Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 16 December 2014

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.

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Sourcing on Electronic cigarette

It has been proposed on electronic cigarette that the following text be added:

"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013."

based on the following source:

1. ^ Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.

Convenience link to PDF here; relevant material in first paragraph of page 1982. It is published in the medical journal (Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world). A question of reliability of this as a source has been raised that since this is a medical source and the text being added is not strictly medical in nature. Comments on the reliability of this source for this text is appreciated! Yobol (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's a review article in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't really get higher quality in terms of reliability for content in general. It would seem kind of odd if someone is opposing this because it's in a medical journal. It appears the paragraph you mention is not based solely on author opinion as they are citing examples and documenting some occurrences, so it would seem this could be place pretty solidly as content based on a high quality secondary source. If it appeared to be more just the unsourced opinion of the authors, then I would call that content based on a primary source (within the review), but that doesn't not appear to be the case here. Seems pretty cut and dry that it should be fine. While the journal may be medical, it is commenting on a related topic and is nothing like a sociology journal commenting on astrophysics where we'd say the scope of the journal isn't in a relevant field either. I don't see any issues here in terms of reliability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is dealing with this section link The overall consensus of the editors who are discussing it is against inclusion because the medical journal is being used to make claims outside its expertise. Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims. WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal.... that reports material in a different field.". A side note of concern is that some the sources the review used to come to these opinions are studies by the authors of the review. If this had WEIGHT suitable, non medical sources should be easy to find. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Except this is a related field, which is what I was commenting on above. It is often the job of scientists to be a sort of balance against industry when they're out of line in a respective field. As an example in my area, if a pesticide company was pushing a particular unneeded pesticide formulation on farmers, we'd not only report in an agricultural journal that it wasn't needed, but also what tactics were being used that are problematic in pushing it. That's what scientists do. In this case, a journal like this would be the venue to discuss such things. It's not directly on medical information, but it's within the scope of such a journal and such a review. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I still have concerns that the medical journal is basing its opinions of medical studies by the authors of the review. I would like a different source. That would also prove it has sufficient weight. AlbinoFerret 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns about your comprehension of RS/MC, which says "Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim." It does not say "a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims". It says "if it's not making a medical claim, then it's not a medical source (as far as our sourcing rules are concerned), even if it's a publication that often makes medical claims/is often used as a medical source".

As usual, if you've been supplied with any (one) reliable "source that believes, in good faith, to be sufficient," and you want a better/different/additional source, then the burden for finding another source is on you, not on the other editor. WP:BURDEN requires the editor adding the source to supply exactly one source that s/he believes to be sufficient. If you want more sources or other sources, then you get to find them yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would perfer a source that isnt based on its own authors previous work. That should factor into reliability. AlbinoFerret 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Every source is good for supporting some kind of content; no source is a "blank check" for all kinds of content. In my view the source you bring is very reliable for anything health-related. But the content you want to write is about politics, and this source is no better, and possibly worse, than high quality news sources like WSJ, NY Times, etc. As an aside, I find it bizarre that anybody would be challenging the statement much less its sourcing. This is like "the sky is blue". Everybody lobbies, even Mr Rogers. And that includes astroturfing. the sad state of the e-cig article, i guess. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm talking about reliability above. In isolation, the proposed text is fine with the source, but including it within the larger article becomes a question of weight where there could be more of a political tinge to a section rather than scientific. Weight's not the purpose of this noticeboard and isn't really something I'd like to delve into in the e-cig article at all either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• • more sources for same content: NY Times, NPR, WaPo, Bloomberg, public interest groups like center for public integrity... so many! the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

All of those sources except one, the NYTimes article are addressing companies lobbying efforts, not getting consumers to push an agenda. The NY Times article has a very questionable link to a website ran by a previous employee, only mentions one company, and no mention of tobacco companies in the past doing similar things. But the center for public integrity puts the lobbying in perspective, e-cigarettte companies are mostly small businesses that are not lobbying or pushing any agenda. Placing the activities of the few against that of the many is questionable. I also question if the lobbying is any different than any other company, like say a pharmaceutical company. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• This entire text is arbitrary and prejudiced WP:FRINGE opinion by a well-known anti-tobacco activist and does not belong on Misplaced Pages in any article. Particularly, the statement "showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers" is nothing more than magical thinking and has no factual support. None of the proposed text is medical - so WP:MEDRS is irrelevant. Rather, it's unsubstantiated propaganda and in violation of multiple items in WP:ISNOT, in particular, WP:SOAPBOX. This statement is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG and has no place in any WP article. In addition, extensive discussion has occurred on the article’s talk page here, and I’m concerned that the opening of this discussion here without informing the original participants is dangerously close to WP:CAN. Mihaister (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's impossible for a discussion here to violate the canvassing guideline. On the question of UNDUE weight, if it's undue, then why are there so many sources (see Jytdog's links) that mention this? DUE means we pay as much (or as little) attention to the issue as the reliable sources do. If a lot of them mention this, then it's DUE for us to mention it, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

But it can be canvassing if instead of notifying the other parties, a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors.link AlbinoFerret 22:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors." That's where you are. It's not canvassing by that very definition, and is entirely appropriate when there has already been discussion going on at the article's talk page already. Part of that involves potentially notifying relevant Wikiprojects if it's in their topic area. That's the whole point of this page when questions can't be resolved at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Jytdog's links - the first 3 and the last are about e-cig or tobacco companies hiring lobbying firms, a practice which is common and legal. The Bloomberg link is actually about Pharma doing the same thing. None of them provide support for painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills. Mihaister (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills-- I do not get that the proposed content based on the source is saying this, at all. Zad68 03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So what is it saying then? The claim is that vapers are opposing regulation because e-cig and tobacco companies are enrolling them to do so, and this simply isn't true. More e-cig companies supported the EU TPD than campaigned against it; it's users who are angry.--FergusM1970 08:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is merely saying the companies are recruiting consumers (in thus and such a way, and toward thus and such ends, etc.) It is not saying that everyone who's active was recruited. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But it's saying that based on a newspaper article, which is hardly WP:MEDRS.--FergusM1970 13:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised that it is being said that its acceptable to notify WP:MED of this discussion without notifying other interested parties at the article talk page. Anyway that is a separate issue, with regards to the source's reliability, surely a marketing strategy claim by a public health official is not as reliable as a medical claim? I understand that public health officials regularly voice their opinions on such issues but this fact surely doesn't make them experts on a non-medical topic? Lots of people regularly voice opinions on many things without being experts. Also does the disclosure that one of the source's authors "is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert witness in litigation against tobacco companies" affect the reliability in relation to marketing strategy claims about e-cigarettes?Levelledout (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the last bit, not particularly. If it was the consultant self publishing something then there would be issues, but since this is published by a peer-reviewed journal, there's enough separation to call it reliable. Now if you were looking between this and another identical source that didn't have the consultant, the latter would be a bit more reliable, but both would still meet a minimum reliability threshold. In this case, the editor and other scientists in the field have vetted the article, so that is supposed to remove author conflict of interest concerns for the most part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Review articles are high quality sources for both medical and none medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly reliable, especially for the very basic and unsurprising content it's supporting. It is very normal and well within the expected range of coverage for a high-quality review article to cover political and regulatory topics, so the idea that it's a "medical journal ... being used to make claims outside its expertise" is simply unfounded. Zad68 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the review paper provides a summary of expert opinion, it should be included. My one concern is the equivocal wording. "A review study stated that" waters it down, and there should not be in-text attribution except for direct quotes. TFD (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a strong source and it findings can be simply asserted, unless there are correspondingly good sources that give us reasons for doubt. Alexbrn 12:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: except of course that the review paper doesn't do a summary of expert opinion in this particular section of the paper. This particular information is cited in the paper to a The New York Times article (ref. 112), not to an academic review, examination, summary or likewise. It is purely the opinions of the authors of the paper, just as the policy recommendations given in the paper is the same. --Kim D. Petersen 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim, actually, in the paragraph the content is summarizing, Grana is using four sources. Two sources, one from JAMA and the other from Tobacco Control, cover the background of marketing by tobacco companies using "astroturfing". The third is this, a recent research article from the BMJ titled Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?, and that covers the online marketing and lobbying. Source 112 is the fourth, and it is indeed a New York Times article (any reason to think that wouldn't be a reliable source?) which covers the lobbying in Europe as plain fact, not opinion. Zad68 05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: that is actually incorrect. You are confusing tobacco and e-cigs.

Ref 22 (BMJ) is about e-cig marketing/advertisement, not lobbying/collusion/grassroots.

Ref 110 (JAMA) from 1991, so can't be about e-cigs but is purely about tobacco, and to top it, it is written by one of the authors of Grana (Glantz).

Ref 111 (Tobacco control) is also about tobacco alone as well, and is written by 2 of the authors of the Grana paper (Grana & Glantz), where the only mention of e-cigs is "In 2012 NCPPR was continuing efforts, such as its ‘Occupy Occupy D.C. Smoke-in’ to protest about taxes on smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes".

Ref 112 (NYT) which is the only one about collusion between tobacco and e-cig grassroots and that is the one i mentioned. A newspaper article!

So no, this is not a summary of expert opinion - it is based entirely on an NYT article, and the authors opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 05:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When I worked as an analyst one of the things we were most wary of was "circular corroboration", when an apparently well-backed source turns out to be essentially backed by itself. What we have here is a clear example of that; the work of Grana and Glantz is solidly based on the work of Grana and Glantz. Ethics aside, we shouldn't rely on a "review" that couldn't find any independent support and was reduced to citing the work of its own authors.--FergusM1970 06:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to us to question the accuracy of reliable sources. We use reliable sources so that we do not have to conduct our own original research. Of course an expert in a field can write a review study that mentions his own work. The publisher sends the paper out to peer review and people far more knowledgable about the subject than us determine if the reference is circular. Similarly expert sources can use less than expert sources. Their writers have the judgment to determine what is believable and what is not, something else that Misplaced Pages editors cannot do.

The only way to show that the facts in a paper are wrong is to provide an equally or more reliable source that presents a different set of facts. That has not been done. If the paper is wrong, that is unfortunate, but the guiding principle is verifiability not truth. If you disagree, then get the policy changed.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "It is not up to us to question the accuracy of reliable sources" is incorrect. Of course we need to measure the reliability and accuracy of the information in the context of the source - that is what WP:RSCONTEXT tell us. This source is reliable and highly useful within the context of medical and pharmacological information - but not within the context of policy, history economy and sociology. Thus to determine the point-reliability we must examine the information given, and here it falls short. Editing is specifically about assessing the reliability and accuracy of sources within contexts and weight given to it in respect to other comparative sources. --Kim D. Petersen 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXT has no relevance here. Is the source about the safety of electronic cigarettes? Yes. Then it can be used as a source for the safety of electronic cigarettes. It if were a passing reference to the safety of electronic cigarettes in an article about an unrelated subject then it would fail context. If we are going to question the scientific literature on electronic cigarettes, why stop there? Maybe everything the scientists are telling us is wrong. TFD (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: You've lost sight of the context of this discussion. The text this source is supposed to be cited for is not about safety of e-cigarettes, but instead about policy, legislation, astroturfing and tobacco-companies. And that is why WP:RSCONTEXT is relevant. --Kim D. Petersen 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. But the same point applies. The discussion in the paper about what the vaping industry has done is not so far removed from the safety issue. There is no reason to think that the authors lack the competence to provide a factual explanation of these actions. And if they are wrong, then you should find another rs that provides a different set of facts. It could be that the industry does not interact with consumers for their policy agenda. It does not use websites or social media to oppose anti-vaping laws. TFD (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps in reverse we can get lawyers and politicians to make medical claims! After all they should be able to figure it out. AlbinoFerret 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:No, the same point does not apply. You do not cite a mathematics paper for medical claims, or political science paper for mathematics, etc etc. As for your "then you should find another rs that provides a different set of facts" that is a requirement to prove a negative. --Kim D. Petersen 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

One does not cite a mathematics paper for medical information because it is too tangential. Public health is cloesly related to health. And I am not asking you to prove a negative. All you have to do is provide a reliable source about how the vaping industry responds to attempts to restrict it. TFD (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats asking to prove a negative. Because the vaping industry isnt the few manufacturers of cigalikes, but thousands of small buisnesses that do nothing but make things and are not political. This points out a problem of medical experts commenting on political action, they have no idea of the industry, yet make comments based on a few players. AlbinoFerret 20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you hit on the one argument that keeps coming up for some reason. This source is not too tangential for the proposed content, but I'm not sure why that isn't getting across even after all the time this thread has been going. Aside from being closely related fields as you said, if someone is an expert commenting on a particular product, it's generally going to be within their expertise about general marketing practices on it as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is quite tangential, since it is not about marketing (which i btw. can't see why medical researchers should be experts in either), but is instead about a conspiracy/collusion claim about astroturfing. Something like that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require better sourcing than normally. And all of the evidence presented in the paper is based upon a single NYT article, not on thorough research by experts. --Kim D. Petersen 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors here believe the source is reliable for the claim. There was a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 19#Proposed compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Erh? Not from what i can read above. --Kim D. Petersen 12:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if some uninvolved editors agree with you, and I am not conceding they do. The claim has other hurdles like weight, and consensus of the editors of the article before inclusion. That short list should not be thought of as all inclusive either. AlbinoFerret 18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Both Kim D. Petersen and AlbinoFerret are involved editors. Please respect the opinions of uninvolved editors. The source is clearly reliable for the claim. Please read the comments by other editors again. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was going to this mention more than a week ago, but hoped things would fizzle out. In this case though, it looks like it would have been better if all the involved editors would hold off on commenting so much at RSN. Obviously folks are entitled to post here regardless of involvement, but it's very difficult to see what uninvolved editors actually gauged of things. It looks like the contentiousness at the article and enthusiasm of the editors has spilled over here. So far, posts by uninvolved editors (as much as I can tell at first glance) include: WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Doc James, TFD, Alexbrn, and myself. All state to some degree or another that the source is reliable for the proposed content or that there are other sources that do the same as it is from experts in a journal commenting on a very closely related field. Best to use that to inform your work over at the article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that Doc James is a very involved editor on electronic cigarettes, and several of the others are involved as well (alexbrn,jytdog)... so there isn't really a consensus of anything. And afaict we haven't had a single non-med/e-cig editor to comment so far. --Kim D. Petersen 07:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, every editor of the medical wikiproject could be considered as an involved editor in defending medical sources. AlbinoFerret 11:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart again

The edit at issue:

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”

1. Shapiro, Ben (July 15, 2014). "7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'". Breitbart. Retrieved 16 July 2014.

IHO, Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions by its commentators clearly presented as opinion. The material has been repeatedly excised with comments: The "consensus" on BRD doesn't override WP policies involving questionable sources, they can't make claims about 3rd parties, reverted to revision 636802416 by Gamaliel: Per WP:BRD and WP:BLP concerns; please discuss on talk and reach consensus before edit warring to include contentious material, Dubious source commenting directly on living individuals, should be used with caution and only after consensus for inclusion, Undid revision 636723525 by Srich32977 (talk) Breitbart is QS and multiple past noticeboard discussions have concluded that it is not a reliable source, and Contentious claims about third parties is against wp:qs and wp:aboutself. Such quotes can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Again IMHO, the comment about "movie critics" is not directed at specific individuals, and is clearly an opinion about some critics who are not named or singled out here. Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review. seems to have a result, as did Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review. which had a clear result - that is the cavil that it is not RS for opinions fails in a nanosecond. Leaving only the claim that WP:BLP is invoked for the reference to "movie critics". As the primary issue is asserted in the edit comments to be the one of WP:RS, this board is the place for discussion. Collect (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that Breitbart has a reputation of any sort for high-quality movie reviews, or for movie reviews at all. Maybe we should source movie opinion to third-party independent reviewers with actual reputations for offering critical opinions about movies? There are plenty of bloggers and questionable sources that write about movies they've seen; that doesn't make them RS for movie opinions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is a reliable source for its own opinion, but the issue isweight - who cares what its opinions on film critics is? TFD (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that there are potential WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond WP:WEIGHT, it's from the WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about BLPGROUP. Third-parties are defined more broadly in WP:RS. Questionable sources shouldn't be used for opinions on third parties.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable Source, Breitbart.com meets all the requirements set forth in WP:IRS, just as does the Huffington Post. It is partisan, just as Salon and Huffington Post are, but that does not make any of them unreliable. See WP:BIASED regarding Breitbart.com and others I listed. This board is not about weight issues that is for WP:NPOV/N.

I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as Salon and Huffington Post, and probably more reliable then Rolling stone after this most recent UVA Rape Story (I mean talk about a poor reputation for checking the facts). In the past it has been considered a WP:Questionable sources but wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that its reputation has improved. Consensus could change, but that involves more actual agreement on the source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Of course Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed, quoted opinions. The section in question is explicitly covering political commentary reaction to a political documentary (that means subjective opinions), and contains political punditry from sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, and others. Singling out the most prominent conservative news/opinion site for exclusion, one which employs professional reporters, editors, and critics (unlike many of the section's other, leftist sites), is not only absurd on the merits but would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't excluded from that page, it has at least another quote that is specifically about their opinion of the movie; the other opinion sources you mentioned are about their opinions of the movie, not each other or the general state of movie reviewing. There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials, or to describe whether people are too liberal to review films.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has already been found reliable for the film review on the basis that it's reliable for its own attributed opinions, so there's no legitimate, rational basis for asserting that it's somehow not reliable for its own attributed opinions on other topics, particularly ones where expertise is less of a factor. The controlling factor on inclusion would be WP:NPOV and due weight on a case by case basis, not sourcing policy. The section in question here is explicitly dedicated to political commentary, which Shapiro's article about the reception to this particular movie undeniably falls under, and there's no policy basis for prohibiting commentary about the reception to the movie in film articles (indeed there are numerous examples of such quoted opinion on receptions, particularly where there's some controversy at play). As long as the opinion is properly attributed it's allowable and important for us to cover. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not follow that Breitbart should be used as a source for general "political commentary" just because there was an RfC that thought a single review of a movie could be used, in a limited context. Please understand: Found usable for one context, never means found usable for all contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It does follow because the sourcing argument being used against it is the same rejected in the first RFC. Not only is this a similar situation (actually one that should be less, not more, restrictive, as I said above), but it's the same freaking article. RS status depends on context, but established precedents aren't irrelevant. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

One use is not an established precedent, as has been explained many times. Looking at that RfC, more than a few supporters indicated Breitbart was a generally questionable source and shouldn't be used for more than a movie review. WP:RS says that opinions about groups, even very loosely defined, should be given more care, not less. Now, you're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat the policies. There's not much point in doing that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Breitbart.com is not a reliable source and qualifies as a questionable source as outlined by multiple facets of WP:QS.

"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts" Even the WP article for Breitbart.com outlines multiple instances where the site did little to no fact checking and/or published stories that were blatantly false or had no evidence to support them. On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating and has hosted numerous other blogs/articles that received "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ratings. Other news outlets have criticized Breitbart's lack of fact checking including the Washington Post, New York Magazine, and The Daily Beast.

"Questionable sources are those that have...an apparent conflict of interest." Conflict of interest is defined in WP:QS to include "Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors" Breitbart.com writes multiple articles promoting Fox News polls and their parent company which also advertises on the site. They have also written and published articles attacking their competitors like the New York Daily News when Shapiro called them "hacks". The WP:QS "conflict of interest" goes on to say "news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors." This article exposes an apparent conflict of interest in an article published by Breitbart.com. The sources for conflict of interest also go on to say "They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company." and "a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." Breitbart.com has multiple apparent conflict of interest as defined by the references in WP:QS.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional" This is backed up with multiple sources referring to Breitbart's articles, authors, and positions as extremist.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip" This can be observed by reading numerous incidents on the WP breitbart.com article in the "Controversies" section. These instances include the "Friends of Hamas" controversy, the "Paul Krugmen" hoax, and the Loretta Lynch gossip story.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views...that rely heavily on...personal opinion." Breitbart.com relies heavily on its personal opinion blogs/articles from numerous contributors and editors. They rely so heavily on it that even the lead for the WP article refers to Breitbart.com as an "opinion website". It's not rare to see opinion pieces plastered all over their front page while only a few links are actually credited to "Breitbart News".

Breitbart.com is a questionable on multiple accounts. The funny thing is that it only needs to meet one of the identifiers to be considered a questionable source and here it clearly qualifies for multiple identifiers. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A wall of text rehashing prior discussions on the RS/N noticeboard which repeatedly found Breitbart to be RS for opinions cited as opinions seems a waste here and the added implicit claim that Breitbart is so extremist as to be anathema is absurd. It is cited by WaPo, NYT, LAT etc. which would belie the claim that it is somehow to the extreme right of the KKK or the like. Sorry -- this has already been discussed - and dismissed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's questionable on multiple counts. This isn't a "dismissed" concern just because you disagree with the assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And banging the opinions cited as opinions drum ignores the fact that WP:RS does not treat all opinions the same. Being found reliable for some opinions not about people, does not translate to being found usable in articles for any opinion, and especially not about third parties. This is true of all sources, not just Breitbart. Every time you assert that Breitbart is a usable source for any opinion, you're misrepresenting actual policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At least four discussions on the article talk page and at noticeboards disagree with your demurral. 0 for 4 is not a strong case for your position. Including at an article talk page closing of an RfC Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC), Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review? et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a simple, simple point. Being found as a usable source for one item, doesn't whitelist it for all items. The RfC you point to is for a movie review, not an opinion about people. Looking through the archives here at the RS/N, I can't find any other discussions where Breitbart wasn't challenged as a questionable source. Your "et al" doesn't exist.

Those discussions don't override policy and you're trying to dismiss the arguments made with your own strawman argument. WP:QS clearly outlines when questionable sources can be used as reliable sources for their own comments. This was never in contention because it's clearly outlined in the policy. However, WP:QS and other policies do limit where questionable sources can be used as reliable sources. That's the part you and others have repeatedly ignored in the RFC and in the discussion. This issue has been raised by myself and others and ignored by you. WP:QS says they should ONLY be used on material about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. The WP article "America: Imagine a World Without Her" is not material about breitbart.com or Shapiro, nor is it an article about one of the two. So WP policy is clear that it can not be used. Now, on the WP Ben Shapiro article, if you want to say "On may 20, 2013 Shapiro criticized leftist film critics panning a movie" then you could use Breitbart.com as a reliable source because it would act as a primary source for material about itself. That's what those clauses in WP:QS apply to and they clearly include the aspect of the RFC that you and others are clinging to, but also include where and how it can be used and where and how it can't be used. You know, the part that you keep ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Kanzenshuu reliable?

Is Kanzenshuu considered a reliable source, since it is a fansite for the Dragon Ball series? There seems to be some sort of disagreement (which I am uninvolved) over at the Dragon Ball page using it as a source for the actual publication dates. The discussion is at Talk:Dragon_Ball#publication. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable for information it gathers and references in its guides and features, but the forums are clearly not. The site is operated by Michael LaBrie, who is both a contributor to Anime News Network and Mania.com, and has been a recognizable figure for more than 15 years since founding the Dragon Ball fan site. This was prevalent even a decade ago, as evidenced by an informative panel on the topic that was hosted in a large convention (Anime Next). Kanzenshuu is also host to a key discussion on the ouster of Kenji Yamamoto from Toei Animation in a very public music plagiarism issue. However, an excellent example is this well-written document on Dragon Ball Kai using Toei's fiscal reports to provide an analysis of the market, success and intentions of the company. Kanzenshuu not only gives context and insight into matters - but always cites its sources. The quality can be seen by these informative pages that actually corrects errors or provides details that are verifiable, yet critical to comprehension. Sometimes this means giving a break down of the production credits and the English mis-translations of staff names to a breakdown of the remastering process. It is not the greatest source there is, but the content is verifiable and intelligently put together and managed by an expert who has been doing this for over fifteen years. Seems to meet the basic requirements to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Right off the bat the site is to be avoided because it is self-published; WP:USERG. This actually makes it completely unacceptable as a source for information about any living individual, such as the above mentioned Kenji Yamamoto or anyone else involved in the series. I'll also just point out that Toei's fiscal reports are publicly posted by themselves, and are reported on by other more reliable sources. This fansite has what I believe to be a troubling number of copyright violations. Notable examples being; watermarking their (former, in this case) logo onto images they do not own, and fully republishing 147 interviews they do not own the rights to. Leading to WP:V, which says "If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it." Xfansd (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that you just proved you do not understand U.S. copyright, fair use and Misplaced Pages policies while making my argument stronger? The site is clearly not USERG, and you violated WP:COPYLINK by directly linking to the image which is from Toriyama's contributions to the anime-only content. This removes the fair use rationale and glosses over the fact that the site operates within all concerned parties (including Toei's) wishes. Now, can you please remove your infringing link and stop making borderline WP:BLP violations against the operator? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is an edit notice on this page that says to link to your sources, it would seem that I took it too literal. I believe the people who create the site's content make that content available to the general public themselves, making it selfpublished. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature". This site states "Our mission and goal continues to be to spread our love and enjoyment of the original Japanese version of the Dragon Ball franchise". Is operating a site solely about your interests not personal? Xfansd (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Kanzenshuu is an entity with an editorial board, so it is not "self-published". The site does not further the interests of its maintainers however, but it is a fansite which prides itself on accuracy and serving a community. Though even self-published works, like Litten's academic work, just needs to be scrutinized instead of believing that the content inherently "okay". Again, a publisher such as Rolling Stone is normally a "reliable source", but that is not always true. WP:IRS and others are very conservative, but remember it is "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If Kanzenshuu's content is inaccurate or flawed then you should provide evidence. I'd be happy to reject Kanzenshuu as a whole if you can prove that it cannot even refer correctly to the source material. Though you seem to acknowledge the data is correct, verifiable and also indisputable in the case of the manga dates. The date issue did spark this debate after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• It has been two days, any evidence of inaccuracies or errors in the guides or features that show poor editorial control and writing? Otherwise I think it apt to assume that it is a reliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked that site, and as a source, it depends on the material in question. It may be a reliable source for some aspects, and not reliable for others. Blanket statements about a source like this are not useful; editorial judgement and discretion still applies. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

World's best selling book (apart from the Bible, Mao and the Koran)?

• Source: Mitchell, David. (8 May 2010) "David Mitchell on Historical Fiction", The Telegraph: "Charles Dickens’ second stab at a historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities, has sold more than 200 million copies to date, making it the bestselling novel — in any genre — of all time...."
• Article: List of best-selling books
• Content:

Bearing in mind that the figure of 200 million has been in our article since 2008, where it was based on a throw-away line from a theatre review, and that our list is widely copied, including by the mainstream media, it seems likely that David Mitchell sourced the information directly or indirectly from Misplaced Pages.

The claim that this book has outsold its nearest rivals is extraordinary, and needs extraordinary evidence. Further making the claim unlikely and increasing the demand for evidence:

• The field is not without serious researchers, for example A Hundred Years of Publishing, Being the Story of Chapman & Hall, Ltd. 1930, who would have been likely to comment on such extraordinary sales.
• In 1910 it was reported in The Strand that a total of 24 million copies of all of Dickens works put together were estimated to have been produced.
• Generally "A Tale of Two Cities", though not without its proponents, is significantly less popular than "A Christmas Carol", and less popular than "Great Expectations" and "Oliver Twist".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

You're right that the claim in the article predates the citation given to support it. I would suggest removing the recent citation because it's hard to have total confidence in its reliability, recognizing the possibility of circular reference. However, I wouldn't remove the claim yet, without a good faith search that contradicted it. The list is clear about its limits, and it shouldn't be taken to authoritatively say who wins, when the list is incomplete and contains estimates of unknown range. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that, as had been explained to Rich Farmbrough before he came here, the claim about the 200 million was made in sources independent of Misplaced Pages before we first published it, there is no reason to assume that David Mitchell got his information from us, and not from our original source or from whatever source that one was based on. I made it clear on the article talk page that the claim dates from at least 2005. And I dispute the claim that Tale of Two Cities is less popular than his other works, since it seems to be very often used in a school context, which, over the decades, creates a significant number of sales... this source claims that he sold 2 million copies of all his books together between 1900 and 1906 alone, and that's just from Chapman & Hall, not the many translations. This source claims that Dickens (all works together) sold 1 million copies in 1968 in the US alone! The Daily Review (for what it's worth) claims that Dickens' works were printed by the millions in the USSR (20 million by 1966!) This source seems to go more into detail on the success of "A Tale of Two Cities" specifically, but from what I can see, it is clear that figures from 1910 and thereabouts are meaningless, as the sales figures of Dickens were still increasing significantly in the 1960s. This source claims that only four titles rank consistently among the bestsellers of Collins (whatever Collins is, it has sold 29 milion copies): David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, and Treasure Island. This indicates again that "A Tale of Two Cities" is one of the best-selling books by Dickens, more so than e.g. "Great Expectations". Fram (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason to think that he used Misplaced Pages, for one thing almost all mentions of 200m copies are in lists which are clearly derived from that article.

Secondly the raw arithmetic does not add up. In 1968, for example, the US probably formed at least half the market for English classics. The total US sales would have had to be running about 20 million if we are to believe the Canadian Bookseller and Library Journal that the sales are reasonably equally divided amongst his (20 or so) titles.

Nelson, and Collins are publishing houses.

200m might be a good estimate for Dickens as a whole (a decade or so back), and may even be what someone mis-quoted. But to stand this figure up for one book requires good secondary source, not OR extrapolated from his Russian sales. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

I think removing that source would indeed be a step forward. I and I presume the others that have commented on this here, here, here, here and externally will have searched for supporting data. But that is not really a question for here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

Your links to discussions don't dispute the 200 million, but ask for sources for his other books, ... I don't dispute that other works by Dickens have sold more than 10 million copies, and invite everyone to include those for which they find reliable sources. But to remove a reliable source on the mere speculation that it may have been based on our list, even though there is clear evidence that the same claim circulated before we published it, and there is sufficient evidence that "A Tale of Two Cities" is indeed the or one of the two bestselling novels by Dickens (e.g. the Collins source given above), is pointless bickering and goes against WP:V and WP:RS. Fram (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source which seems not to be based on our list but still gives the 200 million figure: this French magazine, which includes a number of books missing from our list (Alice, Don Quixote, ...). Fram (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That does look independent, but it isn't terribly reliable. It's just a report on an image from lovereading.com, which indicates little or no editorial oversight for the magazine - in fact it's aabout as reliable as the Pinterst pages that have pinned the image. The source is a blog post. Of course it may be correct, but we will only find out if a truly reliable source can be found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC).

Simply noting that according to this source there seems to be some sort of serious question regarding the reliability of the data for any such lists at all. Particular concerns which occur to me include exactly how individual publishers use the word "selling." For instance, would a publisher who sold a huge number of copies of a book to a waste paper management firm count those books as "sold" or not? Would remainder books sold in bulk to a retailer who then sells them as paper count? The article as is seems to be making a number of assumptions regarding the use of the word "sell" which seem to be open to question. One particular concern which comes to mind is the "sales" of the Bible and other works, many of which can be shown to be "sold" to churches for the purposes of being given away. Similar issues relate to the copies of Mao's works, which were given away to newlyweds and which probably count as "sold" by the publisher anyway. The article as it stands doesn't seem to discuss these issues, and that is probably to the detriment of the article itself. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But that is exactly the reason why things like the Bible and Mao's works are not included in our list. It is a bit strange to criticize a list for problems with some books, even though these exact books are explicitly excluded because of those reasons... The reliability of the remainder, yes, we are dependent on what reliable sources print, without the means (or the right, under WP:OR) to investigate truly whether these figures are correct. It's an attempt to create the best possible list of claims of sales figures made in reliable independent sources, not an attempt ot present the ultimate truth about them. Isn't that what Misplaced Pages is all about? Fram (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but a blog post and a theatre review are not, despite what you say, reliable sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

True for the blog post, I didn't notice that about that French source. Why is a theatre review not a reliable source? It may not be the best source, and if we have better sources contradicting it, then of course we can dsicount it; but sources from 1910 or 1930 can not be used to discount sales figures from 2005, certainly not when I have provided plenty of sources from inbetween indicating that this novel was a constant bestseller (one of the most popular of the classics) for much of the tewntieth century, and contrary to what you claimed not one of his less popular works. Is the 200 million correct? I have no way of knowing this. Is it obviously enough wrong to remove it despite the sources? No, there is no reason to let dubious WP:OR overrule what the sources say here. if the Guinness Record Book believes the claim, and we have no good sources to the contrary, then who are we to dismiss it? Fram (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A theatre review is not a reliable source because it is not subject to fact-checking in the same way that other traditional journalism was. It is largely the opinion of the author and is not expected to be relied upon as a source of facts, except as far as relates to the production itself (location, cast, time of performances, cost of tickets and so forth). Certainly not as the basis for an encyclopaedic claim.

It's perhaps not germane to the case in question (I can't bring up that original Broadway.com link) but I'd question a blanket assertion that a theatre review is a less reliable source than "traditional journalism". Partly because of a negative - the vast majority of "traditional journalism" has never been fact-checked by anyone other than the author anyway, so theatre reviews are no worse in that respect - but also because of a positive: a serious theatre reviewer (or film reviewer, music critic, art critic etc.) is likely to be far more knowledgeable about their field than a news reporter. In many cases they may have high academic qualifications relating to, and/or be an acknowledged authority on, an aspect of the art form in question. Obviously a case-by-case decision would be needed on whether they were RS, but it would be foolish to throw them out altogether based on some spurious distinction between reviews and reportage. Barnabypage (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Records, for all that it is not what it once was, is a fairly reliable source. Hence their equivocation: "it is believed that" the sales were 200m.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

1. Michael Peverett (10 April 2014). "Charles Dickens: A Tale of Two Cities - "bestselling novel of all time". Allegedly". Retrieved 8 December 2014.

Which is all we claim to present as well. Books which are believed to have sold more than 10 million copies, with independent sources supporting that claim. I have no objection to replacing the David Mitchell source with the Guinness source, they both postdate the first online traceable claim of 200 million anyway, so that's not an argument to decide the choice between those two of course. The best would be some relatively recent study by a Dickens scholar, or a publishing scholar, confirming or changing this figure, but without such a source we have to deal with what is available, and accept that they may be in error. Fram (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely why we have excluded Cervantes and many others. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC).

If you have a newspaper source, or Guinness, or anything comparable, giving a figure for Don Quixote, I'ld be glad to include it. Fram (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

LoneSentry.com

• www.lonesentry.com
• StG 44
• being used to support this

This personal website is run by an individual and is advertising supported. It contains photographs and text that the site claims are reprints of government documents, but there is no supporting information such as a scan or photostat for this particular source of the original document text, just the transcribed text. There are scans of images and I assume that since its a government publication that its in the public domain and thus not a copyright violation.

This site itself carries a disclaimer, "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website."

Granted, other areas of the site do have scans or images of the original documents such as these, but not the series of source articles referenced above.

I am not disputing the information, assuming it was taken from the original government document, but without any means to verify what is posted, how can all portions of this site be considerable reliable? According to one User, this website is cited and referenced by numerous authors in books and magazines and for the sections backed by scans of the original material I can see how that is the case, but that does not seem to remove the verifiability issue for posted sources that do not. Since there are government documents being referenced, shouldn't there be a better source available? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands.

User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him.

Also, it should be noted that many "personal websites" are routinely used as references on wiki. One http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html is a website run by one man. This website also uses..."Site mission satement (yes, statement is misspelled) and legal disclaimer 1. I do not sell or buy any weapons. This site is for education only! 2. In no case I shall be liable for any damage or harm, caused by use or misuse of any information, facts and opinions, placed on this site. 3. All information is gathered from the open sources" He offers no supporting documents whatsoever for his facts and opinions. Whereas, lonesentry.com simply proves digital copies of government documents. User:Scalhotrod, has provide no evidence that lonesentry is manipulating the data other than to claim that its own legal disclaimer somehow invalidates the information provided on the website. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.--RAF910 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

RAF910, it is neither necessary nor helpful to copy-paste large quantities of text from the talk page - particularly when much of it doesn't even seem to refer to the matter in question. The only question we are addressing here is whether the LoneSentry site is an appropriate source for the material cited. And concerning that question, I'd have to agree with Scalhotrod that the website appears to be a personal one - and accordingly per WP:RS not likely to be acceptable without strong evidence that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I can see no particular reason to assume that it isn't accurate, but it would clearly be better to find a source that isn't in doubt. LoneSentry cites the original U.S. government document, and the obvious solution here is to locate that, and cite it instead. If that can't be done, we may have to discuss the suitability of LoneSentry as a source further - in a manner that doesn't involve accusing Scalhotrod of being involved in 'a crusade'. Disputes about the validity of sources are common on Misplaced Pages (as I'm sure Scalhotrod would agree, we've had a few ourselves) and they are best settled by presenting the evidence, rather than making negative comments about an opponent. You have listed a number of books which cite LoneSentry - could you provide further details of specific cases where it is being cited, so we can get a better idea of its "reputation"? Given the circumstances (what appears to be a personal website), the burden rest with you to convince us that the source is valid. We are after all writing for our readers, rather than ourselves, and accordingly we have to err on the side of caution when in doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have already provided a list with 25 books that use lonesentry as source, how many more do I need to provide? With ~80,000 hits on a Google search, I could probably provide a 100 more in the next day or two. How much time do I have?--RAF910 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid

Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab

German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab

Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke

Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn

Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide

West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco

Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty

A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs

The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix

The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte

Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold

World War II By Walter A. Haze

Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson

Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons

Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman

One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin

Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison

Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry

Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore

Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman

• Plus...

• Combat Medic: Nonfiction, None Needed By Vernon L. Parke

• The Box from Braunau: In Search of My Father's War By Jan ELVIN

• World War II: The Last War Heroes: From D-Day to Berlin with the men and ...By Stephen Bull

• Same War - Different Missions: WWII Memories and Letters Home By John Foertschbeck

• The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement ...By Perry Biddiscombe

• M3 Medium Tank vs Panzer III: Kasserine Pass 1943 By Gordon Rottman, Ian Palmer, Giuseppe Rava

• Střední tank M3 vs Panzerkampfwagen III - Průsmyk Kasserine 1943 By Rottman Gordon L. (in German)

• Massacre in Malaya: Exposing Britain's My Lai By Christopher Hale

• Hell Hawks!: The Untold Story of the American Fliers Who Savaged Hitler's ...By Robert F. Dorr, Thomas D. Jones

• Given Up for Dead: American Gi's in the Nazi Concentration Camp at Berga By Flint Whitlock

• Scouts Out!: The Development of Reconnaissance Units in Modern Armies By John J. McGrath

• The 784th Tank Battalion in World War II: History of an African American Armored Unit in Europe By McFarland

• In the thick of the fight: York County, Pa. counters the Axis threat in WWII By James McClure

• The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement 1944-45 By Alexander Perry Biddiscombe

• Battle Exhortation: The Rhetoric of Combat Leadership By Keith Yellin

• The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II By Charles Glas

• The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalter

• Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton By Robert Wilcox

• Shelldrake: Canadian Artillery Museums and Gun Monuments By Harold A. Skaarup

• Mollie's War: The Letters of a World War II WAC in Europe edited by Mollie Weinstein Schaffer, Cyndee Schaffer, Jennifer G. Mather

For the record this is extremely time consuming. I will continue to add books when time allows.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. A list of books with no further details isn't going to tell us anything we don't know already, and nobody is going to look through that list themselves for the necessary information. And I have to agree with Glrx below that 'Tactical and technical trends' doesn't appear to be a particularly appropriate source to be using anyway - primary-source documents on the enemy's ordnance created during wartime are inevitably going to be based on incomplete information, and of questionable merit as an accurate historical assessment of the weapon. That wasn't their purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

(e/c)

The discussion above seems to slightly miss the mark in several ways.

The source whose reliability is in question should be the 1945 article and not the reliability of republisher, LoneSentry. There appears to be a concession that if an image of the article were published, then it would be accepted as a true copy of the 1945 source. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the republisher would have changed content. I could expect some small transcription errors, but I would not expect gross content changes.

To put it another way, if the citation just identified the 1945 article (and did not link to LoneSentry.com), then would there be any debate about the reliability of the source?

The disclaimer about accuracy on the webpage seems to be the republisher denying responsibility for the original content. That does not impugn or praise the content of the 1945 document. The statement does further the belief that the republisher is providing an accurate copy: "No attempt has been made to update or correct the text."

Reading the document at LoneSentry (and assuming it is a copy of 1945 document), it appears to be a primary source with a significant bias against the weapon: "cheap stampings"; "dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming"; "Germany's unfavorable military situation"; comparing weight to the M1 carbine (how about Thompson's weight); "may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat" (really? what does the soldier have left to shoot?). I might use the 1945 article for some statements, but I would not give its opinions about the weapon much weight. They do not seem to be founded in any significant tests or research.

Also troubling is that in the StG 44 article, Musgrave (an apparent secondary source about German weapons) overrules the primary source opinion as not "an accurate view of the weapons characteristics". To me, that brings in a WP:UNDUE weight concern. At this point, my inclination is secondary sources are needed to state the weapon is inferior; otherwise Musgrave's assessment should prevail and primary sources should not be mentioned. I looked in Hatcher, and he says nothing about the family's reliability; if it were a bad weapon system, I'd expect some remark.

Glrx (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.worldcat.org/title/tactical-and-technical-trends/oclc/36536250
• http://www.biblio.com/book/tactical-technical-trends-number-57-april/d/721486831 USA
• http://www.abebooks.com/Tactical-Technical-Trends-57-April-1945-ebook/1064688951/bd UK
• http://www.military-info.com/Aphoto/Ttt3.htm (states title is "Machine Carbines Redesignated"; price $0.50)
• http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Tactical%20And%20Technical%20Trends%22 (does not have 57)
• http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003929101 (does not have 57)
• Glrx (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

More trouble. I cannot find the Musgrave book cited in StG 44. Consequently, it should be tagged with {{fails verification}}. I can find Musgrave and Oliver, German Machineguns, 1971 + 2nd rev 1992. Given author's pubs, I would accept Musgrave as an authority if the statement can be found. Glrx (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Added by an IP editor(diff) a good while ago. Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If I'm doing this right, no book was registered with the US Copyright Office in 1985 by Daniel Musgrave. Bromley86 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment, favoring use of "Tactical and Technical Trends" material

The LoneSentry.com transcription of the War Departments Tactical and Technical Trends should be accepted as a reliable copy of that government publication unless and until some other editor has accessed a printed or microfiche copy of that same publication and reported some error in the transcription of the document. It is unreasonable for an editor to object material that has been converted into an electronic format for the Internet. The verifiable rule means that other editors have the opportunity to verify. The burden for the editor objecting to this material is that he or she should find a copy of "Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945," and if he or she finds that the material quoted in the post is inaccurate, then and only then should that source be disputed. -GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The LoneSentry transcription is not trustworthy. The book by Joseph Balkoski called From Brittany to the Reich cites the Tactical and Technical Trends article announcing the promotion of M.P. 43 to Assault Rifle 44, but Balkoski writes in his book that the weapon had an effective range of 300 meters, while LoneSentry says 400 meters. Furthermore, Balkoski is dismissive of the U.S. assessment which gave the reader the incorrect impression that the weapon was not very effective, which is patently untrue, since the weapon "fundamentally alter the way armies fought in the postwar world", according to Balkoski, who says the weapon led to the AK47 and was thus foundational in reshaping conflict. So not only does LoneSentry show the possibility that they got the effective range wrong, modern thought on the weapon has superseded that contemporary assessment which was in any case biased against the weapon. I say throw out the TaTT 57 source and instead use more recent books which discuss the weapon. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Or retain the TaTT 57 assessment as a historic curiosity, shown to be inaccurate and biased. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document. It seems that User talk:Binksternet comments and evidence (be it unintentional) suggest that it is indeed a TRUE transcription of the original document. Also, User:Glrx comments above suggest that he also believes it to be a TRUE transcription of the original document.--RAF910 (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you missed the discrepancy I pointed out between the effective range figures of 300 meters vs 400 meters. That number may be wrong in the LoneSentry transcription, so I don't think the whole transcription is reliable. The parts that are confirmed by other authors can be accepted as reliable. The LoneSentry version of the TaTT article should not be used as a source, only later authors who quote it. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And the bigger picture is that we are writing an encyclopedia. We should follow the most modern consensus found in the literature rather than make extensive quotes of biased and outdated sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On range, you're misquoting. Tactical and Technical Trends says 400 yards, which is 365 metres. Balkoski says "about 300 metres". So they're not that far off. Bromley86 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, I see that now. But Balkoski cited the study, and yet he wrote 300 instead of the closer 400, which causes me to think that LoneSentry may not have transcribed the old text perfectly. And it doesn't solve the larger problem that some editors here want to quote an old, biased source extensively despite it being proven demonstrably wrong in light of the succession from Stg 44 to AK47, and in view of the fact that the Stg 44 was extremely effective—a game changer. So let's drop the silly kerfuffle about the old 1945 article and instead go with modern observers. Binksternet (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems I was misquoting as well, as TaTT also says about! Anyway, what seems likely is Balkoski took his 300m from a different source. No need to suggest that the Lone Sentry page is not a faithful reproduction of the TaTT article, especially as effective range is clearly not a precise art (look at the range cite in the StG 44 infobox; I've seen other sources state similar things, e.g.). That said, it has been convincingly argued that it shouldn't be assigned much weight - the article currently contains a paragraph that deals with Allied reaction to the StG 44, including a sentence that should use the TaTT source as its cite (A late-war U.S. assessment derided the weapon as "bulky" and "unhandy", prone to jamming, and meant to be thrown away if the soldier could not maintain it.). We just need to find a modern reliable source that addresses the fact that this was (a) likely propaganda and (b) reflected the US military's dislike of an intermediate cartridge (and if it could also deal with the British 1948 objections, that'd be useful). Bromley86 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document...As for the idea that Joseph Balkoski's book From Brittany to the Reich is indisputable and trumps all other sources of information is nonsense and irrelevant to this discussion.--RAF910 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not the RS question for me. Let's assume the transcription is TRUE. The problem is the TaTT's article (1) is a primary source and (2) is apparently not reliable. LoneSentry exercises no editorial judgment when it transcribes the source; LS cannot turn an unreliable source into a reliable source merely by quoting it. If it is the case that the weapon system was flawed, then it should be easy to find many (secondary) reliable sources that say that. Glrx (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming, the transcription is true...It accurately reflects the U.S. military opinion of the StG44 in 1945. It is also the first time the term "assault rifle" is used in an English source. As such it is an important historical document. Yes, over the next 20 years the U.S. military's opinion of the StG44 changed and by 1970 the "M16 Rifle Case Study. Prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel. March 16, 1970. By Richard R. Hallock, Colonel U.S. Army (Retired) http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf" opinion was that "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." However, going back to the subject at hand. If this source is rejected as unreliable, then it can no longer be used on Misplaced Pages for any reason. The source may be deleted wherever it's used and anyone attempting to add the source in the future will be considered a vandal. This action will give some editors the ability to deny historical facts and impose their point of view on other editors. Which is in fact the reason, that we are discussing this issue in the first place.

If this is the case, then it needs to be clearly explained in the body of the article. "In 1945, the U.S. Government's stance on the StG 44 was that it was..." "By 1970, this assessment changed. Retired Colonel Richard Hallock stated in his "M16 Rifle Case Study" (prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel) that the "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." or something to this effect. We can't go around using Misplaced Pages's voice to state opinions as fact. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not on this noticeboard to discuss the content on the StG44 page. We are here (at your request) to declare the lonesentry TaTT information an unreliable source and to ban it. If you have changed your mind and want to withdraw your challenge, then do so.--RAF910 (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, this is the reliable sources noticeboard, and we can and do comment on what is or isn't an appropriate use of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree ^^ Not every source is reliable for every content. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with that...The source was used in the article because it was the first time that any English source used the term "assault rifle". Which User:Scalhotrod rejected as an incorrect translation of the german word "Sturmgewehr". The source was also used to explain the U.S War Department opinion of the rifle in 1945. Which User:Scalhotrod also rejected.--RAF910 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Do contemporary Buddhist teachers (with no western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism) count as primary or secondary sources?

Do contemporary Buddhist teachers (with no western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism) count as primary or secondary sources?VictoriaGrayson 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If these are only two options, then it has to be considered as primary. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson 03:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The question, of course, relying on the word "if", and it has not been clearly established that is the case. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My guess is it depends on context. If the Buddhist teacher is saying "this is the dharma," it's probably primary. If they're saying "according to lama (someone else), this is the dharma," it might be secondary. It's possible for texts of such nature to be alternate between being a primary and secondary source even within the same sentence (e.g. "according to lama (name), this is the dharma, but that also means that is the dharma").

Going outside Buddhism, a papal encyclical would be a primary source, but Pope Francis commenting on an encyclical by a previous pope would be a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian is completely right. And remember primary sources are completely ok to use despite some people's wrong belief that only secondary and tertiary sources are ok to use in an article.Camelbinky (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are OK to use, but we need to be careful not to rely on any original research and attribute primary sources as only what that document says (if there are additional sources to support it, then we have secondary sources and don't need to cite the primary). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks, there is an ongoing discussion of this topic on the Wikiproject Buddhism page. Please see :See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Your input on the RFC would be greatly appreciated. There seems to be a great misunderstanding on the meaning of a secondary source, and it has importance consequences for all of the articles on Buddhism. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes just to say - recommend the RfC. The thing is, that it is not a question about teachers who are just religious teachers. But the Eastern equivalent of our theologians, who are trained in Eastern institutions of learning in Eastern methods of scholarship. E.g. is it appropriate to use some of the best Thai, Sri Lankan and Buddhist scholars as secondary sources, when they have had a training in their own traditional methods of scolarship? For instance Tibetan Buddhists have a degree course of about ten years duration you do, as a qualification. And examples would be the Dalai Lama who is widely regarded as knowledgeable about the Tibetan texts, not because he is the Dalai Lama but because of his training and his recognized in depth understanding of the texts. Another example would be Paryudh Payutto, a brilliant Thai scholar, but not trained as a western academic. But they use modern methods, is just that they were not originally trained in the West seems to be the issue. More input to the conversation and RfC greatly appreciated there! Robert Walker (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this then symptomatic of a bigger issue that Misplaced Pages is too Western-centric (for lack of a better word) when it comes to what we treat as authority authorship? Should a bigger more generic question be dealt with at the village pump, possibly with new wording in our policies?Camelbinky (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it might be reasonable to say that in cases like this, which are topics which are substantively covered in reference works and overview works which are often written by authors who are not themselves within the tradition in question, I would say myself that any work cited as a reference in a long work or included in a reference in an encyclopedic or other short article would reasonably qualify as a preferable source. I am myself not sure whether that would necessarily be something which requires address in policy or at the village pump. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ian is completely correct: it depends on context. As an additional question though, why on earth does the fact that they don't have western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism matter? Why was it even brought up in the first place? Whether or not someone has academic (or any other sort) of credentials speaks towards reliability, not whether someone is a primary or secondary source. And even then it wouldn't discount the source - there are plenty of reliable primary and secondary sources whose authors have no formal academic credentials in the field whatsoever, and plenty who have no formal credentials at all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wholehearted agreement with the above. In some areas, particularly those dealing with the subject of non-Western religions or philosophies, what we consider "academic" training is alien to that culture, and more or less by definition those "academic" standards need not be applicable, or even relevant.
• Also, I rather question the apparent insistence on the differentiation between "primary" and "secondary" sources in general. In topics of major world religions, there are no lack of overview sources and reference sources devoted to the topics involved. That being the case, the more effect way to my eyes to deal with such topics is, like I said, to look at the relevant topical overviews and/or reference works and see what sources they use, and more or less follow their lead where that seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin Gorman! There has been tremendous misunderstanding of these issues among some of the editors of the articles on Buddhism. We are trying to clear up the misunderstanding, but it has not been easy. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It does, indeed, depend on context. The context here is the overusage of quotes. Dorje has a habit of editing by piling up quotes, presenting them as "In Buddhism, ." For the past year-and-a-half several editors have expressed their concern about this, without avail. The discussion on "primary" or "secondary" is side-tracking this problem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WSJ essay and children's books as sources

Hi All, I made two posts above asking about the viability of WSJ and children's books as sources, and haven't gotten any comments yet. Just a request for someone to look before these go to archives! -Darouet (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A link would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Masters' theses of a bibliographic nature

There are several theses available at archive.org which are apparently works of bibliography relating to specific topics. Would such sources be considered reasonable and acceptable for the material they include in similar articles of a bibliographic nature here, such as those in Category:Bibliographies? Yes, I know this is a general question, but I think the question is probably a rather straightforward "yes/no" type. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll defer to those with more experience on this issue, but I'd say that if you could verify the institution where the masters thesis was completed, and check to be sure the thesis was vetted by a panel of qualified scholars, then using it to support information that is routine, minor, or non-controversial could be feasible. A bibliography sounds like it could be a reasonable application.

Certainly in my field, there are a series of excellent masters theses that provide the only comprehensive geological site overviews for a number of remote field locations. The theses have been reviewed by top people in the field. Nevertheless you wouldn't want to use them for extraordinary or controversial claims, or if journal articles or reviews were available instead. -Darouet (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how often the author of a Masters thesis could demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP warns that PhD theses should only be used with care and always treated as primary sources. As far as Masters' go: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Without evidence of that, they shouldn't be used, and with evidence, still only as primary sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with User:Elaqueate. I'm sure that there are many excellent Masters' these, but there are also many execrable ones. As our article on the subject says, "The required complexity and/or quality of research of a thesis or dissertation can vary by country, university and/or program, therefore, the required minimum study period may vary significantly in duration." I've seen some very trivial ones. So the rule of thumb should be as Elaqueate suggests. If it is significant, others will have discussed it or used it as a reference. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Theevergreen.co.uk, a birth certificate, etc. as birth date sources at the Rab Howell article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Rab Howell#Birth year. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. On the article's talk page, I asked SteveK1889 (talk · contribs) what is a WP:Reliable source regarding this or this he added to the article in place of a WP:Reliable source that is there for the birth date material. One source is the theevergreen.co.uk source, and you can see other sources that SteveK1889 is proposing in the article edit history and/or on the talk page. Also keep in mind that I don't know what the current source used for Howell's birth date states; for all I know, it supports what SteveK1889 states. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The 1867 birth year is supported by the GRO Index entry. Keith D (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the birth certificate is his and not that of someone else with the same name born at a different date? You need a secondary source to make that call. TFD (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the place is specified also--does it match? DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Does it match the source that gives the wrong birthdate? Even if it does, it could be it was for a cousin or an older brother who died in infancy. Or perhaps the name the subject used differed from the one on his birth certificate. TFD (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A primary source can always be used to prove a secondary source incorrect. We don't use secondary sources to prove primary ones wrong. We're getting into terrible precedent when we have to go as far as cover all extraneous, unlikely, and frankly stupid possibilities just to prove a birth certificate "truthy". Some comments on this thread sound like they are straight out of a birther movement pamphlet.Camelbinky (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy" at Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science

Recently, a wall of text has appeared at Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science which is labeled a "Controversy". It contains a few citations (mostly to TX state laws), but in my opinion the gist of the controversy is unsourced. In particular, there don't seem to be any sources offered that actually advance the same complaint being mentioned in the article. Some of the included text may be usable, but I suspect that a lot of the issue is only in the mind of the IPs that added it. As I attended this school and still feel strongly about it, I consider myself to have something of a COI here and don't really want to get into it myself. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look and make whatever edits you feel are appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. A 'controversy' based entirely on a reading of primary sources, as far as the evidence presented goes - which is to say it is synthesis. It may well be that there is genuine controversy over the Academy's admission policies etc, but we need sources that discuss this directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post and Vox and WP:BLP

The Shooting of Michael Brown has numerous sources to Huffington Post and Vox articles. Vox is being used for articles like "When is it legal for a cop to kill you?" The article is written by a Dara Lind, under a pseudonym. Also, a journalist Saki Knafo wrote a piece for the Huffington Post titled Ferguson Police Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers which has not only conducted its own original research, but concludes with incorrect information being touted to make the situation appear even worse. The report, demonstrably false, has been the source of an error present in the article for over three months and seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Huffington Post and Vox seem incompatible with WP:BLP as to WP:IRS especially when it comes to original reporting. I think the removal of these sources from the page is warranted given the severity and impact of these already questionable sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

...which has not only conducted its own original research

Conflating Misplaced Pages's specific internal guidelines regarding sourcing with the standard real-world practice of journalism/criticism makes for a really bad start. --Calton | Talk 16:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Calton is correct about the misuse of the term "original research". That said, I'm really uncomfortable using the Huffington Post—which is ultimately a partisan blog, albeit a high-profile one—as a source in general, but particularly for contentious material with WP:BLP implications. I would strongly favor removing it here and instead prioritizing higher-quality sources.

Vox, on the other hand, seems fine to me. The piece in question looks like sober explanatory journalism. The original poster's sole objection seems to be that the piece is written by a pseudonymous author. First of all, that's not necessarily a problem, and secondly it appears to be false. I don't see any indication that Dara Lind is a pseudonym; what's the evidence for this claim? In any case, I don't see a huge problem with Vox, although I'm open to being convinced. MastCell  16:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to conflate the two with "original research" as in a Misplaced Pages term, but that it is "original reporting" and not merely taking a source and running with it. Also the ] post I referred to came out to be blatantly false and the editor continues to reinsert it. With Vox, the fact that it seems to be an offshoot likened to Huffington Post is a concern for BLP. For Dara Lind Dara Lind - Jetpack Comandante" Things that surprise people who mostly know me from the Internet: I am not "mousy"; I am "secretly Midwestern." I don't know how to pronounce my name, either." Does not seem to be an accountable individual. Most of the sources are pile ons and not really advancing anything that hasn't been covered by the New York Times and others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You think Dara Lind is not "an accountable individual"... why? Because she's less mousy than people expect her to be? Because she's Midwestern? And does this mean you no longer think her name is a pseudonym? I'm confused by your objections to the Vox source, even more so now. MastCell  02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I change my opinion on the Vox article in the article. They correct their errors. Perhaps the one I saw was fluke? HuffPo has 4 I raised issues on, but Vox is fairing better under my tests than I thought it would as a whole. Truly - sample size. I concede to you @MastCell:, unless I find a major issue I'll give Vox the benefit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This editor is removing content en masse , just because it is sourced to Vox or HuffPo. This while there are ongoing discussions about specific edits based on these sources. Neither HuffPo, nor VOX are unreliable per se, and editors' consensus is to address each sentence sourced solely to these two media outlets to validate them - Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we consider HuffP or its derivative as RS for controversial BLP, except as the personal opinions of the authors of the article ere. There may conceivably be exceptions, but they would have to be considered one by one and defending--the presumption is against them. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: Vox is part of Vox Media and not associated with the HuffPo. And The Huffington Post is the first commercially run digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize (David Wood, in the category of national reporting). Is it a partisan source? Probably. But Fox News is also a highly partisan source and we consider it reliable. So, material sourced to articles in the HuffPo, like any other source, have to be evaluated on its merits. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

what you said shows, is that David Wood's work may be reliable. I do not consider Fox reliable on many subjects either--certainly not for anything involving a judgment in American politics. (I am unfamiliar with Vox.) DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• The difference between organizations like FoxNews is that the operate under the aegis of a highly professional news operation, while HuffPo is 2nd tier at best. Rolling Stone should be a major wake up call.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 02:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take Vox. They are doing better than I thought in checking the details out and they do correct unlike most HuffPo which seem to have lax editorial control and free with their "opinions". Also, David Wood's work may be reliable for HuffPo - but that is an exception and not a rule of thumb. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Algemeiner (The)

Source: Article: 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt Dubious Content:

"Around 25,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt that year (1956)"

The article states that the entirety of the Jews who left Egypt in 1956 were expelled. No source was provided. Two other sources (Mainstream British newspaper and an Israeli college academic) agree that a minority of the Jews in Egypt - estimated at 500 - were expelled in 1956. The Algemeiner has therefore introduced an extreme POV, grossly distorting the best historical indications.

Previously I had come across other publications by The Algemeiner which I found to be dubious at best. Some examples are: º Calling Norman Finkelstein a "Holocaust defamer" (Finkelstein is the son of a holocaust victim) - http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/02/14/harvard-needs-some-schooling-on-the-middle-east/ º "During the Mandate, “Palestinian” referred to the Jews, while the Arabs were simply Arabs." - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/28/failure-of-the-two-state-solution-a-reply-to-ian-lustick/. In reality (see "Survey for Palestine" Jews are referred to as such; Arabised Palestinians are referred to as Arabs; and citizens of Palestine are referred to as Palestinians. º "(Falk) blames America and Israel for the Boston terrorist attacks" - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/03/princeton-university-must-fire-professor-richard-falk/. Nowhere in his article does Falk use the work 'blame'. He mentions Israel exactly 5 times, and never in the context of responsibility for the Boston bombings.

Is this patern one of a disturbing propensity by The Algemeiner to massage the historical facts? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this video an RS for damage done by Greenpeace to the Nazca Lines?

The sentence "Greenpeace responded with apologies, claiming that demonstrators took care to avoid damage, but this is contradicted by video and photographs showing the activists wearing conventional shoes (not special protective shoes) while walking on the site" is sourced to . Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a raw primary video can't be used to support a specific secondary interpretation of what the video means or signifies without it being textbook WP:OR. The video is not directly saying they are "non-protectve shoes". The claim may be true, but the extra interpretation can't be supported only by a video. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Neither the evaluation of the shoes nor the effect of the shoes is evident from a video. Nor would even a direct statement on the shoes by a RS necessarily contradict the original statement - they may (or may not) have taken other measures to avoid damage (e.g. choosing where to walk). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirkus Reviews

I note that kirkusreviews.com is currently cited by around 290 of our articles, and have to question the wisdom of using this source - they appear to publish reviews in return for a substantial payment from the author/publisher. Am I right in assuming that (a) such payment means that they are not an independant source, and their reviews cannot be cited as evidence of notability, and (b) such payment is sufficient reason not to consider them worth citing at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirkus has two business models: unpaid and paid. If it appears in Kirkus Indie, it's a paid review, and, as such, can't be counted as evidence of notability. If it appears in the main Kirkus review site, it's reasonable evidence of notability.

As for whether Kirkus Indie is worth citing at all, that's more debatable. Kirkus uses the same business model as their competitors in the paid review industry: they do not guarantee a good review. If, after buying the review, the author decides that he would be better off not letting that review be seen, he has the choice of not approving the review. Kirkus doesn't change the review, but won't print it, either. That means that, at least in theory, a positive review in Kirkus Indie is a legitimate positive review by someone that doesn't have his compensation dependent upon writing a favourable review.

I'm experienced with the paid review industry, but haven't ever gone through the cycle of getting a bad review that I needed to reject. I can't speak to how often it happens. I do know that Kirkus has a reputation as a premium paid reviewer, and their ridiculously high price reflects that. I think their business model depends upon making certain that favourable reviews are only given to good books.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This recently came up at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dmitri Borgmann -- it seems a lot of editors here are confused about whether and when reviews from Kirkus are acceptable to cite here. As you can see from the AfD, my assessment is pretty much the same as User:Kww's -- any Kirkus reviews published between 1933 and 2009 are reliable and can be used as evidence of notability. Starting from 2009, however, the journal introduced a split business model: while it continued to produce independent, unsolicited reviews of traditionally published books, it began to offer reviews to self-publishers for a fee. It's therefore important for us to distinguish between reviews from these two streams; we should never use a Kikus Indie review as evidence of notability, though in some circumstances it may be acceptable to cite one for some other purpose. Psychonaut (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kww, Psychonaut: I believe all of the material I have used from Kirkus is for books published prior to 2009, but I'm not sure if I have even stumbled across Kirkus Indie. Could you link to an example of a Kirkus Indie review? Thanks! - Location (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is a distinction, it isn't obvious. How for example are we to judge whether this is a paid-for review or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I see "Kirkus Indie" at the bottom, but I agree that it is not obvious. - Location (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah - I'd missed that: thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

B-47 wreck Feb. 1059

I don't see mention of a B-47 that crashed on Goose Bay Labrador around Feb 11 1959 The aircraft was from Witman AFB, enroute home from

Europe, landed for fuel, and failed to lift of in time catching an outrigger wheel in a snow bank, flipping the aircraft killing all aboard

How do I know this? I was in the Air Police stationed there, and had to work the site. Leo McCauley McNabb, IL.

Hi Mr McNabb. Was it in any local newspapers that you may have seen? We need what are called WP:RELIABLE SOURCES to put that in. Please register and we can add that if you know of anything that was printed about it. We can communicate better too. Would be glad to help. Looks like you would be a great addition as an editor on related subjects. Regards Irondome (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added a mention of the 11 February 1959 accident to B-47E 53-6215 at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–59) referenced to http://b-47.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boeing-B-47-Losses-and-Ejections.pdf but could do with a better reference if you have one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jews for Justice for Palestinians

I would like to reference data from this website in an article. My checks on this noticeboard reveal negative comments dated from 2007, so I need to revive the opinions. From their website, JfJfP claims the following support

At the end of 2010, our over 1,600 signatories included six rabbis; 110 professors (including five Fellows of the Royal Society and two fellows of the British Academy); 150 medical and academic doctors; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, six knights, one Member of Parliament and one member of the House of Lords. The list includes Prof Zygmunt Bauman, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Rex Bloomstein, Jenny Diski, Moris Farhi MBE, Bella Freud, Stephen Fry, Roger Graef OBE, Dr Julian Huppert MP, Prof Mary Kaldor, Nicolas Kent, Baroness Beeban Kidron, Baroness Oona King, Prof Francesca Klug OBE, Peter Kosminsky, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes OBE, Mike Marqusee, Dr Jonathan Miller, Rabbi Jeffrey Newman, Sophie Okonedo OBE, Prof Susie Orbach, Prof Jacqueline Rose FBA, Mike Rosen, Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Alexei Sayle, Prof Lynne Segal, Will Self, Sir Antony Sher, Prof Avi Shlaim FBA, Gillian Slovo, Sir Tom Stoppard, Dame Janet Suzman and Zoë Wanamaker CBE

I find it difficult to believe that a) these illustrious people would not have been alerted if the claims are fraudulent, and b) that they can all and cumulatively give support to an organisation that publishes unreliable data - IN GENERAL - so I am going to conclude that the website is WP:RS in general. I fully appreciate that on individual specific issues it may contain errors, as does the NYT. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an advocacy group, with a self-published website, so no, not a reliable source for facts. Brad Dyer (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

SimplyPsychology

I was cleaning up some student work and I came across a couple references to SimplyPsychology.org. The site appears to be the work on grad student at the University of Manchester. I'm guessing this isn't an RS (not a recognised expert, etc.) but I thought I'd seek some opinions (it doesn't seem to have been addressed here previously). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's a grad student doing their own thing, I'd say it generally wouldn't be reliable. A thesis that is reviewed by their committee is considered a shaky source already, so what's essentially an independent website / sort of blog wouldn't even approach that level of reliability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds about where I was (though even theses are seen as iffy in many contexts. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He does have extensive bibliographies on each post, this resource is still a good jumping off point to find a reliable source that was not previously used in an article and have some new relevant material to be a source to info that has a citation needed template, for example. A lot of non-RS are not wrong or unusable for basic research purposes. Though editors who research and add to articles are a dying breed.Camelbinky (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources ?

Hello, I wanted to know if the following sources are unreliable (regarding music-related articles) because they don't appear here and I have never used them so far.

1. Dubious sources recently added to two specific articles to support the new wave genre (a discussion was previously started on my own talk page) :

• Brutal Resonance (included in this article) (NB : only one song is specifically described as "new wave" and I really don't think it's enough to support this genre, as one song is not necessarily representative of what a band/act usually plays)
• ChuckURadio (included in the same article. I don't think it is reliable at all)
• A book called The Complete, Cross-referenced Guide to the Baby Buster Generation's Collective Unconscious, written by Glenn Gaslin and Rick Porter. (included in this article) I didn't find anything at all regarding the two authors so I don't think this reference should be included to support "new wave".

2. Websites I've already seen several times but I think they are all unreliable :

• Classicbands.com
• Classic Rock Review
• Communizine
• Encyclopedia.com
• Freaky Trigger
• Frontier Psychiatr
• Hardnews
• Like Totally 80s
• Made Man
• Popdust
• Ranker.com
• Rhapsody biographies
• Rockpool.com
• Starpulse biographies
• Turnstyle (can be found here)

3. Specific reviews :

• Adrian Denning
• John McFerrin (can be found here)
• Reocities reviews
• Reviews from Sputnikmusic written by Contributors. Emeritus and Staff reviews are considered reliable, User reviews are unreliable, but what about this last group ?
• Wilson & Alroy's Reviews

It would help me a lot if someone could give me an answer ASAP for all these sources (and maybe other editors by the same way). Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you investigated the credentials of these websites? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and most of them seem to be unreliable. However it would be better someone like you can confirm I didn't make any error. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ResourcesForLife.com

May this page be used as a reference for contributors to WOT Services? I think it fails notability to serve as such. See discussion at bottom part of Talk:WOT Services#Unbalanced-tag by user 116.90.224.115.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherFug (talk • contribs) 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• A bit of background. I came to the WOT Services talk page by way of WP:3O. There is an ongoing discussion between WeatherFug and an IP as to whether there should be mention in the article of claims of fraud, etc. against WOT, with WeatherFug arguing that no reliable sources had been produced. I found a citation to the article in question in one of the reverted edits and offered my opinion that, in the absence of better sources, it would be in order to use this one. There is an article on the site's owner here that includes a profile of the organization from the inside of his book. Am I wrong to think it would be allowable? Scolaire (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this source is usable for the material. That article outlines a personal dispute the owners of the website had with WOT, when the article website could be considered "self-published/with little reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". However, the article, WOT Services, looks like it has clear NPOV problems. The only (pseudo) negative material is the fact that they won a lawsuit against them. Everything else is borderline promotional. The reviews section is comprised entirely of a single sentence that reads The rating tool has received several reviews in the press. without mentioning anything the reviews said. This is probably unintentionally funny, as the article is covering a webservice fueled by customer reviews. This is probably an article that should be considered over at the NPOV board, but there's definitely something off. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution