Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 5 March 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.

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Atheist Denial of History by an academic historian published by Palgrave Macmillan is not a monograph, and therefore not peer-reviewed.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)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

@Xenophrenic:

• As I said above, even though the Painter book, given the author and publisher, should be regarded as a reliable and pertinent source for the Sam Harris article its arguments and conclusions still need to be properly represented, summarized, attributed, and not given undue weight... which is best discussed on the article talk-page. I don't think you and I have any disagreement on that point.
• However some of the other issues being raised, such as whether or not the book is a "monograph", or whether the concerned editor at Palgrave still works at the company (?!) etc are non sequiturs not really relevant to the issue of reliability on wikipedia. Most of the sources currently cited in the Sam Harris article are newspaper/magazine articles that aren't always written by specialists; aren't peer-reviewed; and don't receive post-publication reviews. Yet, barring exceptional circumstances, they are generally considered reliable sources on wikipedia for such contemporary biography articles. Of course better sources should be used whenever available, and this book as a lengthy review of Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens work by a history professor and published by an academic press is one such preferred source. I am not sure why novel standards are being invented in judging this particular source.

Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you have said. As I'm sure you are aware, when contentious information is proposed or introduced, the sources for that information will be scrutinized — nothing novel about that. I've seen in discussions here where an author's personal history is reviewed; funding sources questioned; educational institution is compared; publisher's reputation is evaluated; and, yes, whether or not the source was subjected to rigorous academic peer review and post-publication citation. The intent is usually to qualify or disqualify the source. So why the judging of this apparently otherwise reliable source? As evidenced below, and as I mentioned above in my context summary, this book is being used primarily as a vehicle to usher in Lears material as a credible source. Objections have been raised to that because Lears has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science (see positivism). While Painter does cite Harris and other atheists when presenting his criticism, his overall critique is of New Atheism, so that article is probably where such information should be introduced. Both text proposals below, Ubikwit's escort of Lears version, and Abecedare's much improved but equally vague version, say nothing other than: "Historian says New Atheists distort history", without informing the reader as to how or why. But that is indeed a matter for the article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I just noticed Xenophrenic's misplaced comment, which is why I didn't address it in my previous response.

He has again, flagrantly, misrepresented Lears by insinuating that he "tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics". Repeating that misrepresentation is extremely tendentiousness. Xenophrenic is the only individual to make such "objection" again here in a misplaced comment. I'm going to post the relevant text from Lears at AN/I.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Again with the lies, Ubikwit? Lying doesn't work here, as everything you say can be easily looked up and checked. A quick look at Lears review of Harris' book shows that he has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science:

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.” Every schoolkid knows about what happened next: the catastrophic twentieth century. The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, injected positivism with a missionary zeal. one cannot deny that embraced, from a safe distance, the “war on terror” as an Enlightenment crusade. He was not alone. Other intellectuals fell into line, many holding aloft the banner of science and reason against the forces of “theocratic barbarism.” Most prominent were the intellectuals the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists, a group that included Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire.

Xenophrenic (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's some additional context. Painter is a secondary source for Jackson Lears, who has written an a comprehensive review of three of Harris' books, first of all. Both Painter and Lears are "mainstream historians", and academics.

NI haven't read the book yet, so I've proposed using only minimal information from the previews.

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. Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book

and then states that

his abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.

References

1. The New Atheist Denial of History Borden W. Painter Jr, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 145-6

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This matter is best debated on the article talk page, but Ubikwit, I don't think your extract is very good in terms of conciseness or readability (besides missing some required quotation marks). For example my summary (having only read the intro to Painter's book) would be along the lines, "In his book The New Atheists denial of history historian Borden Painter Jr argues that Sam Harris, and other New Atheism authors, present a selective and distorted slice of history that does not match the historiographical practices or understanding of mainstream historians." Now the exact language and content is best discussed on the article talkpage, but this is to give you an idea of what I would consider fair and comprehensible. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK, thanks for the advice. (Talk discussion)I haven't read the book, which seems fairly involved, so I primarily cited it as secondary source support for Lears, whose comprehensive 17-page review is available online, and to frame the perspective of "mainstream historians", which both painter and Lears are. There are also insuficient secondary sources that cite statements by Harris in addressing his positions, so the quote seemed to help balance per DUE.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Concern: The book is self-described as

"This book is the first to challenge in depth the distortions of this New Atheist history. It presents the evidence that the three authors and their allies ignore. It points out the lack of historical credibility in their work when judged by the conventional criteria used by mainstream historians. It does not deal with the debate over theism and atheism nor does it aim to defend the historical record of Christianity or religion more generally. It does aim to defend the integrity of history as a discipline in the face of its distortion by those who violate it."

thus it specifically intended as an attack on the named authors, and not as a general objective review of the topic. That a book which is stated to be intended as an attack on named persons actually attacks them is a tad useless. I would be far more interested if it did not attack them. It is not stated to be a neutral source of any sort here, so I find it not to be especially useful when all it does is what its purpose was. This appears to be Painter's first book on such a topic, thus we do not know whether it will gain any scholarly acceptance at all. As there is no deadline, I suggest the best course is to lay it to the side for possible future use when it has been examined by others. We do not use initial studies even from peer-reviewed journals as a rule.

Our goal is to "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." and "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields." Collect (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. I am myself a theist and no particular fan of Sam Harris, but I would think that we in this case can wait for further comments either about the book itself in reviews or comments about the points it raises in the relevant academic journals. No rush here. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it is a peer-reviewed monograph, and per WP:RS

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

The fact that it is an initial "in depth" study does not mean there haven't been others, with Lears being representative, as per Steve Pinker, Martin E. Marty, Painter and others.

Secondly, the book has not been used for anything controversial unless stating its premise, with reference to a quote from Harris, is controversial, and introducing Lears via another mainstream historian, instead of through Pinker.

The source is absolutely usable at present according to policy, and it is somewhat tendentious to state otherwise. The current state of academic consensus is well represented by Lears and Painter. If you dispute that, then bring reliable sources.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct that the only proposal you've given (so far) for the use of this Painter book is to introduce another source (Lears) as credible, and to make the rather uninformative and un-encyclopedically vague assertion that the New Atheist case against religion conflicts with the "conclusions of mainstream historians" (without mentioning anything about what those conflicts entail)? Also, I am seeing some conflicting information as to whether the text has been "peer-reviewed"; could you point me to the specific information you have on the review for this work? (Note: I'm not disagreeing that Palgrave-Macmillian is generally regarded as an academic press.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The book is a primary source for the author's opinions - as for its eventual weight when examined by those scholars knowledgeable in the field, we have no idea yet. So let us obey the Misplaced Pages deadline - and wait. Collect (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Misplaced Pages deadline", that's a fabrication of a false pretense to try and prevent the use of a high-quality source that legislates against the promotional screed supported by primary sources that bloated the article before I arrived and cleaned it up.

Now you're trying to prevent the use of a peer-reviewed monograph by an academic representing the current state of scholarly consensus against the pseudo-historical rantings of a media icon whose Misplaced Pages article appears to serve as an advertisement for that, though popular, have been widely criticized by academics in the and scholars in the fields to which the topics of Harris' books published by the non-academic press Simon & Shchuster relate.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 00:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:DEADLINE which is a frequently mentioned essay. That you seem not to have heard if this before is odd, alas. I understand that you main goal in life is to attack the pseudo-historical rantings of a media icon but such wording appears on its face to indicate that you might actually be promoting your own personal point-of-view to an excessive degree. It is better for us to adhere to WP:NPOV than for us to rail about those whom we "know" to be loony so that we may make sure readers only get the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is RS, and only advocates are trying to exclude its use. Stick to the sources, and don't falsely accuse others of editing for the truth when you are one of those out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the article by excluding the critical statements of academics.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 23:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am frankly appalled and more than a little disgusted by the last comment above. It seems to me to jump to any number of absurd and unsubstantiated conclusions for no other purpose than rhetoric. At no point has anyone said anything about "excluding" anything, despite the false accusation above. What has been said, so far as I can tell, is that there is no particular rush as per WP:DEADLINE to include information almost immediately upon publication. It could well be, and, honestly, I think is likely, that in the next few months this book will receive significant attention of some sort, either positive or negative, in the relevant academic journals of all sorts. That tends to be the case, actually. If, in so doing, they support the book, then by all means we can not only include the statements from the book but also the indications of their support. If the statements are found to be "fringey", then we can say that. If, as could well be possible, one of the journal articles presents maybe even a better or more damning criticism of Harris, then there would be no reason not to include that stronger criticism. All that is being said so far, from what I have seen, is that there is no urgent immediate need to have this content added immediately. We can wait, as we regularly do with matters regarding topics where there doesn't exist any real hard "evidence" like in some sciences, and I think the concensus opinion around here on this thread is that in this case the consensus is that we can wait a few months to see how much material regarding this, and possibly other sources which might arise in that time, when the academic community has published its opinions on the book as it had been published. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the Talk page and AN/I threads before making errant statements based on your own misguided opinions.

WP:TE is a more applicable essay than DEADLINE, and RS is the policy that matters here.

I haven't bothered to read add the text or a different representation of it along the lines of the suggestion of Abecedare because the text I inserted from Lears hasn't been challenged, but that was not the statement deemed most contentious. I'm currently reading other collaborating academic sources, and will re-add the source when that information has been collated. The consensus here is that the source is RS, and that means it can be used now.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 01:08, 2 March 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)

The main news sources all trace specifically to CBS, which is airing a series "based on" the life of this person. The series itself is clearly fiction (although the CBS press releases blurred that line) and the question is - are CBS news sources "reliable sources" for claims of fact about a living person where the person is being promoted by the entertainment division of CBS? Is there a strong enough wall between the two divisions such that the CBS news claims about a CBS entertainment product are still regarded as "reliably sourced"? Would be a salient example of the connection between the divisions? Collect (talk) 15:59, 28 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)

Yes, the expert must have published, because one cannot be considered an expert unless one's work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Professional animators are not experts unless they also happen to have published works about animation. Experts would be people like professors of fine arts who specialize in animation. TFD (talk) 04:25, 27 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)

First of all, the quote by Chris Hedges is recited verbatim in this Guardian piece by Greenwald, and therefore is in no way dependent on Patheos, a fact that Collect is aware of per my clear indications thereof, such as here and here.

Here's a 2008 interview with the great war journalist Chris Hedges on what he concluded after reviewing the work of "New Atheists" such as Harris and Hitchens: "I was appalled at how they essentially co-opted secular language to present the same kind of chauvinism, intolerance, and bigotry that we see in the Christian right." He adds:

"They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.

Second, the text "After the attacks on the World Trade Center" was used to replace in the lead was "In conjunction with world events involving violence and Islam,", which is and unduly broad not to mention unsourced.

Third, there are other sources, some quoting from Harris' writings that support narrower language, such as these quotes related to the "war on terror", and "war against Islam" from 2005 book where he makes arguments for the use of torture

"Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism..."
"Enter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: our most valuable capture in our war on terror..."
"We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so".Sam Harris, torture, quotation

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In short - Patheos is not RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that doesn't necessarily follow. In short, it is not necessary to evaluate whether Patheos is RS or not regarding the quote, which is cited in other reliable secondary sources.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:17, 27 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)

(@Silver seren:)–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you questioning the reporting on whether Hamas released a video with said claims? Or that the source is misrepresenting the claims in the video being reported on? Silverseren 20:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Either or both. There's a video on Youtube, but these sources are not strong enough to link it to Hamas or report on its content. RSN has found repeatedly that these propaganda organs are not reliable for controversial statements of this kind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them propaganda organs. There's no Israeli government news organ that I know of, or even standards of censorship in Israeli news publications thee days, just a bunch of sensationalist news organisations that regularly engage in yellow journalism and tabloid reporting. I would say that, all except possibly Ha'aretz, are poor quality publications though you can rely on them for many Israel-related non-political local topics like archaeology and new public works projects (I actually don't know of any news source anywhere where you can get neutral political news about Israel). Artuz Sheva/Israel National News though, I would not trust for anything, especially things relating to Palestinians, Arabs, liberals, Tel Aviv, etc. as they are known to hate all these things, and the settlements, where they are the official news source, and understandably feel threatened at times, and write as such (though even if it's understandable, it's no reason to use them). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 10 Adar 5775 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No one ever (as far as I know) have accused PMW of faking a video and the video is similar to many others released by Hamas. The logo is there. The terrible Hebrew scary quote is there. I am not sure about the 'Kornet' statement - What does israelnationalnews bases their analysis on? Though it does look like the picture on 9M133 Kornet page.

Arutz Sheva, which began and persisted as an illegal settler propaganda organ outlawed in Israel, and, when 'legalized', was returned to that status by the Israeli Supreme Court with overturned the Knesset, thrives on reporting extremist claims, such that the Obama administration is penetrated by Muslims,(see also here); that when major Israeli newspapers, relying on direct videos of the abduction, were attributing the Kidnapping and Murder of Abu Khdeir to settler revenge, they persisted in holding out (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182494#.VPXOhps5Dcu implicitly) for the (Arab) pedophile killing rumour. This place customarily gives a hard time for any site like the Jewish liberal-left Mondoweiss, that has excellent reportage, yet is relatively at ease with Arutz Sheva. Consistency in principle would suggest that nothing from Arutz Sheva can be cited as a fact.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Palestinian Media Watch is widely regarded as a reliable source. major news sources including the Chicago Sun-Times the Associated Press, The Telegraph and the Washington Post cite it regularly for it's reliable translation or the Palestinian Arabic-language press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Arutz Sheva is a national news source with a large readership/listenership. It is neither more political not less reliable than Fox New or The Guardian (i.e. not always). It does sensationalize in a Daily Mail, New York Daily News sort of way. The remedy to this is not to brand it as unreliable, but to write "According to Arutz Sheva..." or "According to The Guardian..." taking all news sources with a grain of salt since they all have biases. And striving to source facts to multiple sources. However, we have to recognize that the biases of newspapers show most vividly in the matter of which stories they choose to cover. Sometimes a biased source like Al Jazeera or Russia Times is the only source for a fact. In that case you write "According to..." But you do not, as Rosecaleese is attempting to do here, attempt to disqualify a news source in a country with a feisty, free press simply because you do not like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Arutz 7 articles about Abu Khdeir doesn't include the word 'pedophile' 'gay' or 'homo'. The article about Obama reports of a story on 'Rose El-Youssef'. Ashtul (talk) 19:11, 3 March 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)

User:Tokyogirl79, User:Silver seren as active here could maybe take a quick look at publisher and author creds please? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The book was apparently written by Maurice Casey and published just a couple months before his/her death if our Misplaced Pages page on Casey is to be believed. Again, if Casey's Misplaced Pages page is correct, and they are a British Scholar and a professor from the University of Nottingham, that absolutely looks like a reliable source to me; just about the best kind around. I will note that the book has a tint of advocacy in its description and should be balanced with other similar books from different academics with different perspectives regarding the primary subject of christianity. CorporateM (Talk) 06:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* Yes, it is reliable. This discussion has had been had before on multiple pages, I think we can just go on and tell the people who WP:DONTLIKEIT that it's not the book that's the problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• User_talk:CorporateM User:Ian.thomson thanks. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources is difficult when an author is running an active campaign on and off Misplaced Pages to have academic sources criticial of their scholarship excluded from their bio article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:28, 1 March 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)

• I agree with User:Tokyogirl79 that as a self-published, and relatively non-notable blog, picklemethis.blogspot.com would not be a reliable source on wikipedia even though Kerry Clare has published book reviews in mainstream publications. While WP:SPS allows for some exceptions for citing acknowledged experts in the subject area, IMO such exceptions in case of book reviews should be limited to cases like Maria Popova Brain Pickings blog that themselves have been extensively and (mostly) positively reviewed (and some may disagree with me even in such cases). Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Books reviews are rarely reliable sources, except for the opinions of their writers. So the question is how notable is this view. TFD (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Day One: Garry's Incident

This discussion could use additional participants. CorporateM (Talk) 06:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Source used as reliable on points of fact which are contradicted by its own endnotes.

I think it would be most straightforward to simply link to another, dormant, mediation page (Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_109#talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy), the remainder of the somewhat acrimonious discussion is already archived.

To summarize: user:Spearmind cited a work by James Howard Kunstler which advanced a certain view. The book, "The Geography of Nowhere," is a polemic social commentary on the suburbanization of the US, which has some scholarly dressing. The cite was stovepiped back to a source which all the other active editors had agreed was not reliable.

The editor first denied that there were any reference cites in the piece, claiming that the work was completely original to the cited author. When shown what the cites existed, and what they actually said...well, I think it would be best if you just read it below. He does not seem to see any problem with indirectly citing a refutation of his thesis as proof of it. He has now, since, placed other cites with the same issues of bad underpinning on the article.

The other editors currently involved are user:PeterEastern and user:Trackinfo. Issues involve reliable and unreliable sources, and due weight to each source. The block quote below does not look quite right; feel free to change the format as needed.19:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

From ]

References

1. ^ Huntley, Steve (7 September 2014). "Decimated Hamas makes ludicrous claims". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 3 March 2015. Cite error: The named reference "Huntley" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. Deitch, Ian (3 November 2010). "Israel takes aim at Palestinian 'incitement'". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
3. Deitch, Ian (15 August 2007). "PETA Critiques Hamas TV for Animal Abuse". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
4. "Russia vows to support Palestinian UN membership bid". The Telegraph. 21 September 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
5. Simmons, Jake (27 April 2014). "Palestinians reward terrorists from British aid". The Telegraph. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
6. Pincus, Walter (30 August 2007). "Plan for Terror Screening of Aid Groups Cut Drastically". Washington Post. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
7. Kunstler, James (1993). The geography of nowhere : the rise and decline of America's man-made landscape. New York London: Simon & Schuster. p. 91. ISBN 0-671-88825-0.

Anmccaff (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Its really difficult to work with the editor. He tries to delete stuff again and again, adds personal notes to the article instead of searching cooperation and agreement in discussion in advance, and without adding material in a constructive way and works against the majority of editors. PeterEastern and Trackinfo are the "dinosaurs" here. Dont think that he has informed them properly about the new subject here. Furthermore he is using terms like "conspiracy theorist" trying to discredit people und uses far from neutral subject names, see articles talk page: "dubious" "not a good source" or even using usernames in the subject. It is really my opinion that the editor is overweighing his personal opinions and thats not in favor of the article, trying to discredit voices not representing his personal view on the world. I think that PeterEastern and Trackinfo worked so great for the article spending hours of their private time. And I think they earn some respect.

a) I ask again that he tells exactly where Kunstler quoted what from who and why this is explaining terms like "dubious" or "not good source". I have no clue why he comes up with whole blocks of citing Flink and dont know what it has to do with Kunstlers statements reasonability.

b) "The editor" (*thats me) first(*?) denied that there were any reference cites in the piece." Thats correct, the sentence represents the authors very own opinion. I always! denied the opposite. its about that sentence:

"James Howard Kunstler says, in 1925, with the acquisition of the Yellow Coach company, the General Motors Corporation undertook a systematic campaign to put streetcar lines out of business all over America. According to Kunstler, GM erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses.

There is no polemic at all in this sentence. Understand it is based on the articles content just above:

"In the early 1900s, General Motors' long-time president, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., began implementing a plan to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, Sloan established a special unit within GM that was charged with, among other things, the task of replacing the United States' electric railways with cars, trucks, and buses. Consumers who no longer had the option of taking the streetcar turned first to the bus lines and, eventually, to owning and driving their own automobiles."Spearmind (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've provided Kunstler's references cites above, and an easy way to verify the. Kunstler uses a cite that explicitly refutes his own assertion. That isn't a very good sign.Anmccaff (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagreed: I will not stop to ask you that question: where Kunstler quoted what from who and why this is explaining terms like "dubious" or "not good source". I have seen no answer at all. And thats the way this always goes around and comes around. Please inform now the other users involved by putting a note on their page, its simple, since you opened up just another bottle here.Spearmind (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've started looking into this. The author does seem to be more political commentator and advocate than neutral academic, however I agree that no claims about his source of information should be made without a very specific link and compelling evidence. A couple questions: Are there other sources with similar information? Also, are there other sources independent of this book author regarding his views on the controversy? CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many other sites, and cites. They tend to be very poor quality; almost all of the central scholarly work disputes it, and most of the anti-Big "C" Conspiracy cites are good. One major exception: there's some lock-step government-can-do-nothing-right writers who work from their political beliefs out to the facts, instead of from the facts to a reasonable conclusion. There is also real support among some serious scholars -George Smerk is the best, I'd say- that GM's sheer size, and integrated YMAC and GMAC financing, had a disproportionate effect on transit.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• That said, this is a staple of conspiracy believers, and has wormed its way into tangential scholarship, and into politics and political activism. (The whole concept grew out of a Nader-related attempt to prohibit yearly model changes, believe it or not.) It's also a mainstay of a certain set of Urban Legends. Finding cites for it is quite easy; finding cites with scholarly weight for it reduces you two 3 names out of a hundred-odd.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Flink's The Automobile Age is digitized at several university libraries, and very rapidly will confirm that the Kunstler's use is an "anti-cite" that refutes rather than supports his position.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think he is a political commentator (and he never said so) but you may have another opinion. A personal label is not something really needs to be discussed. See Here. he is described as journalist and novelist. There are some statements about him you can watch them. See the the content in the article built around the sentence, thats the context building a bridge to the cite. Notice that the user tried to open a case at the DRN board about Kunstler which is in archive by now. It remains unanswered why for only one user Kunstler is "not a good source" or "dubious" or not a reliable source, well for a short statement made.Spearmind (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: "Kunstler uses a cite that explicitly refutes his own assertion." This kind of argument is WP:SYNTHESIS. You are putting A and B together and saying they are contradictory. But if Kunstler makes an assertion, that's his assertion, and he asserts it while using the cite. If you can find another source that says he's contradicting himself, we can use that, but we shouldn't say it. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at it? It isn't a judgement call, or a tendency. It's a flat-out refutation. That doesn't happen much in quality sources.Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Or, to put in better Wiki-ish, it's a question of Evaluating Sources If ever there were a question of unclear and inconsistent, that am it.Anmccaff (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, TLDR. I will look at it later. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I see, this is the General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I have already stated my concerns with that article on its talk page, that it reads like a debunking article and has problems with its non-neutral tone. According to the dispute resolution discussion cited above, editors are having trouble working with each other because of that. That's beyond the scope of what we can deal with here, so all we can do is hope that this dispute gets resolved in some way that's acceptable to all parties and that they abide by it.

As for Kunstler, yes, IMO he is a reliable source for his assertions, which after all are the topic of the article. The assertions may be wrong, but that is not grounds for keeping them out of the article. If that is the question here, other editors should be allowed to describe his assertions in a neutral way, without hedging them with warnings to the reader to the effect that "Watch out folks, this is wrong." If necessary, which it probably is, they can be attributed to Kunstler instead of being presented as facts. And anything that the article wants to say about Kunstler should be attributed directly to secondary sources who are specifically talking about Kunstler. It is not acceptable for the article to say that Kunstler relies on Snell, and Snell is unreliable, and therefore Kunstler is unreliable. We need to quote someone else saying that.

As to whether we can use that reasoning on the talk page to decide what should appear in the article, yes, that is OK. But there should be a consensus. I think this will be settled if and when the dispute cited above gets settled. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, As I see it, the problem is that the Streetcar conspiracy doesn't have a subject. It has at least 4 of them, and the ones that involve attitudes rather than fact have to be given a certain amount of leeway with regards to sources. Kunstler's a perfectly good example of a vector of the story from its '90s revival, but several other names, Jane Holtz Kay, for instance, would be better. (Notice, BTW, that Kunstler's brand new to the subject, and the article has been around for at least a decade.)

If this were, say, the "Vaccination Controversy" article, where it's understood that the subject is about a controversial idea that most medical experts feel should be mentioned only to condemn, that would be fine. When it comes to public presence, I'm sure Jenny McCarthy has as much notability as Jonas Salk. But this is also like an article on real immunology, and for that, Moms Mad at Mercury doesn't have a place.

Kunstler has no standing as a historian, and the ideas he's quoting have an obvious provenance. They are not reliable sources of fact, yet they are being used as such. I suspect as the other editors see just how bad the stuff recently sourced is, most of it will slowly make its way out of the article, until it comes back in from a new source, which, ultimately, was probably based on old, bad info from Wiki; and a new editor, who also doesn't understand why citations are important, lols his way through the article; "diligently" adding more self-published, self-contradictory, low-weight "facts."

Thus endeth the rant.Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: the citation problems, which are why I brought this in here, are not normally treated in articles about mainstream research as OR, are they? I'd like an authoritative answer on this, even if means digging up Jimbo's sacred great-great-grandmother's bones, and letting a conjure woman divinate with and over them. If ordinary, plain-vanilla scholarship is seen as "original research" and A Bad Thing, then Wiki is doomed.Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Unreliability of Metacritic

This isn't so much a question but an unusual problem I came across that is relevant to this board so I thought I'd share it. Lately, there has been a flurry of blocking of socks of Jemima West and they were primarily working on an articles called Alisha Heng, Alisha Heng (I), Alisha Evelyn Heng and Alisha Estelle Heng, all of which were deleted because they were created by socks. I was curious to know who this person was so I found a cached version of the last article on Google and the article had plenty of references for acting credits for this 17 year old model/actress. When I checked up on them, Heng was mentioned by the reviewers and sometimes singled out for praise. But when I checked IMDb, it was if she didn't exist. How did this teenager end up in all of these movie reviews from regular film reviewers who review dozens if not hundreds of films for these sites and newspapers?

Later today, I discovered that although she didn't have a fleshed-out IMDb profile, she did have one on Metacritic and I guess it is possible for a user to add themselves to the casts of films. Then, I'm guessing, when these film reviewers went to get details about the movies they were reviewing, they just took it directly from Metacritic without checking to see if it was accurate. So, when she created her bio article on Misplaced Pages, she had all of these movie reviews (from the U.S. and UK) which substantiated her career when, it appears, she has never been in a film.

It just makes me wonder how often this has been done. It actually shows how, because it is consulted regularly, IMDb can have more accurate information than other film sites. If I added myself to the cast of a major film on IMDb, someone would connected to the film or a fan would notice and correct it. But I guess, as long as you credit yourself to a supporting part of a film, on other sites like Metacritic, no one checks to see if the information is accurate. Liz 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic should only be used as a reliable source for the aggregate film review score that it produces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this as not reliable source. Every commenter except the filer has expressed this view and offered multiple reasons as to why. Discussion on the source itself has ceased. Closing to prevent further non-discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the following article to provide reasoning as to why people are hesitant to vaccinate in accordance with the US vaccination schedule. The article clearly finds a correlation. Other editors argue that causation needs to be found in order to explain people's hesitation.

Since Vaccine controversies is about the controversy and not the safety of vaccines, I think it is prudent to include the articles commonly referenced by both sides.

Title-Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Author-Miller, Neil Z; Goldman, Gary S Published in Human and Experimental Toxicology30.9 (Sep 2011): 1420-8. Publisher-Sage Publications Abstract-The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year--the most in the world--yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12-14 vaccine doses and those giving 21-23, and 24-26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.Dcrsmama (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dcrsmama's edit pretty much speaks for itself, with its direct comparison of Andrew Wakefield to Galileo.

Dcrsmama received a thorough explanation of the problems with her edits and her insistence on trying to use this particular (low-impact, low-quality, primary, cherry-picked, discussed-previously-on-talk) paper as a source at Talk:Vaccine controversies#Problem of reverting vaccine reformist statements without accurate cause. At this point, we're now into forum-shopping and IDHT territory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What does this particular source have to do with Galileo? TenOfAllTrades, you are being prejudicial to this particular secondary source. The explanations provided are from people claiming ownership of a page making it very biased. The link you provide as an archive for talk was an overwhelming mass of good and bad arguments designed to chase away a viewpoint other than yours. As it is, this is a secondary source from a reputable publishing company. Why should reasoning using this (and other) correlations behind the opposing viewpoint not be explained?Dcrsmama (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Galileo? Nothing whatsoever, along with the entire article subject, which is why your misuse of the article talk page for facile comparisons between Galileo and Wakefield received the response they did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• As already explained at Talk:Vaccine controversies, Miller (PMID 21543527) is a primary study. There are scores of secondary reviews on this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As explained in WP:OR this is a secondary source. The raw data gathered from each country's mortality reports are the primary sources.Dcrsmama (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You clearly misunderstand WP:OR - the interpretation of the mortality reports as data regarding vaccination is primary research, by any definition whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Dcr, by your interpretation everything would be a secondary source. The source you want to use is clearly not a secondary source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If I had done the work myself and gathered the data and tried to publish it here, then that would be WP:OR. Further, this a peer reviewed journal which is stated as a reference usually allowed.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "I used the following article to provide reasoning as to why people are hesitant to vaccinate". It does not seem to specifically support that unless you have a specific quote from the article which directly verifies that sentence. So what you appear to be doing is original research. More importantly a piece which is primarly a primary source is the wrong source to use when there are secondary sources from higher reliability journals etc. "The raw data gathered from each country's mortality reports are the primary source" No, the raw data is a primary source and the paper is a primary source for the opinions and interpretations of the paper. It goes without saying that a study is a primary source for the study (almost tautologically). A secondary source for the epidemiology study would be a review paper. It goes without saying that epidemiological studies are one of the shakiest forms of evidence and causation can't be taken out from it (personally comparing different nations against each other seems inherently problematic for a variety of reasons which would seem difficult/impossible to control). The journal appears to be a bottom tier journal and shouldn't be used on wikipedia, particularly when better sources are available. Second Quantization (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is indeed a quote about infant death in the wiki article that is directly addressed by the citation. I described original research before. Miller did the research and it was published in Sage Publications, which is indeed a well known and respected publishing house. There is also no evidence that supports the number of vaccinations given to US children is safe. This article clearly calls for more research, which is the crux of the controversy. Again, not an article on vaccine safety..an article on the controversy.Dcrsmama (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many people have simply cited WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:MEDRS and other sites which I have reviewed thoroughly, in addition to having taken and tutored classes about research. I reviewed these sites just in case there was something different than what is taught in universities about primary, secondary etc sources. It appears to be the same information.
• WP:PSTS states, "A secondary source provides an author's(Miller) own thinking based on primary sources (mortality data)". I see no such corroboration under the primary source bullet. Please state exactly where it states this peer reviewed journal article from a reputable academic publishing company separated from the primary source both by distance and the author's own thinking is a primary source.
• WP:MEDRSstates similar things about primary, and secondary sources. In reference to medications it has an extra stipulation of needing follow-up references to the original article. This article fits into acceptable criteria. It has been referenced no less than nine times in the past four years by follow-up studies. Further, no other study (a few opinion pieces, yes, but no study) has been done to explain the correlation between immunization and infant mortality in first world countries.Dcrsmama (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Miller's paper discusses the research he did into any supposed correlation - census data does not include any such discussion, or even include data on vaccination. That is primary research - there was nothing prior to it, and accordingly it can only be primary, by simple logic. And why, if you have "taken and tutored classes about research" did you state that you "had an assignment to keep up with wiki page for school" on User talk:Alison? Are you still at school, and tutoring classes? Try to be consistent... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry AndyTheGrump, you continue to be vague. Where is your wiki quote from the books that are in opposition to what I have stated? To answer your completely irrelevant question; I am a non-traditional older student pursuing a second degree. Last semester was my class on research, which as part of the honors program I tutored other students. This semester I'm taking a class on history of the digital past which had the wiki assignment. Seems completely consistent to me.Dcrsmama (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think we've heard from a number of people explaining why the Miller/Goldman paper is not a suitable source for our vaccine controversies article. At this point, continuing to hammer on about it is just getting disruptive on the part of User:Dcrsmama. This is not a forum to argue the validity of the paper's findings, although authors elsewhere have thoroughly debunked them. Basically, the authors are claiming that Storks Deliver Babies, p=0.008, but with a straight face. MastCell  18:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

With your explanation you are saying a blog is a more reliable source than a peer reviewed journal article. I have continually seen how people disagree with this view of the topic. One person stated that Sage Publishing is not a well respected publishing house as a basis. This is a curiosity since, well it is well respected and used in academia worldwide. Other than that, the general consensus seems to disagree with the content, and the secondary vice primary seems an effort to support personal belifs. As far as the storks go, there are many correlations such as this. However, the stork correlation can be easily explained by population trends and stork nesting habits. No study has been successful in finding another reason for this correlation. People seem to think that causation needs to be proven. In fact, it is correlation that is noted, and you wait until there is a reason for the correlation before moving forward. Snarkiness seems to run rampant here. It really does not add to the conversation. Does it make you feel better?Dcrsmama (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that some blogs are more reliable than some peer-reviewed journal articles. (In fact, a number of peer-reviewed journal articles, even in very reputable outlets like Nature and Science, have collapsed when bloggers pointed out flaws that had eluded detection during the peer-review process). As I said, I'm not going to argue the paper's merits with you; others have already debunked it in what is, to my mind, a conclusive manner. Perhaps you might wish to explore the criticisms next time you study, or tutor, a class on research methodology? As far as snarkiness, I think you're seeing humor being used as a defense mechanism to cope with your relentless flogging of this paper in clear disregard of unanimous feedback that it's inappropriate. MastCell  20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• A primary research study (as opposed to a review article), in a second-third tier journal, by authors who are not qualified/established in the field, making controversial claims in a area where authoritative sources are available is certainly not usable on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So although Miller's work is reviewed by doctors, and he is a notable researcher, You can decide he is not qualified when a group of his peers decided he was? That seems odd. Also, according to your conflict of interest link, All studies funded by pharmacology companies, or funded by the government by congressmen supported by pharmacology lobbyists? Someone is always doing the funding. Dcrsmama (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to add my !vote that this source fails MEDRS, and note that the material in question has been added in conravention to numerous guidlines and policies including WP:NPOV (specifically WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE in addition to MEDRS. The galileio treatment was just icing on the cake of how unsuitable this material is for Misplaced Pages. Yobol (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

umm not pertinent to this article specifically, but okay. As far as WP:Fringe, this is a vaccine controversy page. Not a vaccine safety page. The page as is reads like a CDC guideline and gives no credence to the controversy. But that has nothing to do with this peer reviewed scholarly journal article.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what do you expect to gain for in regard to your studies concerning the "history of the digital past" by devoting so much time and effort to this single paper? As far as I can see, this is the digital present we are arguing in, and history has next to nothing to do with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I know I'm new and all, but this is not the forum for personal questions. Dcrsmama (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone specify what and where is the next place to deal with IDHT? I'm unclear on where one finds the arb enforcement page or statements for fringe articles, or what is the next step if the IDHT continues (and the FORUMSHOP is expanding as well). Enough time has been spent on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked for a low level mediation for this a while ago. I agree this is not working. I truly wish I could understand why you all think this is a primary source despite the quotes and evidence otherwise. If I'm understanding your reference to IDHT, you are thinking that facts should not be allowed unless there is a majority consensus. Then why have a controversy page if it is just a mirror pharma marketing and not really presenting the controversy?Dcrsmama (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As this is not a study of people's hesitancy, it is not a suitable source for claims about the reasons for people's hesitancy. It would appear to be at best a study making claims about vaccines themselves, not a study about hesitancy or about controversy. If this study is the reason for people's hesitancy, then we should be pointing to a reliable third-party source that states that it's the reason, not to the study itself. If we say people stopped going to the beach because of the film Jaws, we use as a reference the source that makes that statement, not the film itself. So no, it's not a reliable source for what you claim you want to use it for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That has got to be the clearest explanation yet. So what you are saying is cite a source that says there is controversy over the vaccine schedule because there is a correlation with infant mortality, then cite both sources? Or should I use opinion pieces like most of the other references in the article? Even the journal of medicine piece is an opinion piece. Is this where wiki gets the facts, from opinions, then excludes peer reviewed journal articles because it is WP:OR? It is built by popular opinion of the editors, from opinion pieces, not allowing facts...if this is indeed true....though I hope notDcrsmama (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying cite both sources. References are there to verify the facts that are being stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. If the statement being sourced is that there is a controversy due to correlation with infant mortality, then we cite a source that is discussing the controversy - there is no need to cite the study. Even if the source says that there is a controversy because of this particular study, we might mention this study in the text, but the study itself is not reference for the statement. And I am addressing the specific request for input that you made in your initial posting. If you have concerns about the other sources in the article, you may wish to raise them in a specific post about the specific concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your civility and clarity in explanation.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, in addition to the other problematic conduct, Dcrsmama is now experimenting with WP:CANVASSing: , . Regarding this article, apparently "it is like Pharma is paying people to own that page", and "there are too many people making it an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment was removed for vandalism and irrelevance to this topic. Though, I'm honored you are stalking my comments from other user talk pages; you are proving my point. It would be naive to believe pharmacology marketing does not have wiki editors on their payroll, same as politicians, and many other large companies. Further, much of the behavior demonstrated by many of the people that followed me here from Vaccine controversies (without stating anything new) is textbook psychological marketing. This is not an accusation, but an observation. Dcrsmama (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dcrsmama: Do not WP:REFACTOR others' comments. TenOfAllTrades comment was not vandalism nor a personal attack. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:refactor give permission for removal of 'Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material', which his comment clearly is. It is back now, and I have wasted space and time responding to his, and your message. From here on out all off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material will be removed via the wp:refactor rule. Thank you for the reference.Dcrsmama (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please respond to this?

Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. Can someone please respond?

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 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is an article by Moign Khawaja on foreignpolicyjournal.com an RS?

The statement "Comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto and the wartime uprising there are not uncommon" was added to Gaza Strip based on this source.

It's 'About page reads the following "Foreign Policy Journal is an online publication dedicated to providing critical news, analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its purpose is to challenge the narratives and narrow framework for discussion presented by the U.S. mainstream media that serve to manufacture consent for government policy. FPJ offers information and perspectives all too lacking in the public debate on key foreign policy issues." and is owned by Jeremy Hammond, a hacker that was sentenced to 10 years (it may actually makes it more reliable :).

The author himself, Moign Khawaja, write this about himself on his blog.

foreignpolicyjournal.com seems to be a blog which might be RS if the author had credibility but a glance at his portfolio doesn't show any major publications. I will appreciate any input. Ashtul (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Still can't refrain from following me around, huh? It was one of the conditions for suspending your topic ban set by HJMitchell.

What you leave out is that the article is not by Moign Khawaja but by Mark LeVine professor of history at the University of California, and a regional specialist with a command of all of those languages. Moign Khawaja merely introduces the topic.

There is nothing controversial about the analogy. The earliest analogy was made by a Captain in the IDF, who said this;:

In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'(Amir Oren, 'At the gates of Yassergrad,' 25 January, 2002 )Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the earliest example I know. A senior staff officer planning war strategies with regard to the Gaza Strip, imagined the study of Nazi strategy against the Jews of Warsaw's ghetto might provide some hints as to how to fix the Palestinians, That was picked up by Norman Finkelstein, and after that, fed into the news world, and into books. The only positive thing about it was that it made a lot of Arabs look up the history of what the Jews suffered in Warsaw under Nazism. But the responsibility lies with that staff officer.

LeVine doesn't agree with the analogy by the way, but he remarks on its frequency of its use after the 2008 military destruction of Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a legitimate RSN request.

The officer mantions dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw. Not that the siege on Gaza is similar to Warsaw. Ashtul (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1:LeVine)A 1943 photograph of Jews in a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. Israeli forces and Jewish settlers withdrew in 2005, turning the 41 kilometer long strip literally into the world’s largest prison. Around the world people are beginning to compare Israel’s attack on Gaza to the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.' Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(2=Officer)In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month.

You also get the officer wrong. He is not reported as 'dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw.'

He is raising the idea of dealing with Palestinians along the lines of the way Nazis dealt with Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

Please read texts precisely, and do not misconstrue them.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1 LeVine) The question whether the source is RS is viable. Not sure why you write such an essay.

(2 Officer) He speaks about dealing with Palestinian terrorists years before the blockade. Putting his words into the context as you did is WP:OR at best or completely wrong.

Now, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. Ashtul (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant. Mark LeVine is an eminent historian specializing in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what venue he chooses to publish his views in.

The officer does not speak of Palestinian terrorists. The WP:OR was to construe it that way, as you did. Now, I'd be happy to listen to what third parties say, since your misrepresentations of the sources have been clarified.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• "one of the Israeli officers in the territories said..." - is it RS at all?

Moreover, in 2nd, more full your quote one may read: "The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example..." So?

I'd remind you that we're already talking about such "comparisons" and your willing to equate Israel with Nazis. Now you do the same thing (as well as using & reverting Ewawer here) based on such pro-Hamas propaganda "source" netto as Khawaja and on Mark LeVine whose opinion isn't so NPOV. What else are you willing to bring to Wiki?

I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera

But as I've already mentioned, his Al Jazeera's article cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about LeVine's own opinion.

And you by youself have referenced here Philip Seib's book where he not only wrote about LeVine's contradiction to such comparison, but describes its Hamas, Al Jazeera, Assad's, etc. origins :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself?,' Al Jazeera 27 December 2009.
2. Seib, Philip (2012). Al Jazeera English: Global News in a Changing World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 153. ISBN 1137015748.

Rappler

Is Rappler a reliable source? It is presently used to "verify" a partner of the deceased Zulkifli Abdhir. Here is the website being used, and it is being used to verify the name "Zainab Dongon".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. The facebook origin, the focus on "news and action site" , the reliance on social voting for stories all lead to the reputation of a publisher with a focus on clickbait rather than fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of encyclopedia as source for statement that humorism is pseudoscience

• Article: Humorism
• Content and source:

Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.

References

1. Williams, William F. (December 3, 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 1135955298.

Jayaguru-Shishya removed this from the article:

• first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
• then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

I asked for a valid reason to reject the content and source, and JS responded with: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)"

He offered no actual discussion, except to restate that quote from RS... which is no discussion at all. So, here we are. Is the content and source OK? Maybe not, but I am looking for actual, thoughtful input. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Source is not a fringe source, it is a reliable source about fringe topics (very important distinction). Secondary sources can trump tertiary sources, but the high-value that secondary sources holds does not mean that we cannot use tertiary sources. The bit about discussion does not mean that every tertiary source has to be discussed on the talk page before being added, it means that if he can bring in some sources that counter the contested source, we should downplay or avoid the contested source. WP:PSTS also says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog. First of all, I opened the discussion at Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, so I am pretty surprised to hear that I "offered no actual discussion". Second, calling another editor's comment "a bullshit reason" is hardly WP:CIVIL nor constructive, in my opinion. And third, as you already said yourself, WP:TERTIARY goes as follows (emphasis added):

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Did you discuss at the article Talk Page before re-inserting the source? No. Instead, I said that "we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias". This seems to be in line with WP:TERTIARY. I hope this helped to clarify. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Favoring secondary sources is not a reason to remove a tertiary source. It would be a reason to replace it with a secondary source for a specific point, but tertiary sources are better for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Please follow the spirit of the policy instead of just hanging on a single out-of-context portion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ian.thomson. Indeed, I launched the discussion at the article Talk Page, and not until now I got a reasonable answer. I am hoping, though, that user Jytdog will control his emotions better in the future, and restrain himself from calling other users' comments as "bullshit" or such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

i tried to discuss with you JS and all you did was offer nonsense ("source about extraterrestrials") and repeat a quote from RS three times, which is not actual discussion. Which is still all you are doing (now for the 4th and 5th times). I am looking forward to hearing from others, which is why I posted here. If you have something thoughtful to say, I look forward to hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The source is perfectly acceptable for the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the one who inserted it and I thought it was a perfectly acceptable WP:RS too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is no problem with the source. It's not the 'ideal' source, but the fact that modern use of the theory of humours is pseudoscience should be uncontroversial, though I think the statement itself could be rephrased to emphasise that it is the continued use of humour theory that is pseudoscience. The theory was science (i.e. "knowledge") when it was dominant within medicine. Jayaguru-Shishya, User:Jytdog is correct that the mere fact that you quote a passage from WP:RS does not constitute a 'discussion', since the passage does not say encyclopedias cannot be used. If it were a "source about extraterrestrials" you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been some criticism of the source regarding whether the specific content of specific articles is reliable. But, as with most encyclopedias, the reliability of any individual article does not relate to the matter of article selection. It is not necessarily an ideal source, as Paul says, and I can honestly see that, but I haven't seen anything which indicates that there has been any significant question regarding the subjects chosen for inclusion in that source. The exact phrasing of the content might be open to question, but I can't see any good reason to remove any such mention based on that source entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• question - Jayaguru-Shishya this is, right now, a snow close. We have 4 new voices, plus the editor who posted it, plus me, who all think the source is fine for the content (with a small tweak to the content, perhaps). You yourself have not even provided a reason for "no" - just cited a guideline that says a secondary source would be better. In the absence of any actual "no" here, do you see a need to take up more of the community's time with this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution