Misplaced Pages

The dispute seems to have arisen becuase an editor inserted a phrase into the text of the article during the GA review, but the nominator felt it wasn't clear what the phrase inserted meant and removed it on the basis that there was no page number (this is totally understandable, because the insufficiently sourced addition could have meant a GA failure). The nominator also seems to be willing to try to find the page number themselves and re-insert. How are they doing anything wrong?--FormerIP (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, it doesn't appear to me that they are doing anything wrong.--Cúchullain /c 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't that specific incident that sparked my question, but the editor's statement that "i am in the middle of removing/replacing all those that do not give page numbers". Replacing deficient refs is, of course, a good thing, but to my inquiry as to whether they were removing refs simply on the basis of not having page numbers, the response was "Yes i will remove a ref 'simply because they don't have page numbers?". It was this response that provoked my question, and it is this behavior that it appears consensus is saying is not good editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes I think that is okay in itself, provided there is nothing tendentious or pointy about the edit and providing it doesn't make nonsense of the article. We are allowed to remove any material that isn't properly sourced according to our guidelines - otherwise, what is the point of the guidelines? --FormerIP (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the guidelines is to aid us in improving the encyclopedia. Removing "proper" but formally deficient references is not improving the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not so clear. Including a reference that doesn't actually verify gives a false impression to the reader that the material (and citation) are valid. However, a book citation, without a page number, cannot really be verified. Without a page number, there's no straightforward way of checking to see that the source backs up the claim. If a page number cannot be produced, then the footnote will eventually have to go. I'd give editors a little while to produce one, but if they can't, then removing it is best. An unverifiable footnote is worse than none at all; the latter, at least, gives an obvious indication of a problem. Jayjg 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, an unverifiable or incompleted verified footnote is the best posssible indication of a problem, because it is obviously incomplete or marked as unverified. An absence of a footnote gives no indication whatsoever whether there is a problem, or what the problem is. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Beyond My Ken on this one. Fixing is the better way. Removing suspicious sources is good, but simply lacking a page number seems a pretty poor practice. The chances of removing a decent source are pretty high. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indices are often incomplete, and it's not at all an easy thing to find a specific reference in a book of several hundred pages. Such a citation fails WP:V, which states "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Jayjg 05:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain why this is an issue for this board? Which source are we being asked to comment on the reliability of? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources without page numbers. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources (presumably) have page numbers. It's the citations that don't. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken. When encountered by important information, backed by a high quality source that is only lacking a page number, I think it would be better to use the template, and wait a couple of days before throwing away an editor's time spent researching and writing the content. Or they could find the page number themselves. It's a shame to throw away good work, rather than improving it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are a nice to have. They may be required for FA, but are not required for GA, per WP:WIAGA. The entire idea of removing non-paginated references is wrongheaded--tag them or fix them yourself, if you want to see things perfected. The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The rest of us are happy to live in the real world. Precisely! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers are required for WP:V, which means it's required for all articles, regardless of whether they are FAs, GAs, or simply stubs. Complying with WP:V is also a specific requirement of WP:WIAGA. The "real world" doesn't have WP:V; Misplaced Pages does. Jayjg 18:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again -- nobody is saying that we shouldn't have page numbers. Why does this straw man keep getting repeated ad nauseum? What people are saying is that if a citation doesn't have page numbers, then we should add them or ask someone else to with the template, rather than deleting the citation and wasting somebody's valuable research time. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but sooner or later a page number has to be provided. How long does a tagged citation like that stay in an article - a week? a month? a year? Jayjg 05:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Misplaced Pages. SpinningSpark 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That essay is basically irrelevant; if material is not properly cited after a reasonable amount of time, then one can reasonably assume that the material is not true or not verifiable and remove it. Editors can disagree over whether or not that "reasonable amount of time" is a week or a month, but anything tagged and unfixed for a year can, without question, be removed. Jayjg 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are other reasons for suspicion that's a different matter, but where is the policy which says this assumption can be made only based on a missing page number? There are in fact policies which say it can not be made. OTOH the policies you are cite are concerning missing citations. Just to remind what we are talking about here are missing page numbers, not missing citations. Inconvenience or imperfection of verification are explicitly described as things which we may not simply decide to equate to lack of verification. We've all been in situations where we'd like to delete something based on assumptions, maybe because we don't have time to think it through, but we should not work like that and it is incorrect to say that such actions are sanctioned by policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear at this point what exactly you are saying, or how it's relevant to the comments here. Please review my comments above for further clarification. Jayjg 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course I was responding to you saying that your words ("if material is not properly cited after a reasonable amount of time, then one can reasonably assume that the material is not true or not verifiable and remove it") have nothing to do with the WP:DEADLINE policy. I think that is the definition of setting a WP:DEADLINE? How can you say that it is not? In WP, sourcing convenience and sourcing perfection are simply not demanded with anywhere near the same priority you are giving them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the argument by DGG, I'm changing my argument. Absent Google Books, or an on-line database with page numbers, or walking into a library and checking, having dead tree citations without page numbers are red flags, and they run the risk of being citations that do not support the content. It's possible that the only on-line verification is an abstract, which essentially says the book exists and covers a general area, but does not verify the actual content. If there is any reason to doubt the citation, then follow WP:V and add the page numbers, or if the citation cannot be verified, then delete if appropriate on a case by case basis. However, I don't think we should delete citations just because they don't have page numbers, if there is no other reason to doubt them. As mentioned above, real world constraints are such than not all citations can be checked on any realistic basis. — Becksguy (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The way to judge an edit is simply whether it improves an article, surely? Misplaced Pages does not demand perfection (WP:IMPERFECT), and it has no WP:DEADLINE, so WP:PRESERVE (also known as WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:IMPROVE make up the basic edit policy. It is therefore hard to imagine any situation where deleting a source because of a missing page number is anything other than a tendentious violation of the basic slogans of the project such as WP:BURO. Making an article worse is by definition bad editing. Arguing that this bad is excusable because of urgency or convenience is not appropriate to WP. And anyway in practice in most cases finding the page number and putting it in yourself will take hardly any more time than deleting material. And if an editor does not have the time or possibility to add a missing page number, the correct thing to do is to leave it and hope someone else will later, just as with anything you see that looks like it can be improved but which you can't do yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Frequently in my experience, i've found that the absence of a page number for a citation from a book whose title seems plausibly relavant is a red flag. The absence of a page number requires someone to read the whole book until they come to the relevant info. Often the info that's purported to be there is not, in fact, there (again, in my experience). The problem may well be that the info is not there. Have no idea about his present dispute, but if an editor has added a citation to a book and when challenged "which page/pages" the answer is "I dunno" you might have a problem. It's hard to judge whether an edit has improved an article or not absent a page number, because it makes it harder to determine if the information is accurately presented. All this said, I agree with Becksguy that we should't delete cites "just because" there aren't page numbers. But in contentious areas, the burden of providing the page number should be on the editor introducing the source.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you do not have time to look up the source, and you do not know the source, and you suspect it, you can tag it. That is a basic WP policy. But also try extending the logic to similar situations: imagine anyone who suspects that something in an article might be wrong in some way, but does not know for sure, can just delete it. Misplaced Pages could not function if that was allowed, and that is why this is one of the most basic principles of Misplaced Pages policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew -- You make an edit in an article sourced to a 500 page book. I ask you "What's the page number, i'm going to the library to check." You answer: "I don't know the page number, read the whole book yourself and let me know when you've found what i assert is in there." If we were to have such an exchange, i would have extreme doubts. I think most people would.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that you can not be expected to check everything in Misplaced Pages easily. Sometimes you'll find it easy and sometimes you won't. But there are other people also working on Misplaced Pages, and there is no deadline nor requirement for perfection, so you do not need to demand this, and you can't practice a policy of deleting what you personally as one individual find inconvenient to check at some particular time. Once again I ask you to consider what would happen if everyone would practice such a policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. Editor x inserts info and a book citation, with no page number. Editor y asks editor x what page number (since, by his edit editor x is in fact asserting that he's just read the relevant information and has access to the book). Editor X refuses to answer. At this point, it is not contingent on editor Y to read an entire book hunting for information that may well not be there. I've had a number of exchanges just like the one i've described in wikipedia, and have found that when i did seek out the source that editor x was lying. Their refusal to provide a page number is a strong piece of information that they've either made something up or assumed something was present, rather than verified it was present. Providing a page number for alleged information is a pretty low bar (basic scholarship), and if someone can't provide one when challenged, alarm bells should ring.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I really do understand because this kind of problem happens all the time and of course the problem is real. We've all felt the frustration. Misplaced Pages works despite that, even if not perfectly. It certainly won't work if everyone starts systematically breaking the basic policies. If you really have a good reason to believe material is fraudulent in a particular case then that would be a judgement call, but otherwise the normal rule for cases you can not currently improve are, unless there is something special, assume good faith, WP:PRESERVE, accept things will sometimes be WP:IMPERFECT and that there is no WP:DEADLINE. It would be hard to find a subject for discussion where you could fit more policies in one sentence! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is exactly right here, and I've been in that exact situation: an editor is challenged to provide a citation for a claim, so he gives a book name. When challenged for a page number, he is unable or unwilling to provide one. That is a very strong indication that there is something fishy about the claim in the first place, typically that the book does not actually back up the claim either in part or in whole. Jayjg 21:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine cases where a quote looks suspicious, but if the only reason it looks suspicious is a missing page number this is no reason for deletion. An imperfect citation is not no citation, and WP Policy makes it clear that we leave imperfection, not delete it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment does not appear to be relevant to the comment that it is theoretically responding to. Please review my previous comment for further clarification. Jayjg 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and I certainly did read what you wrote. In your example you are saying not answering requests for a page number "is a very strong indication that there is something fishy about the claim in the first place". They might just be on holiday. If the missing page number is the only problem, that's not a very strong indication of anything. So I presume that there must be more evidence in order to have a strong suspicion like this: for example your knowledge of the field helps you see the quote is surprising, or talk page behavior is suspicious. If the only problem is the missing page number, that is not enough to justify deletion as per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate is correct. Including a page number in a citation "... is a pretty low bar (basic scholarship)..." And both of us has said that the refusal or inability to provide one is a cause for concern (with flags or bells). And I think that is a pretty important point to emphasize. It's absurdly easy to find basic citation information (author, title, city, publisher, year, ISBN) from Google Books or Scholar, other on-line sources, or the bibliographies usually included in serious books. Assuming AGF, but providing a basic citation does not mean that the including editor has actually read the source. It does not mean that the citation actually supports the content claim. Supporting content is usually not an issue with hot button articles, like anything related to Barrack Obama or the Middle East issues, where every word and comma of every source, and their reliability, is placed under a microscope and dissected. But it's more of a potential problem the less visible an article is. I even understand that there are a few people amongst the great unwashed that delight in introducing subtle vandalistic errors in the more obscure Misplaced Pages articles, and then wait to see how long before they are discovered and fixed by us. Citations should not be removed "just because" they are missing page numbers, nor should we go on a crusade to eliminate them. However, do challenge them, and if they can't be verified, then remove them per policy on a case by case basis. Content with citations that do not support the content is far worse than content without citations, as having citations implies that the content is more credible. Most readers do not read footnotes, and they rightly depend on authors and editors to be vigilant in this respect. — Becksguy (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The basic idea that a page number is needed is a good one. The process that says someone who won't provide page numbers is suspect is also reasonable. The process that started this thread, which is simply removing references that don't have page numbers, seems not to be the most productive route. If we WP:AGF then we're removing lots of good sources. It's better to ask for page numbers and upon failure to get them, if we can't check the source, then remove or transfer to the talk page for additional research. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Becksguy, if getting a page number is absurdly easy then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. This is fundamental WP policy. You have no right to demand anything from others as if there is a deadline concerning page numbers. I've already said that if you have other reasons to assume bad faith then that is a separate subject (not RS), but you seem to be saying "assume bad faith" should be our basic working assumption concerning all RS questions? I do not think so. Let me be devil's advocate: maybe all the people promoting this idea are just people who like to delete things without knowing the subject they are editing about? Please think about it. WP never worked by promoting the idea that all people are equally able to edit all articles. WP is not a democracy for a reason. If you do not know the subject you can do smaller jobs on articles but you shouldn't be trying to do more than you can. You can only hope someone else who knows the subject will come along, and normally they do eventually. (Remember there is no WP:DEADLINE.) Using rules to edit will never be a substitute for knowledge. (See WP:BURO.) If everything has to be verifiable to everyone then every sentence will need two or three footnotes and all article editing will be held up by wikilawyering forever. Step one will be delete nearly everything in every article? Will this improve WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I am saying in various comments here, missing page numbers are not enough on their own to assume bad faith and over-rule various core policies. We all know that there are circumstances where a line has to be drawn and bad faith considered as a possibility, but we all know that WP policy very rightfully tells us to be very careful about drawing that line. Some of the replies and posts here have appeared to imply a position that assuming bad faith should be the norm and deletion should be the norm. Assuming bad faith, and deleting material which might be right are for exceptional cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You named it. The whole issue is about one group ABF'ing content contributors, and the other group (the said contributors) ABF'ing the deletioners. Misplaced Pages is a battlefield. East of Borschov 11:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, which "core policy" states that one cannot remove a citation for which a page number cannot or will not be provided? Please quote the "core policy" stating that. Jayjg 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. See for example WP:PRESERVE, on one of the "five pillars" policy pages, which says "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. ... Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented" This is pretty clear isn't it? Also, just to remind, WP:V does not apply because an imperfect source is not no source; and you can not say that policy tells us that we can ignore the five pillars after a deadline which we set. As I mentioned above, I can understand that there will be cases where we have reasons to suspect bad faith. In the type of you are saying you are concerned about, you clearly suspect bad faith. Is a missing page number enough evidence on its own? I would say common sense says no, but more importantly policies like WP:DEADLINE, and WP:IMPERFECT do tell us very clearly not to delete based only upon deadlines or imperfection.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First, WP:Editing policy is not usually considered a "core policy" (the "core" policies are usually limited to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR)... second, you leave out an important line from WP:PRESERVE... it begins with: Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. The section strikes a balance between unreasonably keeping and unreasonably deleting material. The important point that is being made is that a) we should not go blindly rushing about removing material simply because there is some tiny technical flaw (we should either fix the flaw or alert those who can that they need to do so)... and b) we may remove problematic material if, after a reasonable time, it can not be fixed. How long you wait depends on the specific material and situation.

Applying this to the issue at hand... the fact that a citation is lacking a page number is not grounds for immediate summary removal of the material... However, when the lack of a page number has been noted and challenged, and a page number either can not or will not be provided, then removal becomes a valid option. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That way of wording it sounds much more reasonable. A key point that makes a difference to me is that you are talking about a case where there has been a challenge. Who hasn't deleted material in such situations? The context of the discussion here, as I understood it, was for example a case where someone is trying to bring an article up to, or keep it on, GA standard and does not want to wait for a response. Thanks for the jargon help.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting info on Koçi Xoxe and Enver Hoxha

Two articles have conflicting info. A guy named Xoxe was executed in Albania by Enver Hoxha and company. In Hoxha's article Xoxe was shot by firing squad. In Xoxe's article he was hanged. Well, which one was it or did they do both to make sure? Special:Contributions/173.67.0.169\173.67.0.169 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2010

What are the sources used for each claim? Jayjg 23:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften

This section was archived by a "bot" before a significant number of opinions (compared to other requests posted on this page) were offered. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, there are not enough opinions here, by far! CAN the article described below be used as a secondary source for various primary sources? V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:

1. "He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
2. "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Misplaced Pages editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:

3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Misplaced Pages's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. (oops, wasn't logged in) V (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a lull in the conversation, I will have a go at saying something. I have never edited (and scarcely looked at) CF articles. The article reads to me like a research paper. Its Introduction is by way of a review of the current state of the art (as is normal in research papers). In part Hagelstein analyses observations gleaned from other papers and so this lends a broad scope to his paper. The claims numbered 1 and 2 Ura Ursa quotes result from only four papers, one by Hagelstein himself. To me this provides rather a weak review of only speculative claims. In claim 2 “can be interpreted” seems to mean “it is possible for it to be interpreted” rather than “is to be interpreted”. The main conclusion of the paper, which is not by way of review, I take as being that any He does not seem to be coming from alpha particles produced by nuclear fusion: “Efforts to account for excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be successful in light of the upper limits discussed here”. So, the “new physical process” in claim 2, Hagelstein suggests, is not a process of cold fusion involving energetic particles.

I feel it would unbalanced to report the (secondary) two claims without reporting the (primary) conclusion and to report the latter would be premature. I do not know why the paper is labelled “review” and to me it does not matter either way. The thousand papers part is irrelevant. Hagelstein merely says he surveyed these papers to find which ones had observations enabling him to make his analysis and reach his conclusions.

In answer to question 3, I think the paper is a secondary source for the two claims but that things would need to be put in a clear context, particularly bearing in mind the paper’s conclusion. This makes the whole matter very abstruse and difficult to convey succinctly. So, as an editorial decision, I would not put any of this into the CF article. However, I would not a priori preclude the two claims quoted on grounds of WP:V, etc.

I hope this helps (though I fear it may not!). Thincat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I must confess that the copy of the article that I have been able to obtain is corrupted or something --can't open it on my local system. So I have not been able to determine if this Hagelstein paper contains references to an approximate replication of Arata's experiment (involving pressurized deuterium and not electrolysis) that was published in Physics Letters A last year --we've been waiting for a secondary source for that --or if it references certain SPAWAR "co-deposition" electrolysis experiments that were also published in Naturwissenschaften (we've been waiting for a secondary source for those, also!). V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try but I think the answer is "no". Thincat (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I ran into a paywall...and my funds are tight right now. V (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone else here find out if this Hagelstein article references the RS primary publications that I mentioned three paragraphs above? Thanks! V (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that the "review" article under discussion here appears to mention a number of experiments that detected X-rays. This could be very important! If X-rays have indeed been detected, then despite the fact that they are not the desired gamma rays that hot-fusion physicists have claimed should be produced, they are still something more than ANY ordinary chemical reaction can produce. Nor can any ordinary electrochemical cell, running at just a few Volts, generate X-rays, either. Something really unusual would have to be happening in those experiments, if X-rays have been undeniably detected. V (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Refereed Academic Conference, or Partisan Government Research?

I'm in the process of looking over all of the sources used at Sea of Japan naming dispute. This is a very contentious article, given that its purpose is to explain a contentious debate (primarily) between Japan and South Korea about what the body of water between the two of them should be named. As such, the article includes both clearly partisan sources (like studies and articles written by the governments themselves) to establish what the debate is, as well as academic/journalism article to look more carefully at the "facts" behind the competing positions. Sometimes, those, it's difficult to tell these two apart; the distinction is quite important, because a source of the first type, per WP:ASF, should be prefaced with some sort of statement like "The government of Japan claims...", while the second can be presented as a "neutral" source. My current question revolves around a group of papers from the "International Seminar on Sea Names." There website can be found here. The About Us pages claims that the papers are presented at a yearly "seminar," given in a variety of cities, originally focusing on just the Sea of Japan/East Sea issue, but now focusing more generally on geographical naming controversies. What I can't tell is whether or not this should be considered the equivalent of an academic conference, or if it should be considered a Korean partisan source. The home page indicates that 3 of their 5 supporters are Korean government sources, and another is a Korean partisan think tank. The About Us page uses language clearly indicating that they favor the Korean position. While there are papers from academics in a variety of countries, there are far more presenters providing a Korean point of view than a Japanese one. Again, the problem is that I can't tell if that is because this is not a neutral source, if it's just an artifact of the group being based in Korea (and thus more likely to attract Korean researchers), or if it's because the "wider academic community" has found that the evidence tends to support the Korean position. So I would like the opinion of others how to handle the papers posted on this website--do they count as reliable sources per policy? If so, do they count as reliable academic (i.e., NPOV sources), or do they count only as sources supporting the opinions of the study writers? Or am I drawing a distinction that doesn't even really exist? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that works published are the result of peer review. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well...No one's commenting at the article; so hopefully if I do pull it (and a few other references, which are from the same set of Seminars) they won't be screaming too loudly. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While it purports to be an international organization devoted to academic papers on Sea Names, in reality it's mostly about presenting the Korean position on the Sea of Japan/East Sea naming issue. Jayjg 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a RS for a section about 'current usage' and 'commonly used'

In the article Political correctness there is a section Current usage which has a list of a few "Examples of language commonly criticized as "politically correct" ". An editor has added "Winter holiday and Spring holiday in place of Christmas and Easter" with a citation to a New York Times regional article about a demand to a school board that the name of the annual Christmas Concert not be changed to Winter Concert, a change the board had already decided not to make. As this is clearly not an example of 'commonly criticized', I removed the citation and added a fact tag. The citation has been replaced but the fact tag left. Does anyone think that the NY Times article is a reliable source for the claim? I don't think the claim belongs here at all because it is about language that in fact isn't commonly used. There have been a couple of high profile examples that have turned out to be erroneous, ie the attack on a Birmingham City Council in the UK claiming it had replaced Christmas with 'Winterval' (ignoring the huge Merry Christmas sign on the town hall), but it simply isn't common, and if I'm wrong (heaven forbid), it needs a more reliable cite than a school board saying it's not going to change the name of a concert (and no mention of Easter). Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a "Paris in the Capital of France" situation where more work needs to be do to find the references to fully support the statement. The reference that is there partially supports the statement, leaving it in a stronger position than about 1/2 of the rest of the article. I left the "citation needed" tag on it. What is the question? Is it already 100% sourced? No. Should it be immediately deleted?: No. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll narrow the statement to simplify the issue. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, no it is not proper to cite 1 primary source usage to verify that a prase "is commonly used". You would want the "source" in question to state "the phrase is commonly used". Active Banana ( 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. He's changed it to ""Winter holiday" or "Winter program" in place of Christmas or Christmas program" but that is no better. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And now he's added more sources - the ones I've looked at don't even include the word winter (and not all even discuss language), so can't back a claim that "Winter holiday" or "Winter program" in place of Christmas or Christmas program" is an "Example of language commonly criticized as "politically correct". Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only is "Winter Holiday" not "commonly seen as "politically correct" in America but the phrases "Winter Holiday" and "Spring Holiday" are not widely used -- i'd never heard them before. The non-denominational thing typically used in America is "Holiday Season" for Christmas time and as for the typical school break around Easter that's called "Spring Break."Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not about whether you've heard them before, but rather about reliable sources that backup the assertion. In this case I don't see a source saying that it's a common use, so it should probably be removed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To Bali, I had already removed the "spring/Easter" material to simplify per the previous post.

This statement now has stronger sourcing than the others. As a sidebar note, whoever put this in originally gave this the same reference as all of the others in the list. Including that it still has the same cite as given to all of the others in the list, by whoever put this in originally. That, plus all of the ones that I found and added. If desired/needed I would craft the wording like the others with "such as" terminology so that even the most rigorous interpretation would not require a verbatim wording match in the sources. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the others were added with a reference, badly done with just a link to Amazon - in fact to a cassette recording of the book. This was added this month to that list by an IP, their only edit. . I'll assume that the editor who added them actually read or heard the book -- which is reviewed here and said to be ironic but thoroughly sourced. It looks as though the book actually does discuss the language in the section . What sources do you have that use the phrases you've used (the ones I looked at don't use 'Winter holiday' at all and state explicitly that it's a common use? Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that this statement has the same sourcing (good or bad) that the others (which nobody is questioning) do, plus much more. Doug, I've spent too much time on this one line already, even on the principle of it. I'll change the wording to further reduce the "issue",and then let me know on my talk page where you prefer to go with this or just do what you want to do with it. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It's never going to be easy to establish that anything is commonly described as PC. What tends to happen is that a criticism either sticks (e.g. "physically challenged", which is seldom or never heard these days, if it ever was) or it doesn't stick (e.g. "African American", which is heard all the time). And then attention moves on to another case. What would be possible to include is some examples of terminology that has been described as PC. Only a few of the most notable examples would be worth including though. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what we have, or rather had before this addition by another editor, some examples cited as common in the book I link to above. This addition is not one, and most of the sources added are either irrelevant or show a very isolated use - one was just a grad student's blog in a student newspaper. So, we had some examples of commonly used language with a well referenced source, plus this addition by another editor which after I reverted it was replaced but badly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source presented merely quotes an anonymous letter to the editor describing the terms as "political correctness". Another source doesn't appear to be reliable. In general, there's no indication in any of the sources that this is "common" example of "political correctness". Jayjg 23:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

American Thinker

Is this article ok for citing an opinion of the author on a political movement? Truthsort (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That article certainly represents Thomas Lifson's views. Lifson's views don't seem to be notable, as Lifson doesn't seem to be notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not notable? The man publishes The American Thinker. Your inductive reasoning isn't a valid excuse for this not being notable. Truthsort (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The American Thinker appears to be basically a blog site, not hard to publish one of those. What is the context for the citation? That would affect whether or not the source could be considered reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See this. Truthsort (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The American Thinker isn't a "blog site", any more than Salon.com is. It's an online news and political commentary journal with a particular political bent, like most others. Its quite clear about who its editors are, and many of its contributors appear to be well-known enough to have Misplaced Pages articles. On the other hand, the editors do not appear to have any specific expertise in either journalism or political analysis. Jayjg 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reliable sources for facts, only for the opinions of their writers. Whether or not this opinion is notable is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. However, it might be better though to find a news article that says something like "American conservatives have criticized them, claiming they are astro-turfing". TFD (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a brief bio of Thomas Lifson:

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of "American Thinker." A self-styled recovering academic, he holds three separate advanced degrees from Harvard, where he taught all three fields, in addition to visiting professorships at Columbia University and Japan's National Museum of Ethnology. An expert on Japan and veteran management consultant, he turned his focus from strategy and organization to political and social analysis in the wake of 9/11, founding American Thinker in 2003.

Which version to cite?

I don't know if this is the right place to clarify this; if not, please point me to the correct forum. I read an article in a newspaper, which I wanted to cite in Misplaced Pages. In order to give an easily checkable reference, I checked the newspaper's web site, where I found that this article had appeared one day prior to the print publication, under a different title. Which would be the correct citation in Misplaced Pages -- the date and title under which the article appeared in print, and in which I read the material I wished to cite; or the date and title online, easily checkable by other editors? Would it be permissible to cite the printed date and title, with the associated URL, or would this just confuse matters? RolandR (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you doing both within one reference tag since you have seen both, as something like, "'details of printed article', previously published online as, 'details of online article'". David Underdown (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite the one you actually saw and relied upon to produce the article content, if you used both, cite them either together or separately under both titles and dates. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Happens all the time. I usually timestamp with the date of the web publication, and add (printed edition: <different date>) - see the refs in Haus_des_Meeres. The Austrian newspapers cited there may have 3,4,5 ... web versions of the same text, so it pays to search for the most detailed, unabridged version. East of Borschov 11:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the specific instance which led to this query, the headlines were different, although the text was identical. In the print edition, the headline focussed on a possibly contentious statement in the article, which was what I was putting in the article. The online version, which I actually referenced, had a more neutral headline. The headline appears in full in the references section. I was concerned that if I used the print headline, while giving a courtesy link to the online article (or if I omitted a URL altogether) then I might be accused of distorting sources and misquoting. Are there any guidelines for such an instance? RolandR (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You relied on the online article, cite the online article :) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, actually I relied on the printed article, which was the one I read. When entering this, I checked against the online version and noted the different title and date. RolandR (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a complicated issue; this often happens with news agency articles, where the headlines differ radically depending on which source prints it. In general, you should cite the version you used, and in the citation make it clear that the web version had a different publication date and headline. That's one of the disadvantages of citation templates (assuming you were planning to use one): even though they come in dozens of varieties, each with dozens of variables and options, they still have little flexibility to encompass complicated citing. Jayjg 23:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I was indeed trying to use a citation template. The article was the one cited in this edit to Michel Houellebecq. The article I read in the Guardian, on 8 September, had the headline "Houellebecq fights off claims of plagiarism in new novel"; the same article online is dated 7 September, with the headline "Michel Houellebecq novel ruffles literary world again". I'm still not sure what would be the correct way to cite this, and would appreciate it if someone could either show me, or amend the citation that I actually gave. RolandR (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics: ABC Radio, Haaretz

Hi there, could you please look at the following issue:

• The sources are
  • http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2004/1057108.htm
  • http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-eight-stage-spiral-to-peace-in-the-mideast-1.179848
• Article: Spiral Dynamics
• Statement supported by the sources: "...the model has also been applied in politics."
• Statement and sources have been deleted, see diff.
• Talk page section: Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#Sources_from_ABC_Radio_and_Haaretz

Thanks, --BernhardMeyer (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources are OK, its the use made of them which is the issue. The first reports the claims of the originator of Spiral Dynamics, for a substantive claim one would expect reliable third party sources. The second simply reports that a group of people got together and talked about a possible use, it hardly supports a claim that it has been applied. --Snowded 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the applications section, I inserted "Based on Spiral Dynamics, Don Beck worked with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela." Please check out if it is supported by the sources (same sources). --BernhardMeyer (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Almost same sources, for the first, I took this one: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1057108.htm) --BernhardMeyer (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded deleted it again, with the claim that it was no third party source. But IMHO the sources meet all criteria of WP:3PARTY. Snowded treats the sources as if they were self-published by Don Beck. --BernhardMeyer (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please READ my comments on the talk page. The sources are reliable, its what is in them that is the problem. The ABC one example is a transcript of an interview with Beck in which Beck makes various claims. There is no validation of those claims. If he has worked with Clinton, Blair and Mandela then surely its notable enough that there is a source (other than Beck) which reports it. I also note that you are making no effort to discuss this on the talk page --Snowded 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here you can read it: Snowded wrote on the talk page: "Its a claim by Beck and that is all that is reported in the sources. You need a third party reliable source, at the moment it could just be self-promotion." Exactly that is what I am asking here on the noticeboard: I think I have provided third party reliable sources, and I ask for the opinions of several editors. --BernhardMeyer (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you again. You have a reliable source (the ABC transcript) which reports a claim about South Africa by Beck no more. For all we know that claim could be exaggeration or even untrue. To make a statement that the claim is true and substantial would need a reliable third party source. If the claim is true then surely there is one. The second source "haaretz.com" simply reports that people are going to get together to discuss the method, there is no report that they did or that it had any effect. Neither is there any material to indicate that those attending the event have any notability or infuence. The material in the sources (regardless of the status of those sources) simply does not support the material you have inserted which, to be honest, appears to be advocacy. --Snowded 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I copy a paragraph from Misplaced Pages:3PARTY#Why_third-party_sources_are_required:

"Arguably, an independent and reliable third-party is not always objective enough to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Misplaced Pages does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In extreme cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.)"

Is this what you want to say? Do you consider it such an extreme case? And in this case you need consensus to remove the verified but false statement. --BernhardMeyer (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have no third party source of any type, you just have a transcript of primary source (Beck) making claims. --Snowded 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree with Snowded if it were just the ABC interview and claims by the subject. But the Haaretz article explicitly states: "has a proven track record, after having applied the method successfully in South Africa. His 36 visits to that country between 1981 and 1988 greatly influenced the thinking of political leaders, key businessmen, religious leaders and the general public. Beck also served as an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "policy unit," as well as helped former U.S. president Bill Clinton on racism issues, the Chicago municipality in dealing with poor neighborhoods, and the World Bank on Afghanistan's future. Beck also has assisted boards of directors of aviation companies, large banks and government institutions." Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Haaretz site is just a news story picking up a press release or similar. Now given the nature of those claims, which are significant wouldn't you expect something in the odd text book, or in a researched article in a newspaper or similar? How many books have been written about the end of apartheid? The volume of material on Blair's policy unit is vast before we get onto Clinton. Per ] "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Misplaced Pages article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis". In this case we clearly need more --Snowded 05:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Click through the Haaretz link and find: "Akiva Eldar is the chief political columnist and an editorial writer for Haaretz." So this is editorial opinion of that one man rather than a "news factoid". Hcobb (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did when I originally checked it out, its still a news story. Its not a column where facts have been verified etc. The story also only covers a meeting about a possible application, not an application. Its is dated 2006 and it is the only news story that appears on that site if you search on "Don Beck" or "Spiral Dynamics", again if this was notable in the Middle East one would expect more than one four year old story. We have to be very cautious about broad claims from consultants and "movements" like Spiral Dynamics as to fact and influence. As I said, if such substantial claims were notable they would be reported in literature and so far we have seen no evidence of that. --Snowded 05:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

When in doubt, use with attribution, but it appears to be a solid WP:RS to support that text. Dlabtot (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it doesn't. Its a web based news service reporting on a workshop with no additional sources to back it up. It reports a claim, it does not validate the claim. WP:RSS says we have to look at each case on its merits if a newspaper report is used and in this case it is very very clear that such claims would have other sources if they were valid. There is also an important point of principle here. We can't let wikipedia become a promotional vehicle for any of a hundred management consultancy fads. Allowing a piece obviously drawn up from a press statement in a fairly obscure web site to corroborate a claim to have worked with major world leaders would be a very bad precedent.--Snowded 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit being reverted because editor thinks my source is wrong

At Numerical approximations of pi I've been trying to de-pov a statement about Pi and the pyramids, as it is simply not the case that mainstream Egyptology today agrees that Pi was used in constructing them (or rather two of them). My source is an academic book on the shape of the pyramids, and it is being reverted because the IP thinks it is wrong (partially because the author is not an Egyptologist but a mathematician, although he cites the work of Egyptologists. The effect of his reversions is to have the article represent only one view (and a minority one at that although very strongly held by some) instead of the variety of views that actually exist. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And checking his edit summary again, I note he says "Egyptologists such as Petrie, Verner, Edwards, Jackson and Stamp" - Jackson and Stamp produced, wrote, etc a BBC documentary and the accompanying book. They are neither Egyptologists nor mathematicians. Jackson is described as "a freelance writer, broadcaster and film-maker, ". Stamp might be considered an expert on ancient Rome, although I'm not convinced of that, but is still not an Egyptologist or mathematician. . Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're being a lot more patient than I would be (good thing I'm not an admin). I'm reverting him and putting the article on my watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He also edits (or at least I'm pretty sure he does) from an account - see his edit history where he edits an account's subpage. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that at least one of the references cited (Edwards) did not support the assertion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also mentioned this below, but people like Imhausen and Rossi (who are experts) have publications in 2007 which show that the idea of pi being encoded in the pyramids is refuted by people these days. Petrie's theory dates back to 1940, which is rather old. Verner does refer to the theory but also mentions the idea that the construction is based on the seked (ratio of sides of a right triangle). I agree with you that the article should have a general introduction giving some indication of the variety of views. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller's source quite obviously qualifies as a WP:RS, and is certainly more reliable than the people the IP editor is citing. Jayjg 23:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bust (magazine)

Is being used as a source on One World Children's Fund. I'm not sure a magazine with such an obvious agenda could be considered reliable. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is the specific content that its being used to source? The only thing that I see is the sentence "OWCF board members and champions have received media attention, including stories on Comcast Newsmakers and Bust Magazine" which appears to be original research. In fact, I don't see any mention of OWCF in that article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much the case with all the third party refs in the article, which is why it is at AFD now, but I am still wondering if ti could be used as a source if it actually was germane to the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of this magazine before, but they appear to be a legitimate publication with editorial oversight. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would say it's a reliable source, generally speaking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be as reliable as any not-particularly-well-known lifestyle magazine geared to a specific sex. However, it's being used in this case for OR. Jayjg 23:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Using Patch.com as a Reliable Source

Copied from Talk:Charles Lavine:

Note to Community: This was brought here at my suggestion which I gave in a Third Opinion at Talk:Charles Lavine as a result of the dispute between Eyespy4you and Tnxman307. It would be of some considerable assistance to those users if the community could come to consensus on whether Patch.com in general and specific subpages on Patch.com such as, and in particular, are reliable sources. (I'm refactoring this request and adding this note here so that Tnxman307's comments, above, are not taken to be a response to this request.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Villa del Cine

For this relatively new and still developing article about a Venezuelan film studio, several questions about reliability of sources have surfaced. (On other Venezuelan articles, there have been charges that some reliable sources are "opeds", so independent eyes would be helpful.)

First, to verify that these are reliable sources for this article

1. Ingham, James. "Venezuelan cinema, Chavez style." BBC News. 1 November 2007.
2. Padgett, Tim, and Kathie Klarreich. "Hugo Chavez, Movie Mogul." Time. 24 May 2007.
3. "Lights! Camera! Revolución! Newsweek. 24 October 2009. Also available at HighBeam Research, with byline Mac Margolis, November 2009.

   This source has some production facts and figures, dates, etc along with some gringo hyperbole about the typical traffic in Caracas, et al.

4. Template:Es icon "La Villa del Cine promete 12 películas para 2011". El Universal. 16 August 2010.

   More production facts and figures, in Spanish, from one of the two leading newspapers in Venezuela.

I have been unable to determine the reliability of these sources

1. Blaser, Alexandra and Ella Rothero. Venezuelan Cinema in Search of 'Our Language'. Raggaeton.co.uk.

   The website is Candela Live, at the bottom of the page is "Raggaeton.co.uk" (claiming "No. 1 magazine for urban Latin in the UK"), but that link goes nowhere, and I can find no page here describing fact checking or editorial oversight (and I do speak Spanish). The Contact us page is of no help.

   Added, in particular, this site is being used to source the claim in the lead that the institution is "autonomous"; the source does not say that, and every reliable source seems to say that is a state organization, and its website is a gov't website. I have tagged this (twice, I think), as original research, not in citation given, or verify credibility, but the tags were removed. Funding is run through something that includes the word "autonomous" as part of its name, but that is not the same as saying it is an "autonomous" institution, and reliable sources contradict that claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   Subsequently reworded to conform to a new reliable source, but both of them fail to account for the relationship between these entities as explained by the Venezuelan govt itself (they are all interrelated and part of the Ministry of Popular Culture): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   Márquez, Humberto. Petrodollars for local film industry. Inter Press Service. 12 January 2007.

2. "La Clase in its social and political context." Latin America Film. July 15, 2010.

   This is a wordpress website, the Contact us page is unhelpful, and although I speak Spanish, I can find nothing on that site about fact checking or editorial oversight.

3. Van der Zalm, Jeroen. "Villa de Cine: Venezuelan government as film producer." The Power of Culture. December 2007.

   This website gives us some information about their backing, but none of that info helps establish reliability. There is nothing about fact checking or editorial oversight or journalistic credentials, and all of the editor pages at the About Us page are dead links, which doesn't inspire confidence.

4. Allen, Jennifer. "Casino Funds New French Biennial; Film Studio Opens in Venezuela; Guernica Stays Put; Success for 'La Force'." Artforum International Magazine website.

   This site Contact page says it is the Artforum International Magazine, but I can find nothing other than the address-- no indications of editorial oversight, factchecking, staff, etc.

5. Vázquez, Mercedes. "Secuestro Express and La clase: politics of realism in contemporary Venezuelan filmmaking." Jump Cut. 52. 2010.

   This site's About us pages seems to indicate that they accept essays from contributors, with a clearly stated editorial bias, although it does at least have editors listed. The author is a graduate student in Hong Kong.

Thanks for any feedback; I'd like a read on the sources before I begin improving the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not one iota of feedback from independent editors; at any rate, most of the marginal sources have now been replaced by reliable sources. However, I still don't know what "Jump Cut" is, and whether it is reliable; ditto for Art Forum International. Thanks :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I wouldn't describe that woman as a graduate student. She teaches at the university, and also is studying for a PhD. Many professors teach while writing a thesis or working towards a PhD. She is foremost a teacher, and secondly a PhD student.ValenShephard (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the other way around, many graduate students do some teaching to help support themselves (and provide cheaper teachers for the University). Now if you can show evidence that she's a professor... Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Candela Live publish a magazine, there has to be some oversight because they afterall need to secure a publisher, and they have editors. Their article is very detailed and well written, so that seems to indicate that some research when in to it. (It doesn't seem to be based on anything else, it looks like their research.) Its very well balanced and contains alot of important information, we could use it to add alot to the article.ValenShephard (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Art Forum also publishes a magazine, and they seem reliable. They have offices in more than one place for example. I can't see how you would find out who has fact checking or oversight. How do you know they do or don't have it.? ValenShephard (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

the power of culture source on Villa del Cine is relaying the opinions of a Venezuelan film maker, there is nothing to indicate that he is not a reliable source on venezuelan cinema. Also, the website is supported by souces such as international organisations, small NGOs and the Dutch government. So there must be something reliable about them. A government wouldn't support an organisation, even just in name, if it wasn't sure of its credentials. ValenShephard (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, thanks for adding clarifying info, but let's try to keep this from growing overly long; the determination of reliability of sources is based upon the policy page WP:V and guidelines at WP:RS-- reading those thoroughly in terms of how Wiki determines reliability will be helpful in responding here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so unthinkable to you that a state owned organ can have an indepedant source for funding? They are owned by the state, and the state probably funds the buildings, but another body (explained in the article) decides on funding. There are two sources which say it is not politically motivated for example (the new one also says this, I will add it some time probably). Funding for projects (we know this for sure) comes from an independant body which is not political or controlled by the govenment, it is a group of private and state actors. I don't know how else to say this but as autonomously funded. You could say "funding for projects goes through the independant body whatever its called". The body which handles funding for projects (maybe not for the studios themselves) is called the National Autonomous Centre for Film... Is having autonomous in its title not enough? When talking about such bodies, to say it is autonomous means autonomous from the government, or private companies. ValenShephard (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's much simpler than that; does any reliable source say it is "autonomous"? No. But they do all say something about its association with and control by the state. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Which source says "it is controlled by the state"? It is associated with the government, the IPS news source says it is governmental and independant. It can actually be both.. ValenShephard (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Like the IPS source says it is governmental and independant. ValenShephard (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ville del Cine is part of the Ministry of Popular Culture, and so is the entity that funds it, according to the Venezuelan gov't itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One could also describe the BBC as government-owned and controlled in a Socilist-run state with a hereditary head of state (which the UK government admits), yet you did not point this out when you presented it as a source. TFD (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, one differance is that is not actualy part of (or A) govenment department, nor technivly is it funded by the governement , its funded by the licence fee. Which is payable to the BBC, not the governement and is not avaiible to the government to use.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is not owned by the government, it is owned by "the people". But detractors could see that as just more socialist propaganda. TFD (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

With the one caveat that its enshrined in law. The differnace here (as far as I can see) is that Ville del Cine is officaly part of a government department, its not accused of being indirectly under the control of the government. The BBC is n ot under law part of any department, its automomous (and actualy has thru the licence fee tax rasing powers, thus is almost a shadow governement in a sense).Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For the first group, 1. to 4. are news articles by journalists in highly regarded news sources, and therefore meet rs. One problem I see with them is that they provide opinion in addition to news, and those should not be reported as facts in the article. Also news sources are generally best for news, i.e., what is happening now. There is no need to use three year old articles or rely on current articles for what happened 3 to 4 years ago when better sources are available. Google scholar for example returns 23 hits for "Villa del Cine". Google books returns 45 hits. Among these are peer-reviewed articles although they are mostly in Spanish. TFD (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Google scholar hits include, ummmm ... Misplaced Pages (when did Misplaced Pages become a "scholarly" source?), along with several repeats and sources that mention Villa del Cine only once. So far, the only new info I've found in reading these sources is a reminder that Chavez replaced the 1994 Cinematography Law with a new 2005 Cinematography Law that obliges theatres to run more local productions. Other than that, I haven't found anything new or inaccurate in the reliable sources currently being used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD rated the first four sources as reliable. Does that mean I should reconsider returning some of the information within them which I have since deleted? Because it was interesting and informative as I mentioned some time before. ValenShephard (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't deleted anything from the BBC, El Universal, Time or Newsweek (in fact, you haven't added them yet, either) and TFD has frequently labeled reliable sources on Venezuela (such as The New York Times, the BBC, etc) as "opeds" and containing US and corporate bias, yet he doesn't apply the same standard to Venezuelanalysis.com, which offers the same criticism of Ville del Cine. His Google scholar hits do produce this mention of discrimination, though, along with criticism of the new Cinematography law. Other than those two, I don't find any new info in the Google scholar sources, or info that is not repeated or similar to the sources we already have (although I can't read the French sources); most of them are repeated info or equally old, and we really have to worry about Google scholar if it now returns Wiki as a "scholarly" source, when Wiki isn't even a reliable source. It would be helpful to get a read on the marginal sources which were used in the article from independent parties who apply Wiki sourcing policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith over what TFD said. His previous edits or comments are of no consequence to this discussion. I am wondering why I should or shouldn't take one opinion over another? I want to listen to all sides. ValenShephard (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, TFD's opinion that the New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, BBC and many others are "opeds" should give you an idea of whether he applies Wiki's WP:V or WP:UNDUE policies (see links in the diff above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then be a good example of assuming good faith to think that this time he isn't doing that? (Even if he did, I am not familiar with these statements.) ValenShephard (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's look at a concrete example; according to TFD's statements about "oped" opinion in reliable sources, you would need to delete this lopsided statement you added to Villa del Cine, because it is certainly speculative journalistic opinion rather than fact (similar to Newsweek's complaints about traffic in Caracas) and doesn't reflect the criticism in the BBC article—criticism which even the partisan, por-Chavez Venezuelanalysis repeats:

• The BBC article concluded that "... if the foundation's bosses are to be believed , then it will simply be good films that come to life, whatever the message", and "ltimately that has got to be good for Venezuelan cinema."

Does that help you understand the problem? Why is some opinion "fact", while known reliable sources are opinion? Yes, you should be careful to avoid journalistic opinions, but you've added something from the BBC which is clearly speculative opinion-- it's a matter of knowing how to use sources, even when reliable, and then applying that standard equally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have never labelled articles as "op-eds", I have never used the term "corporate media bias" and I have never expressed an opinion on Venezuelanalysis. TFD (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears you didn't read the diffs I linked above: here is one sample, and here is your take on Newsweek as a reliable source. Conversely, we currently have a distinctly editorial and speculative journalistic opinion in Villa del Cine from the BBC that has not been removed, although it adds nothing to the encyclopedic content of the article, and significant criticism from that very same BBC source is excluded from the article. It seems that when journalistic opinion is favorable to Chavez, it is "fact", but when unfavorable, no matter how many scores of reliable sources report the same thing (eg, crime and corruption, see due weight), it's journalistic "opinion" and quickly deleted, while favorable "opinion" is left unchallenged. At any rate, in this particular case, all of the reliable sources (and even the partisan Venezuelanalysis) repeat the concerns and criticism, which as of now, have only one line in the article, creating unbalance and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I never used the term "corporate media bias". It has always been my position that articles in the mainstream media are reliable sources for facts, per WP:RS, but that op-eds are not. Also, that opinions expressed in op-eds, think tanks or even newspaper articles are not notable. You have compiled a long list of sources like this, all of which represent one point of view, and you have never presented any peer-reviewed articles from academic journals or books published by the academic press. Note your comment, "There will be plenty of academic sources in five or ten years offsetting the current crop of biased academic sources, but we have to address neutrality now, not in five years." You fail to realize that representing the opinions expressed in academic sources is neutrality and must be followed whether or not we agree with those opinions. In fact there are opinions that do not favor Chavez. Incidentally the only text I removed was in the crime section in the Chavez article where I re-wrote the section, which had been based on numerous newspaper articles, despite the fact that it covers a period of over 10 years, using quality sources none of which could be described as pro-Chavez.

TFD (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review the diffs I listed above. You continue to overlook WP:DUE-- when scores of reliable sources present same, due weight must be given and all mainstream views should be reflected in our articles, which is why I compiled a long list of mainstream views that are not present in any of the Venezuela/Chavez articles. But I'm glad you're concerned about speculative journalistic opinion being present in articles, even from reliable sources-- I suppose this means you'll be deleting the BBC journalistic opinion that is currently in Villa del Cine, saying it must be good for Venezuelan cinema, soon? Certainly, info that is reflected in multiple mainstream reliable sources is very quickly deleted from Ven/Chavez article, yet this "opinion" that is favorable to Chavez stands-- let's be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion seems to have hit the point where it is better dealt with on specific article or specific wikiproject talk pages :) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why? I have yet to get a single response on the reliability of the marginal sources from any independent editor, or in fact, from any involved editor, and every talk page discussion results in the same handful of editors responding (which would be the same group of editors at WP Venezuela). Isn't the purpose of this noticeboard-- or any dispute resolution forum-- to get feedback from independent, uninvolved editors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki markup

The article "Wiki markup" refers this page as a source. It's a Help page from Misplaced Pages and we shouldn't call it 'reliable'. I think that it should be replaced for some external source (in fact, when we talk about a reliable source, "external" is redundant) . Thanks.” T_ęĻęŞ (_{PT @ L C G}) 08:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not be used as a source for most topics, but wikipedia is a perfectly reliable primary source for information about Misplaced Pages. self-reference is an exception to reliable sourcing rules in most cases: Joe the plumber's memoirs would not be considered a reliable source for most political issues, but they would be considered a reliable source for his own political activities. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the question here is about Wiki markup, which isn't Misplaced Pages, so it isn't being used as a source on itself. Secondly, Misplaced Pages is an open wiki and these are largely not acceptable. Thirdly, Joe's memoirs are a reliable source for what he says in his memoirs, but not necessarily for an historical account of his political activities, as not being independent. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you both. I'm agreed with what Kenilworth said. Misplaced Pages and any other wikis are not reliable sources. Therefore, primary sources can be used only when published on a reliable source (see).” T_ęĻęŞ (_{PT @ L C G}) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP is not a reliable source for the general topic of wiki markup, better to find other sources, and that should not be hard. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While all the above is true, there are occasions when commonsense overrules normal procedures. The article includes: 'In MediaWiki, this convention was replaced with the ] notation, which Misplaced Pages calls "free links".' and it seems pointless to look for a reliable source supporting such a light-weight statement, particularly when any external source would be less reliable than the Misplaced Pages help page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages jargon for something is seems rather unecyclopaedic unless there is an external source for that nomenclature. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we are not immune to our own standards--if something isn't covered in reliable sources, it is not notable enough for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• So... is it a consensus? What should be done in this case?” T_ęĻęŞ (_{PT @ L C G}) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More potential Transformers related sites.

I was wondering if this Diaclone site and this Microman site could be a reliable source as I need something for Transformers related character articles. Sarujo (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fansites are not reliable sources, no. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• While we have a Transformers topic up already, I'd like to bring attention to. The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition and Transformers: The Ultimate Guide have been added to dozens of articles in an attempt to stave off deletion at AfD. IMO toy guides would be fine for sourcing supplemental info on the more well-known characters, e.g. Optimus Prime or Megatron, but it is not enough of a reliable source to get an article to meet the WP:GNG. I've owned such books and guides and such in my youth as well, but all it is is a litany of in-universe data, it is not a real-world treatment of the subject area. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I specifically added the Unofficial guide because it talks about the signifigence of the characters (a whole page devoted to the concept female Transformers toys like Minerva and their like-dislike by consumers for instance), it talks about the animation and the toys (it's not just a toys list and price guide), it covers things outside the Transformers (Microman and Diaclone) and it's non-licensed, not affiliated with Hasbro or Takara. It is in fact written by a (in the words of the book) "professonal toy dealer", not a fan, but a professional in the field. Mathewignash (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like there reliable. There usefulness at AfD may be another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

There is a dispute going on about this article, concerning my extensive rewrite (diff). Please see this thread and the article talk page. BillMasen (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you were to post here the sources being proposed and the assertions they would be used to support. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that I removed a great deal of material which was based on these (self-published) sources:

netda.ru

thebruinstandard.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9pDY_ny6Qo (wearechange.org)

http://justiceforjeremiah.com/larouche_network_canada.html

www.ex-iwp.org

www.schillerinstitute.org

These are self published sources, which violate 3 of the 5 rules for self-published sources, as set out in WP:V. According to WP:V

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Specifically, they violate 2) and 3), and probably 5) as well.

Material cited to these sources I removed, but I'm not sure whether they constitute RS secondary sources or not

km.ru

www.aawsat.com

zvezda

http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/may/26larouche.htm

I wonder if someone in a better position could shed some light on that. BillMasen (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Check the archives... because I remember that we had a lot of discussion about sources for the LaRouche articles a few years ago. These might have been part of those discussions. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the wearechange YouTube video is acceptable. They don;t appear to have the mechanisms in place to be considered a reliable source. Not too familiar with it but it also dos not appear to be self-published since it isn't from LaRouche. It also shows names of other "publishers" (for lack of a better term) in the video so there could be copyright issues if those clips were produced by someone else and not released. Misplaced Pages:Video links is an essay I worked on that might assist (could also use more feedback if you are bored).Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Is this http://ethnicelebs.com/ciara a strong enough claim to add African American category to the Ciara BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an open forum to me. So, no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not as the site states: "The information you find here on EthniCelebs.com is not guranteed to be 100% correct, but the site does strive to be as factual as possible. EthniCelebs.com is an entertainment news commentary database that simply lists what it believes are the ethnicities of celebrities. The information is provided for entertainment only. In no way does it intend that users should rely upon ANY of the ethnicities provided for any purposes whatsoever." Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Right thanks for commenting, it is quite similar to a stable wiki with a fair number of contributors which are reliable for externals, appears to have been stable for quite some time, anyway, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously not reliable; open wiki, and disavows the accuracy of its contents. Jayjg 23:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't all open wikis do that? (we do that) No open wiki will claim its content is guaranteed to be correct and we assert here that open wikis are good for external links? Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL links normally to be avoided, nu 12. # Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Misplaced Pages should not be linked. - This article at this open wiki is stable and has been for a couple of years and it has a substantial number of editors and all I want to use it for is to put the person in a cat African American, imo according to this guideline it is stable enough to assert such a simple thing. Here is a picture of the subject in question with her parents. - Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the guideline for external links. That something just meets the requirement to be added as an external link to a relevant article, doesn't mean that we can use it as a reliable source for sensitive information like someone's ethnicity. The standards for such info in a WP:BLP are much higher. Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for external links, BLP or not that applies, cats are imo on a similar level, if we support stable open wikis as external links then it is a quite similar position to use one for a pretty indisputable category. So can I add it like this as an external link? Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

• - Celebrity ethnicity (open wiki) - Clara

I think you can just put her in the category African American anyway. If it is sourced that she comes from Austin, Texas, there is no doubt that she is American, and from her photo she is obviously black, therefore African American. If she defines her ethnicity any other way then there will be sources to that effect. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Judith, thanks for commenting, this is the partly the issue... Is it ok to add people to the African American cat without any content in the article or a cite that supports it, just by the simple claim that they sure do look Afican American? Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's pure WP:OR. You don't need sources to prove that she is not African American, you need sources to show that she is and that she or anyone else considers it relevant to discuss it. Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is likely to be any doubt, then we should be careful and find a source, and even a stable wiki is not a good enough source. Common sense says that she is African American, but since BLP sourcing requirements are stringent probably best to leave it until you can find a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well Fram, people like to tag these genetic labels on, it is widespread practice on this wikipedia, there is little to no care about if it is relevent or not, someone who is Afro American goes around labeling all other Afro Americans. A sort of my gang mentality. I myself am in the group that dislikes such labeling and I often remove such claims but its like resisting a tsunami. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Filmbug.com

Is filmbug.com, more specifically, the Dictionary, considered a reliable source? It is being used to source the addition of "Action drama" as a subgenre in the Action film article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The editorial oversight of this website is unclear. The authors or editors are not named, nor are the editorial policies stated. I don't see any indication that it meets WP:RS. Jayjg 23:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that the content is user-generated, but, in the absence of any guidelines, how is one to determine value? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is not a reliable source. I can't see any academic oversight or peer verification, nor is it clear who is writing the article. BOVINEBOY2008 03:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this site. As the site seems to allow user generated information (http://www.filmbug.com/site/update-movies.php?id=2553 here), I'm not sure if it should be considered a valid source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Popular Front of India article

An ip has questioned use of some of the sources used in this article, particularly Two Circles--example articles are here and here. The source looks good to me, but I figured I'd ask here to get some additional opinions. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to get opinions on this one from new front world. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Two circles is a deliberately partial news source which makes no claims as to editorial control of content. Not RS. New Front World is a news aggregator without editorial policy listed. Not RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for nutrition issue: Monosodium glutamate

The following was written in the main monosodium glutamate article but then constantly removed by three editors: sciencewatcher, Ddbrodbeck and Sakkura.

On the other side, John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world." The American Academy of Family Physicians, one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer. Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''

Sources were the following:

University of Iowa

American Academy of Family Physicians

The whole section reads as follows:

Health concerns

A report from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) compiled in 1995 on behalf of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that MSG is safe for most people when “eaten at customary levels”. However, it also said that, based on anecdotal reports, some people may have an MSG intolerance that causes “MSG symptom complex” and/or a worsening of asthmatic symptoms. Other research published in the "Journal of Nutrition" found that, while large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent, not reproducible, and not observed when MSG was given with food. No statistical association has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, even in studies with people convinced that they are sensitive to it. Adequately controlling for experimental bias includes a placebo-controlled double-blind experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.

On the other side, John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world." The American Academy of Family Physicians, one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer. Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''

Also, the sources for the critical side of the issue are reliable.

Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher claim these sources were not good, and were violating the weight which must be given to specific positions. I disagree. And others before me did too. If you see the talk page of the issue, it becomes evident that user sciencewatcher i. e. has removed all content in the past, which questioned the safety of MSG. But wikipedia should not become a place for industry agenda-pushing.

There is also a dispute about the source EUFIC. EUFIC is linked to under External Links with the description "The facts on Monosodium Glutamate" (it has been changed by me, but will probably be reverted). EUFIC's funders, however, include: Coca-Cola, DSM Nutritional Products Europe Ltd., Ferrero, Groupe Danone, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Nestlé, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Suedzucker, etc

Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher consider EUFIC to be a reliable source for nutrition issues nevertheless. They wrote the following:

Just because there is a conflict of interest in the funding does not make a source "unreliable". We include many drug studies funded by the drug companies themselves (and this is generally noted in the text). The EUFIC website does seem to represent the scientific consensus. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. It should also be noted that EUFIC receives funding from the EU, so it isn't just funded by the industry. Sakkura (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So we need an opinion about the validity of three sources:

EUFIC

University of Iowa

American Academy of Family Physicians

Thx. And I ask the above mentioned editors to stay out of this. Just let third parties decide.—JCAla (talk) 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved user response. These three sources are all quite different. EUFIC is likely to receive much more industry funding than EU funding. It can't really be regarded as scientifically neutral, but is probably OK for an external link. The link should be described correctly. A university interview with an alumnus is not a suitable source for a science article. Moreover, it's not clear that the subject of the article is talking about dietary consumption of glutamate. American Family Physician is a regular peer-reviewed journal. The issue about using it in a science article is whether an individual article should be regarded as a primary source. Ideally, we are looking for reviews of the literature rather than individual items in the literature. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sunni

Is it ok to use this PDF to cite the Turkish Prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a traditional Sunni muslim. See page 28 (34) in this PDF - He is presently in the Cat and people have commented on the article talkpage that he is a sunni but this is the only source we can find so far, the statement appears to be completely uncontentious. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional" is meaningless in this context and shouldn't be used, really, ever as a modifier for the Muslim faith (since most everyone claims they're "traditional" even when they believe and do novel and new things. The Salafy's, for instance, are modern radicals. But i digress). At any rate, Erdogan is a Sunni. He leads a Sunni-based party (part of a long string of Sunni based parties inspired, if now different from, the Sunni Muslim brotherhood), he prays at mosques led by Sunni Imams, and he comes from a country where 80% of the people are Sunni. This shouldn't be challenged -- and it's such common knowledge that no one dwells on it. However, here are some sources that contextualizes him as a "sunni islamist." , .Bali ultimate (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, traditional is POV and shouldn't be added. Thanks you Bali for the sources, I will have a look at them. I will ask for opinions on the talkpage, I am thinking just to add somewhere in the text a simple he is a Sunni Muslim and the strongest cite and so able to keep him in the cat. Many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does typical WP practice demand "plagiarism lite", and does it matter?

I would like to ask if others are sometimes uncomfortable with the following, and whether anyone has any practical suggestions about it. The most common scenario is something like this made-up case:- "this online review article looks well-written and well-sourced, great, but because RS debate is possible you should just use its handy bibliography for what you wanted to put in and not mention what led you there". Sound familiar?

Even when people then get copies of the articles in said bibliography (as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) in many cases of course, what ends up being put into Misplaced Pages is structured and worded in ways which are inspired by the helpful author of the good but potentially questioned source. However, editors are effectively told not to say so. (Indeed many are presumably doing this the whole time and not talking about it.) Structuring of subject matter, simple observations, basic ways of explaining uncontroversial things, are often not "OR", raise no red flags, and their sources are hard to prove, so no one cares where they come from. But if such influences are so uncontroversial why is being honest about it considered such a no-no?

I was recently involved in an example where a sourced quotation which had been subject to some questionable RS debate was removed, and a re-written sentence openly intended to capture something in the old material was then inserted without sourcing. The wording change possibly improves the article, and is (and was!) obvious enough not to need special sourcing, but I don't feel good about the deliberate lack of attribution.

In academic literature one still sees authors who are correct enough to quote a source as something that they read in another source. Indeed this is often quite useful. In WP, it seems odd to see people on WP argue quite strongly sometimes that an apparently good source should be used indirectly and without attribution supposedly due to WP rules. In reality of course what people mean is that it is better to avoid a long RS debate about how the WP rules might apply, and to find a "path of least resistance".

Just trying to think why this is happening, it occurs to me that it is relevant that if you put words in an article without sourcing, then someone needs to actually look at the content and understand it before they can judge if they need more sourcing. Feedback is likely to be informed in such cases. OTOH, if you try very hard to mention all sources, you can expect "feedback" which is generalized and awkward to deal with: based not on any reading of the content but upon quick browsing for theoretical sourcing warning signs. Are the incentives wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki

It has been claimed that OrthodoxWiki "was found acceptable as a valid source" - apparently generically - "from the Reliable sources noticeboard". I have failed to find a record of any such decision in the archives here. I would be grateful for a confirmation or denial of the claim.

The reliability of this source had been questioned in the following passage, where the link is actually to an article described as needing help from an expert on the subject:

Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching, which is contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church, appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529. Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As its a wiki I would be supprisd it has passed RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, never reliable since it's an open-edit website. (From the mainpage: Welcome to OrthodoxWiki, a free-content encyclopedia and information center for Orthodox Christianity that anyone can edit.)Bali ultimate (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The only place it appears to be discussed is here ] and it is not found to be RS, in fact it seems to be declared non RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The contribution here is what indicated that the website was a valid source. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Soory I think you may have mis-read this. Its talking about offical church documnets and theologians whoi publish in peer-reviewed journals. I see no mention of this Wiiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I left a message on the sys ops talkpage User talk:Jschroe for Orthodox wiki. Because there is a significant amount of articles on Misplaced Pages that use Orthodox Wiki as a source. I used the site and removed the source conflict tags as the articles on Orthodox wiki have to be confirmed by the sysops on the site and there is no anonymous editing there. I thought that the site met the criteria from the discussion. After Esoglou was able to use random church websites as sources in the article I thought that meant that I could use the Orthodox wiki per what editor User:Wikiant stated and that no one else here but Andrew responded as to what I could do about Esoglou using random websites as sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are completely misreading the reply by Wikiant you linked. He states that church and diocese websites are a step above blogs, but that peer-reviewed texts by scholars are to be preferred. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are at least 500 or so articles here on Misplaced Pages that use Orthodox Wiki in them. in one way or another. What can now be done to correct this situation? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove them as you find them. You can also request a bot to scrape them from the system, but that would probably take a while.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Try doing the search with quotation marks around "orthodox wiki" and the result will be less than 40. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats very strange Saddhiyama because I ported the article New Martyr from Orthodox Wiki and used Orthodox wiki to source it, indicated that in the article and I notice that article (for one example) did not show up in your link of searches. Also I get a whole different set whenever I remove the space from between the word Orthodox and the word wiki before I do a search. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This list shows you where orthodoxwiki.org is used. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it appears to list 572 articles in total. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The link you provide doesn't mention this OrthodoxWiki website at all. Not that it would matter. It's an anyone can edit platform, so that's case closed.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I have already added several articles from Orthodox wiki to Misplaced Pages. There is actually a license issue that had to be addressed. This is the disclaimer that was created to confirm that Orthodox wiki allows use of its content here on Misplaced Pages. Like here in this article Saint Sophia Cathedral in Harbin As of May 9, 2010, this article uses content from Orthodox Wiki, which is licensed under the CC-By-SA and GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. The original article was at "St. Sophia Cathedral (Harbin, China)". LoveMonkey (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW COULD YOU GUYS ONCE WE GET THIS SORTED OUT HELP WITH ESOGLOU STILL USING RANDOM WEBSITES IN THE ARTICLE TO SOURCE HIS CONTRIBUTIONS. PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE YOU GUYS WERE REALLY FAST TO RESPOND TO ESOGLOU POSTING FASTER AND MORE THOROUGH AND ALLOT MORE PEOPLE RESPONDED THAN MY EARLIER POST AND I COULD REALLY USE THE HELP. Esoglou has pepper the entire article with invalid in source tags to the sources I have provided. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not shout. can you give some exampples of sources you wish to challenge here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to get attention. I already link to the examples in my posting here before. That I provided before and only Andrew attempted to help. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get attention is no excuse, besdies which you were getting attention. Moreover I think you amay be mis-represting again (if you arte talking about the disusion I link to above. Its clear a few Edds joined in. Just no giving you the answer you wanted to hear.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are trying to guess at my intentions. I'm saying help on the article itself not just here on the noticeboard. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We're not horsetrading here about some other sources and other edits. Just giving (hopefully) unbiased advice. OrthodoxWiki is a very clear cut case. If there are other sources in other articles you'd like examined, open a new section (or sections) with a little context (i.e. "is such and such citation a reliable source for the following edit: tktktkt").Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Again I did that already. I will however provide three. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Esoglou added this one to a syllabus and not to any content. It has a form for hotel reservations...

• 1.Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but this opinion is now questioned, as is indicated by the title, "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?", of a paper presented by Stuart Squires of the Catholic University of America at the 2009 meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you put this in a new section at the bottom of this page, I'd be happy to take a look at it. For now, it has no business in a section explaining why the anyone-can-edit "OrhtodoxWiki" is unreliable. There is no connection between these things.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am moving the content now. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 2.The Reverend Dr Theodore Stylianopoulos, pastor of St George Greek Orthodox Church, Keene, New Hampshire, United States, provides yet another indication of the diversity of Eastern Orthodox belief with regard to the nature of hell. "Many Orthodox saints and writers", Father Stylianopoulos says, "assume the general view of hell as a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire, whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection". He adds that one Orthodox interpretation of hell, "based on certain Orthodox luminaries such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian", asserts that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment" LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please start new sections, these are not linked to this discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is DemocracyNow a reliable source?

In Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch DemocracyNow.org is being presented as a "reliable source" with an edit summary DN is a reliable source). Is democracynow.org a reliable source? Is a "video report" from that site a "reliable source"? Collect (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not in a blanket sense. It's an advocacy group, not a news outlet. The "video" source aint very good. If there was a print version where the sources for the claims could be examined it might be OK (if it looks like the research is solid i.e. if it said "based on publicly available tax records" they gave $100 million... maybe you mention it, with attribution. If it's on the order of "a little bird told me" then no). The more I think on this, the more i lean "no" though; that's a lot of money, there's a lot of people digging into this kind of stuff -- one would expect a non-partisan source to have something similar to this at this point if true. If the only source for such a claim is as partisan as Democracy Now, prolly not (and i suspect without watching the video that someone being interviewed is making that assertion -- not "Democracy Now." You might be able to walk back the cat if you figure out who that person is and how his/her research was done.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Democracy now is a very opinionated almost an activist source and I wouldn't add it unless I wanted to push their activist claims. which I don't. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Might someone remove DemocracyNow video from EL list if it is not RS? The other editor is already musing "censorship" <g>. Collect (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As per editors Bail and Slatersteven here again is random websites in the Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological difference article.

Esoglou added this one to a syllabus and not to any content. It has a form for hotel reservations...

• 1.Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but this opinion is now questioned, as is indicated by the title, "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?", of a paper presented by Stuart Squires of the Catholic University of America at the 2009 meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature

This does seem a bit iffy to me. Whilst we can verfiy the title of the papaer presented we cannot verfiy what the papaer says. Its more an undue then an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 2.The Reverend Dr Theodore Stylianopoulos, pastor of St George Greek Orthodox Church, Keene, New Hampshire, United States, provides yet another indication of the diversity of Eastern Orthodox belief with regard to the nature of hell. "Many Orthodox saints and writers", Father Stylianopoulos says, "assume the general view of hell as a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire, whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection". He adds that one Orthodox interpretation of hell, "based on certain Orthodox luminaries such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian", asserts that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment" LoveMonkey (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is RS for the Fathers views. Which is how it seems to be being used. I also bleive that this was the kind of source discused last time. Why his views shouold be notable in another matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 3.Roman Catholic teaching holds that "by free will (the human person) is capable of directing himself toward his true good" but not first without the will of God to do so.

Here I am just requesting a more specific source. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find were the last source supports the last part. I would therefore say this is not supported by the source. I wouod also sugest discuse each source in a soperated catagory, it ight get confusing if some one reponds that a source is good.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• 4.

1. ^ "John Olney, M.D.", Alumni Interview, 2008, retrieved 2010-09-13
2. ^ Memantine (Namenda) for Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease, 2004, retrieved 2010-09-13
3. FDA Backgrounder: FDA and Monosodium Glutamate
4. ^ Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C; et al. (2000). "Review of alleged reaction to monosodium glutamate and outcome of a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study". J. Nutr. 130 (4S Suppl): 1058S–62S. PMID 10736382. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. ^ Tarasoff L., Kelly M.F. (1993). "Monosodium L-glutamate: a double-blind study and review". Food Chem. Toxicol. 31 (12): 1019–1035. doi:10.1016/0278-6915(93)90012-N. PMID 8282275.
6. Freeman M. (2006). "Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: a literature review". J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 18 (10): 482–6. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x. PMID 16999713. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
7. Walker R (1999). "The significance of excursions above the ADI. Case study: monosodium glutamate". Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 30 (2 Pt 2): S119–S121. doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1337. PMID 10597625. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
8. ^
9. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405).