Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:30, 12 October 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Ultramarine will place an arguement for why this is not an attack page shortly. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not the page creator. If you want to delete the page, do an ordinary deletion request.Ultramarine (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism or ...

I reverted back to criticism due to the following:

1. "which reprints a range of classical and modern racist tracts"
2. "discredited 'science' of breeding better humans"
3. "WSP also reprints 'classic' Aryan and eugenic tracts"
4. "The Southern Poverty Law Center lists Washington Summit Publishers as a White Nationalist Hate Group"

This does not seem like replaying the facts, and is all opinion on content, therefore criticism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cited material. Read WP:NPOV. Claimed POV is not a justification for deletions.Ultramarine (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Those come from the second quote which does appear to be criticism. The first quote appears to me to be more of a statement of facts so I pulled it out of the criticism section. Does that work for people? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should we remove criticisms? Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are so quick to argue, you do not see they were never removed. We are discussing the title of the section. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Why was material removed. If no objections, I will restore it.Ultramarine (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was removed ... --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Confused by new sections. My mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Accusations" is now an incorrect title for the section. If you look at the titles of the books published: "Ancient Eugenics", "Aryan Household-I" "Aryan Household-II", "Essays in Eugenics" "Aryan Race" it is not an 'accusation' to say that they print Aryan and Eugenic materials, that is a statement of fact and calling it an 'accusation' is POV.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Washington Summit Publishers a genuinely independent publisher?

To evaluate sources that are mentioned in other Misplaced Pages articles, I wonder what reliable sources say about the editorial independence of Washington Summit Publishers? I get the impression that Washington Summit Publishers may be essentially a vanity press for certain points of view, without any of the usual editorial practices found in mainstream commercial publishing companies. What do sources say about this? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have any sources supporting your impression, then please present them. Note however that even vanity press books may still fulfill criteria such a notability if widely cited.Miradre (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

However, sources published by such publishers may not meet the Misplaced Pages reliable source guidelines. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even vanity press or self-published material may be a reliable source if accepted by the scientific community as such. "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. " Alternatively, "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."Miradre (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Miradre's quote about established expert here is the relevant policy. Due to the nature of the publisher, each book should be considered on a case by case basis. For books by people like Lynn, I think it's clear that those works are notable for being views of the established expert. aprock (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be that the proper way to handle the content here is to create an article for Louis Andrews, move this content there, and redirect WSP to Louis Andrews. aprock (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not exactly clear that WSP is identical with Louis Andrews even if we accept what SPLC writes. Does Andrews own WSP and is he the main executive? Even if that is the case one does not usually put a publisher in the article of its owner.Miradre (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by identical. Primary sources and secondary sources indicate that he is the one who manages, administers, and runs WSP. aprock (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is only SPLC that makes the connection. Andews website www.lrainc.com does not mention WSP.Miradre (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: , , , . aprock (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. There establishes that Andrews is connected to WSP. But it is not clear that he is the owner or otherwise identical with WSP. For all we know he just manages technical support /is its current executive that may be exchanged at any time by the owners.Miradre (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)