the article talkpage IMO. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the original source is a copyright violation, any copies are still copyright violations. News Media have certain rights about "speeches" being quoted at the time, but if you write a book with the "I Have a Dream" speech in it - prepare for a major copyright suit. Cheers. "I Have a Dream" is copyright until 2038. Collect (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we are getting into a discussion blind-alley here over the issue of copyrights. Bottom line: HarperCollins is responsible to make sure that the biography they are publishing complies with copyright law and that the appropriate permissions have been taken; and their lawyers surely know more that enough about the issue. We just need to treat the reliable secondary source just as we would any other (ie, cite it properly, not over-quote etc). Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just want to thank everyone for the feedback and help in sorting this out. My primary concern was the YouTube clips, and those have been sorted out. Squelchers and all of that stuff didn't even cross my mind. Anyway, WP:N doesn't extend to article content, right? So, whether the rant deserves to be in the article depends on consensus and its coverage in reliable sources. Since the latter appears to have been resolved by the finding of the biography, the former is probably best left to discussion at Talk:Bill Hicks. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Organharvesting.net

On the Falun Gong page, a user keeps reinserting propaganda website ] as a cover for deleting edits from voices who have said that there's no evidence of organ harvesting of FLG members. I've been arguing that the site is not reliable for any matter other than the opinion of the (potentially notable) participants. I seek further input though rather than engaging in editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Simonm223, that link doesn't work. I think the site you mean is organharvestinvestigation.net (Matas and Kilgour). As to reliability, this is beyond what we can decide on this noticeboard. We have an article on that report – Kilgour–Matas report. If anyone has evidence for reliability (or the reverse), it should be discussed in that article. And then the corresponding section in the Falun Gong article should be based on the report article. My own impression of the corresponding section is that it is too long. Since we have an article about it, it should be possible to write a shorter summary. If necessary, the summary should mention both sides of the reliability question. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann are the 3 key investigators of organ harvesting in China. Its common for transplant professionals and others to refer to the Kilgour–Matas report. On the US National Library of Medicine site there are 4 articles that reference or mention it.

On annual Congressional-Executive Commission on China reports, its mentioned or referenced - 2006 report 3 times, 2007 report twice, 2009 report twice, and 2012 report once.

The Government of China's 2 rebuttals of the report are listed on the Kilgour–Matas report, Falun Gong and other wiki articles with organ harvesting info. Aaabbb11 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, you know what, let the editwarrior have the Falun Gong page. Because I'm tired of this conflict. And it never ends. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Scotland women's national football team 1972–99 results

This list of soccer results fails verification due to inadequate sourcing. The two references cover only eight of 96 results while the external link lists only results from 2002, so is not a reliable source for 1972-1999. The owner of the article has repeatedly reintroduced the contentious material and removed tags. The list does seem quite detailed so I suspect the information must have some from somewhere (perhaps from de) or from an uncited offline source. If so, there are potential WP:COPYWITHIN and/or WP:PLAGIARISM implications for the article in its current state. 90.207.206.108 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper website list of articles contributed

Hi. I wanted to add the text "He is a regular contributor to the Japan Times." to the Gregory Clark (author) article, but my source would have been a list of articles and I figured that would have violated NOR, so I settled for adding the link to the bottom of the page.

Was I right?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you need to source that. Everyone knows he contributes regularly to that newspaper.Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that experienced editors do not always demand sourcing on facts which can be uncontroversially verified, but your approach seems prudent. What policy says is that the thing you write without sourcing should not be seen as non-obvious to other editors (and other editors should be able to read, think, use google etc). What we have all experienced over the years are editors whose argument for something being non-obvious (which they want removed for other reasons) is that they are an editor and they are saying it is non obvious. It is difficult to discuss then. But this does not happen all the time, and if you expect no controversy... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Josephine Joseph

Hello. Most of the material on the Josephine Joseph article comes from this blog post, which I am not certain counts as a reliable source. If you scroll to the end of the blog post, the author admits that they are going to add all of their findings to Misplaced Pages once they posted their entry (and it seems they did). Is this permissible? Because it seems like good information, but I'm not sure if it violates WP:OR or not. Thanks. 76.79.198.106 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the blog itself is just an aggregation, and can/should be left out of the loop for purposes of the article. That is, the blog itself does appear to contain other sources, so those could be cited for directly supportable statements in the WP article. Each statement (and underlying source for it) would stand or fall by the usual WP:V/WP:RS. But the blog itself, and any unsupported statements or synthesis of supportable statements, do not seem reliable in that regard beyond being a good place to find a collectionof other sources and possible useful information gleaned from them. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal website use as source

At Yasser Al-Habib article, it had been used of The drop (the office of sheikh Al-Habib) website as a source. In other words, most of sources of the article about one person is his website. Imagine the person is alive. Is it reliable source? Is it true using of the website of person for referring contents in his article?Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: Please guide me. Thanks!Viator313 (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It depends on how the source is used. If it his opinion, then it is okay. If it is some claim or accomplishment that needs external proof, then it shouldn't be used. Specifically, regarding the article, and looking at this version - footnote 7 is about Al-Habib expressing his views on Fadlallah, hence the use is permissible. Same with footnote 5. Footnote 3 is again material he produced, though we'd not recommend youtube as a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

D. M. Murdock or "Dorothy M. Murdock"

There is a debate at D. M. Murdock on whether or not to use her first name (she has clearly stated on her Facebook page that she doesn't want her Misplaced Pages article to use her first name, and prefers to go by her pen name of Acharya S, the current name of the article link) However, many scholarly sources use her full name.

Maurice Casey, page 21 in his text "Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" published by T&T Clark, has a consice biography of her stating her real name and her pen name.

Question - Is this a reliable source to clarify the first name in the article instead of using the initial of "D" as the author prefers for her Misplaced Pages article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note When this discussion resolves, if the book is deemed reliable, please post to WP:BLPN/ In the meantime, I'm going to close Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#D._M._Murdock_or_Dorothy_Murdock to avoid wasting other editors' time. --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you have already commented at Talk:Acharya S please hold back and let uninvolved editors provide feedback. We don't need cumulative arguments. Jehochman 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• This book is a very high quality source and meets WP:RS to a high standard. It does an excellent job of establishing that this person's name is Dorothy Murdock. There's a comment above saying that it's published by T&T Clark. That might be true, but I find it listed at Bloomsbury's website (), a publisher I know fairly well and one about which there shouldn't be any doubts. Whatever the other arguments one might want to make about this issue, we shouldn't find any problems in regard to RS here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• The source does seem reliable enough to verify that the D stands for Dorothy. I also found a passing reference to "Dorothy Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S)" in

Callahan, Tim. "Did Jesus Exist? What the evidence reveals." Skeptic 19.1 (2014)

Is there any reason to doubt this as a point of fact (as distinct from whether the subject prefers that name, or what wikipedia style/BLP guidelines dictate)? Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This to me seems very reminiscent of similar controversy at Stoya -- where some sources considered reliable thought they knew Stoya's true name, and were wrong as it turned out. Are we up to the possibility of falsely exposing somebody as a controversial figure, if they simply happen to share a last name and first initial of one? Pandeist (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Perusing Talk:Stoya I see sources such as "all over the web", imdb, google knowledge graph, xmdb.com (defunct) and starnostar.com being cited; all of which are obviously unreliable (esp. in a BLP). So I am not sure how the situations are comparable, at least as far as the issue of reliable sources is concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to other discussions (including the first post in this section) the individual doesn't dispute the notion that this is her real name -- she simply prefers that it not be used. I don't think we're risking being wrong here, at least in being accurate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is more than one comment in the talk page discussion that she denies this being her actual name. Pandeist (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, if we have Murdock specifically denying that D stands for Dorothy (as opposed to her not using Dorothy), then we should consider the possibility that the two sources cited above got the information wrong. Can someone point to Murdock's specific statement? Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Following links from the article talkpage I found this facebook posting in which Murdock repudiates "any and all instances of my purported name online".

My reading of the topic (which I was not familiar with earlier) is that:

• We have reliable sources calling the subject Dorothy.
• The subject clearly does not like being referred to by (apparently any) first name, raising issues of undue familiarity, safety and error.

This eventually is not a question of reliable sources per se (because I believe the sources we have cross that bar), but how to balance our mission of being an encyclopedia with being sensitive to the wishes of the article's subject. All the best in that. :) Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think now the BLP Noticeboard is the right venue, now that we know the sources are reliable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for going through all this effort to ensure this subject is treated fairly. Jehochman 21:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Start a new section, with a suitably descriptive heading. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Palgrave Macmillan history book

An editor is claiming that this book The New Atheist Denial of History by an academic historian published by Palgrave Macmillan is not a monograph, and therefore not peer-reviewed.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT that book would be counted as a monograph under the Palgrave Macmillan publishing categories (don't see why that is relevant though). In any case, Palgrave says that all their publications are peer-reviewed and as a respected academic publishing house, I don't see any obvious reason to doubt that. The author himself is a history professor, and though he does not seem to have a extensive bibliography of original work, a JSTOR search shows that he has written quite a number of book reviews for history journals; so he is definitely qualified to review the writings of Harris, Dawkins et al. Given the author and publisher, the book would pass the basic reliable source test. On the other hand, I didn't find any reviews of the work (not surprising given its specialized topic and recency), and it is held by only a few libraries, so be wary to giving the work undue weight and be sure to attribute any opinions you cite. Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur. It looks like a book by a historian writing about his area of expertise, albiet on a controversial topic. If the point is whether it's "peer reviewed", there's no indication in the book whether it was reviewed as part of the publishing process. But that's normally the case – academic publishers don't disclose the names of their reviewers. And the lack of a formal post-publication review isn't disqualifying either, as it is still a new book. But given the nature of the topic, the author's qualifications are 100% certain to be challenged. So without the imprimatur of reviews by other historians it should be used with attribution – an academic book by a Christian historian on the errors made by non-historians (atheists). – Margin1522 (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

@Margin1522: As per this link, the book is a monograph], which their website specifically states are peer-reviewed, and as per this link Rigorous peer review is vital to this. We will support you with a thorough but fast and responsive peer review process. provided by Abecedare, all of the academic press's publications are peer-reviewed.

The book was only published three months ago, so there are no citations of it, not even a review as far as I can tell. He is a mainstream historian writing in his field of expertise. Yes, he is an Episcopalian lay priest, but he acknowledges that in a sort of disclaimer in the preface stating that he is writing as a career academic historian, follows that with a statement opening the Introduction as to his position on Harris, and cites other mainstream historians in supporting his statements, etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubts the book is peer reviewed for it's historical content, I just simply doubt it's an academic monograph rather than a book for a public audience (they may also call them monographs but that's hard the point), a point you seem unwilling to concede. I've seen plenty of academic monographs (albeit not in history) and they don't read or look like this. It's clearly for a public audience. It seems to me to be the equivalent of trying to treat the the Selfish Gene as an academic monograph (OUP also peer review their books). As I already stated here: , the book is also just out and lacking reviews/citations. You are also using this book to say a generic statement like "Harris is bad at history for some reason according to someone", which as I have already mentioned, is just a lazy way of writing (and to clarify, I'm saying you are making the lazy additions, not that the author of the book is lazy). Second Quantization (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Could we have some context here? Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Context: Ubikwit has been editing the Sam Harris (author) article with the apparent intent of adding critical or negative content (he has complained that he is combatting "whitewashing"). Harris is an outspoken atheist who is particularly critical of Islamic religion, which is presently a rather active subject in news cycles. Ubikwit has introduced this book published 90 days ago by a priest/ex-history teacher which purports to criticize "new atheists" (including Harris) for their lack of knowledge on, or disregard of, history. Ubikwit says he hasn't read the book, but has found Harris mentioned in it through Google searches, and has quoted on the Talk page passages from the book which criticize Harris' knowledge of history. Ubikwit did introduce a single sentence and a citation to the book into the Harris article to, as far as I can tell, introduce and lend credibility to lesser quality sources he wished to use (Lears):

• Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.

It's yet unclear as to whether Ubikwit intends to cite the Painter book for assertion of fact. Hope that helps. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm curious to know which editor is claiming it's not peer reviewed. Perhaps you should notify him or her, Second Quantization (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As Abecedare noted above, Palgrave-Macmillan does publish peer-reviewed texts, but also non-peer-reviewed texts (contrary to Ubikwit's assertion) in the academic fields like History/Historiography. While the text doesn't have all the hallmarks of being peer-reviewed (the preface and introduction mention only that his wife and daughter reviewed it), I haven't personally worried about whether the source is officially peer-reviewed or not yet because, frankly, I am more concerned about what specific information from the book we're talking about using. If the proposed information is somehow problematic, maybe then I will look further into the credentials behind the source. A quick phone call to confirm if it was "peer-reviewed" informed me that Chris Chappell, the Palgrave representative who handled the publication of that book, is no longer with the company, but I was assured that "the book passed their basic academic review". When I pressed for specific confirmation that the text underwent a peer review process rather than a publisher review, the question was sidestepped and I was asked instead if I had a specific issue or concern with the publication they could help me with. Of course, none of that matters until the original poster informs us as to "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting", per Step 3 above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Walter O'Brien

Since the RfC is really about reliable sources, I'm asking for those who keep tabs on this page to take a look at the following RfC and comment there: . Looking at the discussion(s) prior to the RfC might help in getting the gist of what prompted the RfC. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources, asking for opinion.

In the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article, new information is being introduced based on one questionable source. Other RS reporting the story cite the same questionable source as their source of information. The information presented is a conspiracy theory that hasn't been released yet, but according to the source, it will be released later. The story is based on a report they claim to have in their possession, that no one can confirm, and no one knows where the report came from. According to policy, WP:EXCEPTIONAL: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Can you please weigh in with an opinion? Here is the actual info in the article and these are the sources being used to support it. . Thank you. USchick (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Diff in question tells that "Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that it obtained documents" about plans for the 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. It does not claim that the documents are "the truth". There is no questions that newspaper indeed "reported" that it has the document, because this is something asserted by its editor in chief, Dmitry Muratov during his interview at Echo of Moscow (the reporting appears to be a fact). This has been republished in numerous other sources on several languages, such as this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with those sources, with the possible exception of McClatchy. Tried to find more in a Google News search, but that seems to be all there is. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing "exceptional" about the statement that Novaya Gazeta has said it posses this document. "with possible exception of McClatchy" is like saying "with the possible exception" of Reuters or any other reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a fringe and extreme conspiracy theory that isn't repeated seriously by reliable sources. As such it fails both notability criteria and WP:EXCEPTION as it would require multiple high quality sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that is nonsense. It IS repeated seriously by reliable sources. They're in the article. How in the world can you show up here and claim "(it) isn't repeated seriously by reliable sources" when the actual reliable sources are right there in plain sight for everyone to see? This looks like some bad-faith "if I say something wacky people will automatically believe it even if it's false" tactic. Again - the sources are right there.

And you, or USchick, repeatedly calling it "conspiracy theory" is bullshit too. Have you got a source which calls it a "conspiracy theory"? Please provide it! Do the reliable sources which have been already provided refer to it as "conspiracy theory"? No? Then quit making stuff up. Misplaced Pages isn't a place for original research or for venting your own personal opinions and prejudices. This is just some POV "WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT so I'm gonna call it names and hope some naive people believe me". Sources please or stop obfuscating.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. USchick (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here is original publication and comments as they appear in Russian language sources. That was reliably published. If the plans were true is another matter. Some of the stated goals have been already accomplished, others apparently failed.My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for more uninvolved editors to weigh in please to establish clear consensus. Thanks. USchick (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources seem to be clearly reliable for the edit in question. It isn't even close, really. Has there actually been a disagreement about the reliability of mcclatchy, etc... at the article's talk page? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. One disagreement is about whether or not a secret document reveals a conspiracy theory if the sources don't call it a "conspiracy theory." The other disagreement is about sources citing a report of unknown origin that may or may not exist. USchick (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a problem with the sources. McClatchy and VOA news are highly RS. Stating that a Russian newspaper has annouced that they have certain documents does not fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a direct reference to Novaya Gazeta publication, apparently it was only published today (25 Feb). Novaya Gazeta is a major Russian semi-opposition newspaper, they expect every vaguely anti-Putin publication to be challenged in courts (that are very sympathetic to Putin), so their fact checking of such publications are usually very solid. It is as good Russian source as it can be, certainly good enough to say "Novaya Gazeta reported..." Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. Based on this information, I may come back with a follow up question about another article. So what you're saying, is that reliable sources don't have to have proof of authenticity, just report about it. Ok, thanks. USchick (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

??? What is this suppose to mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the context and gravity, I'm predisposed towards caution. Yes, there are RS reporting on these documents but, given the high level of global interest, it will certainly be picked up on by further RS if there is merit in the findings. While it's been attributed inline in the article, I do see this being a case where we should stave off for the time being on the grounds of WP:REDFLAG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the RS noticeboard. The discussion is whether this is RS. The consensus is yes. Other content disputes should be at the talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me if I've misunderstood the point of the RSN - that is, it is required that the context be provided, being that of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and that a couple RS qualify as 'multiple' in such an event. As has been noted, the news has only just broken. Is this not meant as a venue in which to address what constitutes RS on a case by case basis, and in context? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) No, you're quite right, Capitalismojo. Admonishment taken as being merited. Any quibbles regarding the use of RS is definitely for the article's talk page, not for the RSN. The sources in question are definitely RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to the consideration of whether this is significant enough to go in the lede and article, or just article body itself. However, it is significant, related, and well sourced so it should be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. The RS are good. The question of where isn't that urgent. We can review it over the next couple of days on the talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This is now also in the New York Times . Can we just drop this? It's IJUSTDONTLIKEWHATRELIABLESOURCESAY and nothing more.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The authenticity of the document could not be independently verified. The newspaper did not publish any pictures of the memo or provide any proof that the policy described in it had actually been adopted.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This was my original question. This is a recent event, and newspapers are chasing the latest story, so reporting is often inaccurate. Misplaced Pages:Recentism applies in this case, but it's not a policy, only a guideline. Does common sense kick in at some point, or do we go with what one news report said? Every other news report is based on the first one. And the entire military intervention is based on propaganda, which this may be also. If this is a real story, should we wait for confirmation of some sort, or simply go with what everyone else is saying? It's hard to tell the difference between news and gossip. USchick (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Technology Tell

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

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silverseren 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

How do we define an "expert in their field"?

Does the "expert in their field" rule for self-published sources require that the author have been published by a reliable third-party source? Or would it be appropriate to use material self-published by a professional in their field, in an article related to that field, even if said professional has never been published by a reliable third-party source? As a specific example, I'd like to use information from an animation blog, maintained by professional animators, in an article about an animated film. --Jpcase (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the information that I would like to use would come from an interview that the blog carried out with the film's directors. --Jpcase (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Patheos

Is a reliable seondary source for the phrase

"After the attacks on the World Trade Center" in Sam Harris (author)?

I, in general, find using cites for a phrase of that ilk to be somewhat unusual, and personally fail to find any particular relevance nor need for this particular cite in a BLP.

Is this a reliable source for a claim of fact in the BLP? (I think the only fact in the phrase is that "the World Trade Center was attacked at some point in the past"?) Is there a need for any such cite? I this cite of relevance to such a fact? Is this cite of value to the BLP per se with regard to any claims of fact?

If the cite is being used to introduce opinions into the BLP, then I would think it would only be usable for opinions cited as opinions, but it seems not to be used for such a valid purpose here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch, for the nth time

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

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

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

Desperate Passage: The Donner Party's Perilous Journey West by Ethan Rarick

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.

The google preview is here. According to the NYT: "His is the first significant book, written, like Stewart's, in a novelistic mode and likely to gain popular readership, to incorporate this new data.... Rarick's account is not really about science; it's about humanity.... Rarick has done his homework."--New York Times Book Review. The publisher, Oxford University Press said: "A fast-paced, heart-wrenching, clear-eyed narrative history, Desperate Passage casts new light on one of America's most horrific encounters between the dream of a better life and the harsh realities such dreams so often must confront." Is this book basically a historical fiction? I don't see any footnotes for all the quotes, so this looks like reconstructed dialog. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, what do you think? This strikes me as pretty much the same vein as Waters's books. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome here I feel it will benefit the article either way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

How will it benefit the article exactly? The sources were scrutinised when it was submitted at FAC, so what's changed since then? Eric Corbett 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. OUP describes it as "narrative history," not "historical narrative." More to the point, and better than the NYT review, check out some of the scholarly reviews the book received: in the Western Historical Quarterly, for instance, or California History. The review in Western American Literature, what's more, notes that "Rarick prefers to let characters speak for themselves, and when the record is silent, he bases his conclusions on thoughtful analysis." So it seems far from a matter of reconstructed dialogue or fictionalization. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jbmurray that it's a reliable source, published by a leading university press, not a work of historical fiction. Shame that you had to let your issues with Eric Corbett spill over to here. Can we close this now? Bencherlite 12:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

rationalobserver, it is generally best practice to put a note on the talk page of an article when there is a concern about sourcing, if only to link to the discussion on the noticeboard. I wouldn't have known about this if another editor hadn't given me a heads up, and I was the one who actually read this book for the collaboration that produced the featured article. It is absolutely not historical fiction. It is written more like a popular history (i.e., it's an easy read), but sources are clearly discussed. He also included a section in the book detailing the sources that he relied on: from my notes, per Rarick on p 247, this book written mostly on primary sources written close to event; secondarily, letters and memoirs written later by those involved; tried to avoid relying on third-hand accounts. The book also included a criticial examination of the third-hand accounts (i.e., newspaper articles written in the months/early years after) for accuracy vs sensationalism.

Just FYI for the future, generally when I'm evaluating a source, I first look at the publisher. If it's a university press, they get an automatic point toward reliability (although if it is a popular history series, that point gets taken away). If it is self-published, it goes back on the shelf. If it's another publisher, I take a much closer look. I look for reviews in scholarly journals, as jbmurray pointed out. Sometimes the scholarly reviews say the book is fringe, etc., and then it gets put back on the shelf. I check whether or not the book has been cited by other authors. If possible, I read a wide range of books on the topic; if one seems to have a lot of errors compared to others, that book gets put back on the shelf. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought it better to mention it here before at the article talk page, as I was looking for neutral and uninvolved input. That the editors who originally thought the source was reliable have weighed-in here is not that helpful, and it certainly helps to sway consensus. But to clarify, when I saw it referred to as narrative history, it sounded like less than straight history. "Novelistic mode" and "is not really about science" should raise flags, but I knew there was a chance the NYT had this wrong. Still, Oxford called it a "narrative history", so what exactly does that mean in terms of RS? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I closed this on the basis that RO wanted "neutral and uninvolved input" and she had had that. She doesn't accept it, or the scholarly reviews of the book that show its reliability, so she has reopened this accusing me of being "involved" and closing it for "spurious reasons". The irony of continuing to flog a dead horse on this, of all topics, should be obvious. It is clear that nothing will satisfy RO that this book is reliable, so I see no point in keeping this discussion open, frankly. Bencherlite 17:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And as I was leaving this message, SchroCat was re-closing the discussion. Thanks. Bencherlite 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Casey reliable for Acharya S. article?

Warning that extensive canvassing and meatpuppeting forms part of the background to this question, by an author who does not want WP:FULLNAME included in author article lead. Nevertheless, the question here is does this 2014 publication on the T&T Clark imprint by Maurice Casey pass RS? And can this source be added to article under "critical reception" section. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Book review by Kerry Clare, reliable source for WP:BKCRIT?

Clare, Kerry (5 April 2009). "Battered Soles by Paul Nicholas Mason". Pickle Me This. Retrieved 27 January 2015. is being used as a source in Draft:Battered Soles, an article about the book reviewed.

Kerry Clare is a professional author and editor whose book reviews appear regularly in The Globe and Mail and The National Post. This particular review, however, appears in her own literary blog. At present, the review is being used to support this statement:

... and reviewer Kerry Clare comments: "As might be expected by a novel whose title is a pun, the humour throughout is a bit goofy, the wisdom folksy. I frequently laughed out loud as I read (it occurs to me to note: there is no other way to laugh, is there?) and enjoyed traveling alongside Mason and the colourful characters he meets."

It is also being counted as a review in a reliable source for the purposes of the notability criteria WP:BKCRIT. It has been argued that the review is unusable for notability purposes, regardless of who wrote it, because it appeared in this blog. That's not my reading of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies, but I could be wrong. I would welcome opinions from other editors.

• My biggest concern is that while she's written for various outlets, this is her own blog and she doesn't undergo any sort of editorial process other than via Clare herself, so I see it as a self-published source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thing is, books tend to get eaten alive when they get taken to AfD. Even trade reviews tend to be controversial at AfD, as many people consider them to be too short for notability purposes, so blog sources are viewed with an even higher level of scrutiny and I'm just concerned that if this draft article is approved on these sources, that it'd likely fail an AfD because the sourcing is a little too weak for comfort here. Getting these approved as RS is fine, but I'd be more comfortable if there were some other more concrete sources found. I can just see the sources on the articles getting torn apart at an AfD - especially as an AfC article, as so many of those get nominated for deletion to the point where not a lot of people (from what I've seen at AfD, which seems to mirror a lot of concerns elsewhere) have much faith in the approval process at AfC. That's why I'm being so harsh about the sources: I want to make sure that if it is approved, that it goes out with its strongest foot forward. I'm tired of reading some of the comments about the AfC process at AfD, some of which are extremely disparaging about the project as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution