Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 9 August 2012

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Images of genealogical relationships

There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a genealogical profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).

There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:

• The image is not likely to be scrutinised with as much details as text would be (it will be assumed that the text is from a copy from reliable source and the usual tools used to scan for textual errors will miss them as they are contained within an image)
• It makes it impossible to link the subjects of the new image to their articles (and hence indirectly to the reliable sources used in the more specific biography article (which (particularly but not exclusively biographies on women) may be under a different name.
• If an error is found in the image most people will not have the tools to edit the image to fix the errors.
• It is not possible to use {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}} on the image -- although {{citation needed}} can be added it can not be added to a specific entry in the image.

If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue, the editor who made this image, has also been adding a template to what I think are inappropriate types of articles such as dab pages: eg Flood (surname) had template:Dalcassians added to it (diff) where should an editor discuss the mass addition of a template to what may be inappropriate articles? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated a section: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Template:Dalcassians -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

let's start with the obvious question: do you personally believe that the information now in this graphic is right or wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would judge (if I may intrude on that question) that it's very difficult to say. Early medieval genealogy is not an exact science, and that's the reaon why each link in the chain or each branch on the tree needs a footnote. If it lacks a footnote, it wants a "Citation needed" template. So the answer to WhatamIdoing's question would involve a measure of probability on each genealogical link: one couldn't possibly answer for the table as a whole.

It's a bit like the historical maps made by Wikimedians. They are very handy, and may be preferable graphically to anything we can copy from PD sources, but are they accurate? We don't know. Are Wikimedians reliable sources? Well, no, they aren't. So do we accept such graphics in Misplaced Pages articles or not? It's a hard question. Andrew Dalby 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but "it's not cited and probably okay" doesn't bother me much. The rule is that it must be possible to verify information, and if we think it's probably right, then it's probably also verifiable. But if we have some reason to believe that it's probably wrong, I'm going to be much more concerned. Uncited good information is okay. Uncited bad information can be a disaster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What does probably ok mean? The problem is that the standard of proof which many editors that add genealogical information is below that used for notable events. For example in this case neither the text that was replaced or this graphic representation has even one citation (nor are there any on Wikicommons). Often when asked for, if it is provided, it is from web sites which do not meet Misplaced Pages reliable sources criteria. It is usually fairly easy to check the father of the subject from the sources in the text and in some cases the mother. But each generation back the number of ancestors doubles and the sourcing often becomes less and less reliable. My position is the same as Andrew Dalby's on this issue. One needs to be able to highlight for the reader those parts of a tree that have no sources, those based on unreliable sources, and those based on reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Probably okay" means that the information is likely to be verifiably accurate, should someone actually go to the trouble of searching through sources. You may have noticed that I contrast "probably okay" with "probably wrong" in that comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the editors of graphics treat them much like writing an article. This may mean that the graphic will require a descriptive reference section, or even a bibliography. This is an ideal of course, and I hope such graphic designers use SVG or other vector formats so that other editors can subsequently edit their works to improve them or improve citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be a worthwhile goal. What the chances are of achieving it on Commons I don't know. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Next to nothing I suspect. Commons worry about copyright not about the reliability of sources used to validate images such as these. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Where an image from Commons would fail to meet policy concerns at Misplaced Pages regarding Original Research or the reliability of sources used—we should not use that image. This is relevant for Genealogy due to the interpretive element in Genealogy, and the need to independently reproduce copyright okay diagrams from questionable source data. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Map graphics giving modern information (statistical, administrative, etc.) are generally safer: they are often derived from just one or two highly reliable sources and it is evident or is stated by the creator what sources were used. Historical ones are more dubious. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

One possible solution for family trees is a development of an idea I used in an an image I introduced into an article Bodiam Castle. It has letters on it for rooms, which are then listed in the Misplaced Pages article. If an image for a family tree, was to carry superscripts for each entry then a bundled citation could be used to link the names to sources within the usual footnote system. Preferably the sources could be added to both the Wikicommons description and a Wikipdia article that uses it. Even if the initial editor does not introduce any citations with the image other editors could request sources by using the hooks in the image to do so or add them (just as is done in a text section on ancestry). -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would work ... if we can somehow encourage the incorporation of hooks in images of that kind. I don't quite know where we'd start ... Andrew Dalby 15:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

thesavior.com - a reliable source?

Is this interview a reliable source for Ahmad al-Hasan al-Yamani. Note that despite claims it will be published in the New York Times, etc, that doesn't seem to have occurred. I'm removing, a commentary by a dentist living in Texas! This BLP seems to have become a bit of a train wreck. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I dont agree with you deleting the Healing Iraq reference - it is not 'just' a commentary but represents a deep source of Iraqi news (which english sources lack), the author himself reads local arabic news sources and performs fact checking (including on english sources). He studied journalism and his articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian .

While he seems to have quit dentistry, (Quote: I have been reluctant to change careers, but quite frankly there is nothing that I can add to dentistry in Iraq, whereas the field of Iraqi online and print journalism is lacking in many aspects, and I hope to contribute to filling that gap.) he still displays 'dentist' on his website and is reluctant to called himself a journalist (possibly because he wants readers to still view him as just an ordinary citizen who is interested in Iraqi news). I dont think its enough to discredit a source just because he states he is a dentist. Healing IRaq is one of the most read blogs for Iraqi news (and maybe even one of the best sources), Ziyad is known for his accurate reporting. Regarding using the 'Healing Iraq' reference for the wiki (especially regarding the battle of najaf), this quote from the OTB journal gives support: "I still haven’t found an official release on the military action that occurred in Najaf but, if you’re confused about what happened there, you’re not the only one. Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq has collected more than a dozen different descriptions of what happened, ranging from..." . Im not too familiar with the wiki rules but this would seem to give support, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

As for using the-savior.com as a reference, it is the website created by his representatives (who are in contract with Ahmad Al-Hassan), I believe it should stay to get some information on him, from him, as per .

I didn't intend this to be an essay, but hopefully it can contribute to the building of the article.

What claims are these self-ublished sources supposed to be supporting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, the Healing Iraq reference was used in various places not for new claims.. it was mostly support to things already known by other articles. However, I specifically quoted from Healing Iraq, his analysis of the Battle of Najaf on the conflicting reports of 'reliable' sources. Is it ok to discredit a reference because its hosted on a Blogspot? what if the author is a journalist with extreme interest in Iraqi news and his articles were published in 3rd party sources??

As for the the-saviour.com reference, its used to get basic facts on the individual (birth place, occupation) and details on his movement (specifically, the period of time around when he began his movement).

I realise references are limited in english (and I will try to find arabic sources), however this article should be notable considering it constitutes a new movement/sect within Iraq that is spreading internationally (the movement has websites in english and other languages). Further, Middle Eastern issues (Security or other) are of major concern to international policies of US, UK other alliance countries.. which would encompass these rapidly emerging ideologies.

I still believe the Healing Iraq reference is more than reliable with regards to this article.

Self-published sources may not be used for information about any living person except for the person writing/publishing the source. So the birth place, occupation, etc., simply cannot be supported by a self-published source.

The journalist might qualify for the expert exception, but it could then be used only for claims that are not about living people. So "Journalist John says that media reports about the battle were conflicting" might be okay, but "Journalist John says that Jane was on vacation during the battle" is never okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thank you for your help and assistance. ok I think I understand this now, so the site the-savior.com published by Ahmad AlHassan can be used for claims about himself, but the Healing Iraq reference cannot be used on Ahmad AlHassan because he's a living person. But I can use Healing Iraq (expert journalist on (post-war) Iraqi News) as a source regarding non-living person? This is what I wanted to quote from Healing Iraq, (and it is an extremely relevant analysis of the battle of Najaf reports):

Iraqi American commentator, Zayed, criticised the difference in official reports, “The official U.S. and Iraqi story about what happened in Najaf today, which was swallowed and propagated by news wires (and apparently also the New York Times), is complete nonsense. First of all, they can’t even decide whether they were fighting Sunni insurgents or a “violent Shi’ite cult,” as Reuters’ unnamed self-appointed expert put it in their story. Secondly, the U.S. and Iraqi descriptions don’t match and both contain gross inconsistencies…”

Just one last question.. its a really technical one, if I cant use self-published expert sources on a living person, can I use it on a person's Movement (group of people who follow his ideology)? Many Thanks Truth&bytruth (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got it. I'm not sure about the person's movement question, because it's complicated. Sometimes a statement that is supposedly about a group is effectively about an individual, in which case we err on the side of caution.

And now I give you the next level of complication: even though the website might be "reliable" for the statements (e.g., the quotation from the journalist's blog), it may not be WP:DUE, or important enough to bother mentioning. So if this one journalist is the only journalist in the world who thinks the media coverage was screwed up, then it's probably not actually useable, even though it is technically reliable. Verifiability/reliability is only the first of several requirements for including information in an article. For help dealing with that question, you want to start a conversation either on the article's talk page with an WP:RFC or at WP:NPOVN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources concerning claim of the "the oldest university"

Hello. There is an ongoing discussion about the claim that the medieval madrasa of Al-Karaouine is the "the oldest continuously operating university" in the world. To support this view, two sources are forwarded which are in my view unreliable and should not be used in Misplaced Pages to make this claim:

The Report: Morocco 2009

Source: The Report: Morocco 2009, Oxford Business Group, ISBN 9781907065071, p. 252:

... yet for many Morocco's cultural, artistic and spiritual capital remains Fez. The best-preserved ... School has been in session at Karaouine University since 859, making it the world's oldest continuously operating university."

Rationale: The Report: Morocco 2009 is not a scholarly, but a partisan source. It is a commercial handbook for promoting foreign investments into the Moroccon economy. One of the partners who are thanked on the contents page (p.5) "for their help in preparing The Report" is the Moroccan Investment Develoment Agency (MIDA). MIDA, however, is a national agency of the Moroccan government:

MIDA is the national body in charge of the development and promotion of investment in Morocco. Its mission is to establish a welcoming structure and provide guidance for investors. It also constitutes takes charge cooperating and coordinating promotional activities both in Morocco and abroad.

MIDA is therefore not a required third-party source, but one with a strong WP:POV to present the state of Morocco in the most favourable light in order to attract foreign investors.

Guinness Book of Records

Source: The Guinness Book of Records has an entry Oldest University

Rationale: The Guinness Book of Records is a reliable source on quantitative records of all kinds, especially when they have sent their own observers as witnesses to the record-breaking attempt. The most venomous snake, the largest truck and the heaviest alcohol consumption are such quantifiable and empirical records which can be verified.

It is, however, a very inadequate source for all claims concerning qualitative matters, in particular those which have reached a certain complexity. The entry presents no definition of what a university is, it cites no sources, offers no discussion or explanation and no author is named (apart from this, it is also self-contradictory in equating the university with "educational institution" which can be any kind of centre of learning like schools, seminaries, academies, institutes etc.). Guinness Book of Records is no academic, scholarly and peer-reviewed publication and therefore its views are unreliable concerning the qualitative matter of the origin of the university.

Since both sources have been reintroduced multiple times in the course of longish edit-wars, I would request the users to present their views as succinct as possible in order to identify a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Does this really matter? Is it really worth continuing to argue about so strongly? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree. Anyway, how about UNESCO's description of Fez? Or a peer-reviewed journal article ("Of the numerous universities of the Middle Ages, only three survived: the oldest of them all al-Qarawiyyin University of Fez (Morocco), founded by an Arab woman Fatiumah al-Fihriyah in 859 A.C.")? Or this one? Or this article published by a University Press? Or this book by a bunch of English academics? And so on and on. Instead of engaging in silly debates, just go and look for better sources! It really isn't that hard. Zero 14:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited above are a good example of the issue of reliable sources.

• The UNESCO discussion of Fez provides a single line claiming (without any evidence) that Fez is "home to the oldest university in the world".
• The peer reviewed journal article deals with engineering education, and in a brief historical introduction makes the claim: "In large cities these mosques were real universities, (Jamiah).... the mosques reverted to mere centers of worship, with the exception of the great mosques of Fez, Tunis, Cairo, Damascus, Medina and Mecca. Of the numerous universities of the Middle Ages, only three survived.... But even these universities were reduced in status and size to become simple colleges of Arabic language and Islamic law. Of the ancient research activity and scientific schools nothing was left." Note that the author is equating schools at mosques with universities and makes no claims to be an expert in their history.
• The article from the Journal of African History on Moroccan reform in the 1920s includes a toss away line that Fes, was the "cultural capital of the Maghrib and seat of the oldest university in the Muslim world." again with no documentation.
• I don't have access to the content of the book, but its title is "The Marketisation of Higher Education and The Student As Consumer" and its description alludes to changing "government policy in the UK." This is hardly the source to provide reliable information on the history of universities in the medieval Arabic-speaking world.

In contrast to these marginal sources, there are a large number of detailed studies by serious historians that describe universities as a product of medieval Europe. The sources Zero cites, despite their appearance in academic presses, are not serious studies of the emergence of universities. The thinness of the historical sources advanced to defend the claims for universities in the Arabic speaking world is a central issue in the ongoing debates. I can only repeat Zero's recommendation to go and look for better sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sources so far are not reliable. I'm not clear why no one seems to have looked at our article University which briefly discusses this debate, with sources. Schooling Islam: The Culture and Politics of Modern Muslim Education pp. 8 & 9 does also] as does A History of the University in Europe: Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages p8 . Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This has already been done: both sources provide exactly the depth of knowledge and expertise which is welcome and required, but they come to a (very) different conclusion than the above, unreliable sources. Schooling Islam, in its discussion of the views of the notable scholar George Makdisi, does see similarities between madrasas and southern European universities, but ultimately draws a clear line between these two institutions and never makes a case for mosque schools being universities. This is also evident from its terminology where madrasas are consistently referred to as "madrasas" and universities as "universities".

The passage p. 8 of Rüegg in A History of the University in Europe is taken somewhat out of context. Here, Rüegg rather discusses the opinions of other scholars with which he strongly disagrees. His own views which he presents in the editorial are actually exactly the opposite ("The university is a European institution; indeed, it is the European institution par excellence") and have been cited in full here as representative for the standard view of scholars specialised in the history of the university (A History of the University in Europe is the largest and most ambitious undertaking so far in this discipline). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rüegg rather discusses the opinions of other scholars with which he strongly disagrees - this is the nub of the thing. What we seem to be dealing with is something about which there is no scholarly consensus. It's not an RS issue, but one of NPOV. Formerip (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with FormerIP here, if there are dissenting scholars we need to cover them, if they are in the minority then as per WP:UNDUE they shouldn't get equal coverage, but that does mean their view needs covering. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun, surely this has been done to death? We know what the mainstream academic view is, but we also know that there are some lesser dissenters. I don't understand why this in particular needs discussion, surely any inappropriate sources can be removed and information can be backed up to other sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question, we can't state as fact that the madrasa is the oldest university in the world. A way to put this belief in an NPOV way is going to have to be found(which means saying something about the debate if only to point out that there are scholars who see a basic difference between a madrasa and a university). Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Dougweller for his reference to Hefner and Zaman's valuable collection on Schooling Islam. I'm especially interested in the essay by Berkey on "Madrasas Medieval and Modern." He sets out a valuable description of medieval Islamic higher education which contrasts significantly with what was going on in the Medieval universities. To this medievalist, medieval Islamic education has resonances of the kind of personal following of a specific teacher that was common in the pre-university Cathedral schools (e.g., the Reims of Gerbert, the Chartres of Fulbert, and the Paris of Peter Abelard). From the references, it looks like Berkey's The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: A Social History of Islamic Education (Princeton, 1992) would help us understand what's going on there. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Dougweller, this is the current version of the page which currently states both views with the European University one being treated as by far the mainstream one.

Even this version proposed by Nableezy makes it clear there is a debate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just found another valuable reference: Michael Chamberlain, Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190-1350, Cambridge Univ. Pr., 2002. It looks like some serious scholarship related to our concerns is being done.

I wish I had time to follow up on this, but I have heavy real life pressures until fall. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite my commitments, I just did a citation search for the Michael Chamberlain and Jonathan Berkey's books. Berkey has 60 citations (including a few on the history of science); Chamberlain is only cited in reviews. Looks like Berkey is the place to start if you're interested in trying to dig deeper into medievbal Islamic higher education. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve, you need to be careful in drawing conclusions from consideration of 9th century madrassa schools, because the dispute revolves around one particular institution which was a jamia, comprised of a number of "faculties", including a madrassa. That collegiate structure is one of the things that supporters of a jamia=university thesis will point to. On the other hand, I think its true to say that qualifications were awarded by teachers on a personal basis. Which raises the question of how much that matters. At the end of the day, I guess it matters as much or as little as you want it to. I'd say there's no right or wrong answer here.

But, I sniff the danger of sliding into original research...Formerip (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the sources listed above is adequate for such an extraordinary claim. Seek scholarly works on the history of the university as an institution, published by scholarly presses. See WP:HISTRS regarding appropriate standards for historical claims, including extraordinary synthetic claims such as "the oldest X" when what "X" is changes over time. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is only an essay...

If we include both sides of the debate, but make it clear which one is the minority view I fail to see the problem. That follows WP:DUE and means that you don't have to have a tedious argument over and over and over again when someone brings up UNESCO or one of the dissenting scholarly sources.

History isn't mathematics, it is a subject that is generally open to interpretation without a clear right or wrong answer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Only an essay" sure, and RS isn't a pillar. Guinness is not an acceptable source for historical opinion. It is that simple. Guinness lacks an appropriate PhD (history, or a related field dealing with the past). Early universities are an exceptional claim, Guinness is not an exceptional source. Guinness's opinion is not relevant, because Guinness lacks the standing to possess an opinion regarding this. (Though scholar's opinions regarding the oldest X would be). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, both views are already long included in WP, namely in university and medieval university. The right place for more extensive discussion is the article Al-Karaouine, not yet another article on the university. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One more in support of Eraserhead's position. This is an argument of definition, so there can be more than one right answer. Of course we should mention that the Guinness Book of World Records and UNESCO say it's the oldest Uni in the world; one is the first place everyone looks for for "largest, smallest, oldest" whatever, and the other is the UN educational authority, of course their views are important. Since there are opposing views, those should also be mentioned, but that doesn't mean Guinness and UNESCO are irrelevant. In fact, I'd say the current header of University of al-Karaouine has too much opposing the view; the sentence "The first universities were rather all located in Western Europe, with the University of Paris and the University of Bologna often cited as the earliest examples" doesn't even mention UoaK, so certainly doesn't belong in the header of the UoaK article. What was the quote about university politics being so bitter precisely because the stakes were so small? Methinks thou dost protest too much. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe this is a problem best solved by WP:INTEXT attribution and a fair representation of all significant viewpoints. That might include explaining why some viewpoints hold that this isn't a "real" university, and it certainly includes identifying the Guinness Book of World Records' decision by name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Silly discussion. Some folks seem to want the "absolute truth" in an area where there simply is no absolute truth. What is the "oldest University" will alway depend on how you define "University" and "oldest" in context and there are several reasonable choices, so there will be several reasonable answers. All we can do is say who has made which judgement call, and that should be fairly easy to do. Guinness BWR not a WP:RS? Just check WP:RS, and I think you'll find out that it is, even for really important stuff like this! I do object to folks who want to layer requirement after requirement on a source for it to be considered reliable. Let's not engage in instruction creep. Disagreeing with a source does not make it unreliable. Smallbones (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Can a BBC documentary be cited as a reliable source?

I wanted to cite a recent BBC documentary on "Bloody Friday" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxsxn as a source but another editor has said it can't be used because the BBC have not as yet made it publically available online in a permanent manner. What's the policy in this regard?--feline1 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Hot Stop 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be online,(this should be carved in stone) as long as a copy exists somewhere in a library, you can use it. The BBC has a habit of releasing many of their popular documentary series on the video market, has this one appeared in the shops yet? Roger (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Copied for Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability

I was editing an article and wanted to use a recently broadcast BBC documentary as source. The documentary was broadcast on the BBC1 channel. It has a page on the BBC website, but it is not currently viewable online via their "iPlayer" service. (It is, however, all over YouTube... these YouTube copies violate copyright, but they are accessible). One editor has taken the stance that it is not permissable to cite this BBC documentary as a source because it is not "publically accessible". What is the wikipedia consensus position on this?--feline1 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This should really go to WP:RSN. However, what's the name of the documentary, and I'll give you an opinion. Formerip (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It was an hour long political history program about the "Bloody Friday" bombings in Belfast, broadcast on their 40th anniversay http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kxsxn --feline1 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't look verifable, due to not being viewable. The problem with copyright-infringing YouTube clips is that we can't effectively cite them, even if they do verify the content. So someone else who comes along later will not be able to check. However, there is a series of clips on the BBC website. If the material you want is in one of those, then that will pass WP:V (although don't forget that it will also need to pass other policies such as WP:NPOV). See this link. Formerip (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to cite a YouTube link. I cited the the programme itself, and the BBC webpage for the programme. This strikes me as analagous to citing the name, author and publisher of a book. How readers obtain a copy of that book is up to them. The BBC obviously retains an "archived copy" of the programme in their vaults. They have broadcast it on television and on iPlayer. They have not yet released it on DVD. (But even if they had, it might currently be out of stock on Amazon etc etc... just like a book might have gone out of print). It seems to be that it is attested & verifiable that the BBC made and broadcast the programme. It is also very easy for any to google it and find it on YouTube. ... I'm not sure what the practical problem is here with it being a reliable verifiable source.--feline1 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

something being out of stock on amazon or no longer in print is not the same as never having been made public in the first place. Is the content that you wish to include verifiable on the BBC page about its documentary?-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't think "never having been made public in the first place" is a label you could apply to an hour's worth of television broadcast on BBC1 and resyndicated on their iPlayer site! The info I wanted to cite is in the documentary itself, it's not transcribed on the webpage. (Some of it might be on the clips on the webpage, to be honest I haven't checked). Anyways - to cut to the chase: is it a wikipedia policy that a television programme can only be considered a verifiable source if it is available to buy on DVD/VHS/etc? Or is the fact that it was publically broadcast, still held in an archive by the broadcaster, and acknowledged by them as existing sufficient criterea for "verifiability"? I'd have thought wikipedia would have a clear rule on that, but I don't see it unambiguously stated on the policy pages.--feline1 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As already pointed out feline1, more than once, it isn't verifiable. If a programme is in the BBC public archive it's verifiable, if it's released on video or DVD it's verifiable, but other shows the BBC have broadcast aren't verifiable. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It has not "been pointed out more than once" - it was asserted by you on a talk page, and several other editors expressed a different interpretation of the policy, so I came here to seek clarification. --feline1 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that occasionally <g> the documentaries offer opinion as much as they offer fact - best practice where an opinion is given is to cite it as opinion. Collect (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I know all that. That's not the issue here.--feline1 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A source has to be "verifiable" - until someone invents a time machine, the contents of a TV broadcast cannot be verified unless the show has somehow been officially recorded and released. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the program in question was publicly broadcast at least once, it has been "published". As such its contents are verifiable by anyone who applies for a copy in the manner prescribed to the publisher who is required in law to preserve a certain number of copies.Aghore (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Which specific law are you talking about?Formerip (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: An archive does not need to be on-line, and it does not need to have multiple copies. Even if there is only one copy in a BBC storage locker somewhere, it qualifies as being archived... and as long it is possible for a member of the general public to gain access to that copy and view it (it does not matter how difficult or expensive this may be), then it qualifies as being accessible. I am sure that if you wrote to the BBC and requested a viewing, they would be happy to set it up. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You being sure about that is not quite enough, though. Formerip (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, what you say makes sense to me, although we do not appear to have reached "consensus" here, as some editors above appear to have taken a different view. I'm surprised wikipedia doesn't have already have a definitive answer to the question of "Can a television programme be used as a reliable (verifiable) source?" Some above say "no, only if it's been made commercially available on DVD", others are saying "yes, so long as the broadcaster retains a copy in their archive".... Which is the "right" answer?--feline1 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that at this point in time, anyone in this discussion could have verified the contents of the program by viewing copyright violations off of Misplaced Pages that are thankfully not listed on the project. We have Template:Cite episode for a reason. To pretend that information does not exist (when it is obvious it does) is not the best way to win a content dispute. And to argue that a copy cannot be obtained now via contacting the BBC or that one will never be made available through DVD is nonsense. Both are logical assumptions.71.35.155.42 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A copy can't be obtained now by contacting the BBC, if you suggest it can then provide evidence that's the case. If a programme has been released on DVD it can be cited, until then there's no evidence it will ever be verifiable. Template:Cite episode exists for occasions when a copy of a programme is held in an archive accessible to editors, or for DVD releases and so on. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And I assume otherwise. Have your tried to obtain a copy? Maybe one us should go the extra mile by sending an email. Everything can then be submitted to OTRS.

And just to clarify, is your objection based on the content or is it based on you truly believing that you cannot verify it? What I am trying to get at is that if you have viewed the copyright infringing copies on the Internet and can be reasonable satisfied that they have not been edited, then you should be seeking alternatives or a solution instead of only arguing for removal of content.71.35.154.200 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The community consensus has been spelled out for years at WP:Published#Accessible. Blueboar accurately summarizes it.

It's not good enough for some naysayer to assert that it's inaccessible. If, however, someone in the UK were to phone them and learn that it really is locked away and no one is allowed to see it for some reason, then that would be a good indication that it is not accessible. Given that it's the BBC we're talking about, I suspect that it's not entirely inaccessible, although it's possible (e.g., due to a lawsuit about royalties). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. So, if I assume in good faith that WhatamIdoing is a reliable source with respect to Blueboar having accurately having summarised the community's consensus position on citing a television programme, does this mean I can now revert 303's reversion of my contribution to Bloody Friday without being hauled in front of an ArbComm? :) --feline1 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also not good enough for some yaysayer to assert it is accessible without providing evidence it is. It is a verifiable fact that not all the BBC archive is available, see "the great majority of what's been converted is not available for public view". The relevant part of WP:Published#Accessible reads "A radio or television program that is archived by the broadcaster is "accessible" if the broadcaster allows people to visit the studio and listen to the program (perhaps for a fee); it is "inaccessible" if the general public is not allowed to listen to the program", it is up to those claiming this source is accessible in the BBC archive to prove that is the case. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the criterea "routinely accessible to the general public", or "accessible to a researcher who applies through the correct channels"? cf. anyone cannot walk in off the street and demand something out of the Bodleian bookstacks or British Library collection - you need to apply to be a member, get permission to access a special collection, etc etc.--feline1 (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the programme needs to be part of the archive which is accessible to those people in addition. There's no evidence that is the case. WP:BURDEN is clear, up to you to show the source is verifiable. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I would prefer for some further input from other (neutral) editors, since going by your logic and reading http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/inrrooms/stp/register/keyreginfo/keyreginfo.html it would seem that the British Library is not unequivocably "accessible" either so a work held there can't be a reliable source either. Which seems absurd. The BBC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and I don't see any basis for your assertion that they would deny a researcher access to view one of their documentaries in order to check a source. Particularly when they've broadcast it to the nation, shown it on iPlayer and it's all over YouTube. --feline1 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

On Feline's question: it can't be researcher-only access, or government-officials-only, or members-of-the-religion-only, or anything like that. But it can require application through the proper channels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with WhatamIdoing almost entirely, occasionally "researcher-only access" amounts to an excuse to exclude commercial attempts to exploit public service institutions. The point being: the public must substantially and effectively have access to verifying the content—and it is the substantive, not the formal access that is required. (Substantive access may have costs, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Cost, an essay I wrote and many other editors improved quite some time ago. It doesn't mention "restrictions against the public," or "access only to those persons who share belief or institutional affiliation.") Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary or not, OR or not, on Konigsberg.

On the basis of this source: an anon IP has added this text to the article on Konigsberg:

Unlike in other administrative districts of Eastern Prussia like Rössel, Lyck or Sensburg a Polish minority in Königsberg or the surrounding districts is not documented in the official Prussian census of 1900.

with the edit summary statistics.

On the talk page I pointed out that

1. This appears to be a primary source, basically an online copy of "Statistik of Deutschen Reichs", 1903. I see no material on the web page beyond the presentation of numbers from the Statistik.
2. The text being added is original research. There is nothing in the source which says what the anon IP is claiming it says. Obviously the person looked through this primary source, didn't find "Konigsberg" under the "Polnisch" column and drew his own - original research - conclusions.
3. Even as far as OR goes, this is pretty bad OR. A quick look through the table makes it obvious that "Konigsberg" is simply not listed AT ALL for ANY ethnic minority, not just Poles. It's just not one of the places that is included in the list. The word "Konigsberg" does not appear anywhere on the website. So yeah, if it's not included, of course it will "not document" presence of ... well anything what so ever.

I thought this was fairly straight forward and obvious, but now, on the talk page User:Skäpperöd chimed in in support of the IP saying "The source is a secondary one, and properly attributed, no OR issue here. " . Am I missing something? I mean, there's an obvious confluence of common POV-pushing between Skapperod and the IP, but this just seems like denying the obvious.

VolunteerMarek 09:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a primary source. You can only cite a source for what it says, not for what it does not say. It is OR for us to say that the minority is "not documented in the official ... census", or even to say that Konigsberg was excluded from the census. We need a secondary source, either to confirm the absence of Konigsberg data, or to tell us where the data is and how to interpret it. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.VolunteerMarek 13:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is the historian M. Rademacher at verwaltungsgeschichte.de, citing pages from Statistik des Deutschen Reichs Bd 150: Die Volkszählung am 1. Dezember 1900 im Deutschen Reich, Berlin 1903. The primary source would be the cited book. Since it is only cited, in-text attribution should be to the census, not to Rademacher, though, that's why I said "properly attributed." I agree though that Rademacher here is not a secondary source as he did not process this information, I did not notice that. It is not simply a scan of the 1903 book either, though. The "POV-pushing" bit of VM's post is nasty and uncalled for. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I really can't add anything to what Andrew has already said. And yes this is an instance - as often with original research done with primary sources - of POV pushing.VolunteerMarek 13:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on that. My impression is that Skäpperöd sees the problem. Yes, Rademacher would be a secondary source and might serve us -- but (so far as I can see) Rademacher simply mirrors the absence of Konigsberg data and does not comment on it or explain it. So there's nothing we can cite. Andrew Dalby 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Where do I complain about a user who is inserting dubious links.

Hi This is probably my first complaint. I want to complain about a new user/account http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Kanoonkhojer whose sole purpose seems to be substituting / adding links to laws of India on various Misplaced Pages articles to point to one particular (dubious / non-reliable) website ie "http://khcaa.org" he is promoting. Incidentally the User name "Kanoonkhojer" translates to "Lawfinder". So please can some BigShot/Admin at Misplaced Pages resolve this without involving me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghore (talk • contribs)

The URL redirects to the Wordpress blog of an activist group and is clearly not a reliable source for general information about India laws, and does not seem to meet WP:ELYES for inclusion as an external link. I am no "big-shot" or admin but I'll give the editor a warning telling him what he's doing is not in line with Misplaced Pages policies. If he keeps doing it after that, he can be brought to WP:ANI for administrator attention. Zad68 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor warned, addition of external links reverted. Let's hope that's it. Zad68 13:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's not the end of this, then WP:BLACKLIST is your next stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Chart News (Twitter)

Since new users keep using it as a source, I think this discussion/consensus on Chart News (some Twitter account) should be mentioned at this noticeboard just as a point of reference for addressing the users who use the source; its consensus was unreliable. Here's the diff from the original discussion at Talk:The Light of the Sun, basically revising the date and sales figure in that article. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the reasoning behind that consensus, and agree with it. It is published by a non-expert who has no reputation for fact-checking. (It is equivalent to an unedited blog). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir Gawain

I have already told User:Cagwinn how there are many theories to how Gawain died and the user just deleted a theory to believe his/her own theory of how Gawain died is more accurate, but there are many theories, compared to User:Cagwinn who thinks it is idiotic,when there nothing idiotic of how Gawain died and its theories and will you tell the user to stop edit warring I have kept part of the source from this user and added another source from Howard Pyle's translation from Geoffrey Chaucer, will some one please explain the user to stop edit warring, now.--GoShow (...............) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is probably not the right noticeboard. Cagwinn is correct regarding his content point, and GoShow isn't using RS and is trying to insert content in the wrong place. However, Cagwinn has left uncivil edit summaries, and deleted my comment from the Gawain talk page when I saw the notice here and attempted to offer some guidance to GoShow as to why his edits were being reverted. Deleting another user's neutral and appropriate comment from an article talk page is a gross violation of WP:TPO and indicates issues of ownership. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not intentionally delete your comments, Cynewolfe, and wasn't even aware of the fact that I had apparently (and accidentally!!) done so until I checked the history just now. I still don't know how it even happened.Cagwinn (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I meant only to suggest that this was the wrong noticeboard. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly not the right place for this discussion. GoShow has not introduced a source for others to vet. This is a content issue.Cúchullain /c 18:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Global Nonviolent Action Database

Just a quick question regarding the reliability of the Global Nonviolent Action Database published by Swarthmore College. I'd like to use this page in a future article about the 1962 Asturian miners' strike or possibly a broader topic. Not sure as yet what specific statements I'd be sourcing or using it as a source for – for now I just want to check whether or not it's something I can use in general. Thanks – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the site's Who made the database? page, its content was largely written by undergraduate students. While that page states that the the students operated under supervision of academics and their entries were edited by research assistants, it doesn't appear that there was any kind of formal review or fact checking process from the information provided there. As such, I don't think that this is a reliable source in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was leaning towards. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Homa Katouzian

Homa Katouzian has PH.D in Economy but he wrote Modern history of Iran (because he know Persian language). Recently he wrote a book about History of Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern History of iran with name "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" that University Yale has published. i have question that writing a book with University Press can put someone (historian) non-scholar to scholar of Medieval historian scholar ? and can we use Opinion pieces (Interview with radio) by this guy in wikipedia Persian (Medieval) history entries ?--Espiral (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We would make the presumption that his knowledge is broad enough for a press like that and the multiple referees it will have consulted to consider him an expert, or sufficiently an expert to write a general book on this very broad topic. It would be relevant to find reviews of his book from other experts, including those who are expert specialists in narrower topics. Even the greatest expert is not definitive, especially in topics like historical interpretation. All responsible views must be presented. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to make any assumptions. Dr Katouzian teaches modern Iranian history at Oxford University. According to the website of the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, "Dr Homa Katouzian is the Iran Heritage Foundation Research Fellow, St Antony’s College, and Member, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. He received all of his university education in England and has taught, as visitor or permanent staff, at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, and the University of Leeds, Kent at Canterbury, Shiraz, UCLA, UC San Diego and McMaster University. He is editor of Iranian Studies, Journal of the International Society for Iranian Studies, joint editor of the ISIS-Routledge series in Iranian Studies, and on the editorial board of Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East. His current research interest is in Iranian history and politics, the comparative sociology of Iranian and European history, and modern and classical Persian literature." He would seem to be an excellent and eminently reliable source. Indeed, if he is not, it looks as though someone should inform the experts in the field that we do not consider him to be acceptable. RolandR (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

he wrote modern history of iran but it`s different between modern history and medieval history of iran. for example you must know arabic language and i don`t think he knows arabic. he doesn`t wrote any ancient or medieval book exept "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" until today. i think he wrote the book "The Persians: Ancient, Medieval and Modern Iran, Yale University Press (November 30, 2010)" with References of other orientalist`s books and he doesn`t use any primary book. he must Express an opinion on modern history on iran (which is his field) but in interview with france radio he Express an opinion on medieval history of iran (which is not his field). my question is can we use his Express an opinion on medieval history of iran ?--Espiral (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In writing a general history you are likely to go beyond your field of greatest expertise. Same thing if you are on the editorial board of a journal.

But the real point is not Homa Katouzian's field of expertise. If he publishes a peer-reviewed academic paper or monograph on the topic in question, we would surely want to cite it. The point is, why on earth should we be quoting a radio channel on a detail of medieval Iranian history? Unless that's explained (and a precise link is given) this is just timewasting. Andrew Dalby 07:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:HISTRS for the reasoning behind this. Katouzian published a scholarly survey history in a scholarly press. Their early work (and thus PhD) appear to be in Political Economy, a bastard child of economics which has a focus on analysis of texts and structures, far more so than Economics. Katouzian transitioned their academic career towards history by publishing historical scholarly works in historical presses and teaching history; and in Iranian studies the text was cited in specialist scholarly journals off-hand for truisms. Katouzian's PhD may be in Economics, but for the purposes of scholarly expertise, they're accepted by the community of historians as a historian—as evidenced by publication in scholarly presses that get expert and discipline specific reader reviews done before acceptance, such as Yale University Press. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly relevant (yet). The question is about quoting a radio interview concerning a detail of medieval history, and we still haven't been told what detail or on what page. Live radio interviews (if it was live) can't be fact-checked. The preliminary answer should certainly be "no". Andrew Dalby 08:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, I see your point. No a radio interview with an academic isn't an acceptable source for historical articles. Academics do not have time to check their sources, and are not held to standards of peer review. Regardless of EXPERTise, academics have access to acceptable publication formats (as shown by Katouzian's access to YUP). Academics talking outside of their profession's publishing structure often say dodgy things, or things that lack appropriate context. Even if the radio interview were available as transcript it shouldn't be used. Use Katouzian's published works. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded impatient! Andrew Dalby 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it make any difference if

• The radio interview was not live
• The scholar vouched for his statement in the interview later in a correspondence (say an email to a Wiki user)

24.94.18.234 (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No. We don't cite private letters, and radio interviews are not appropriate sources for medieval history. If he publishes the statement in a peer-reviewed or academic medium, that's different. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal correspondence is never an acceptable source, nor is it an acceptable source regarding sources. "What my mother told me last night before bed," is not verifiable. Radio interviews are not the usual genre for the exposition of historical fact as they invite trivium. Show me a radio interview published by OUP as part of a scholarly series and then we might start talking. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

and by the way, the disputed content that user Espiral is talking about is the alleged claim of Omar commanding to burn the books in library of Academy of Gondishapur as suggested by Ibn Khaldun in Muqaddimah and refuted by the English translator of this book, Franz Rosenthal here. Dr. Katouzian in the interview is also refuting the alleged book burning in Persia by Arabs.--24.94.18.234 (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Homa Katouzian Claimed that persians doesn`t have Mental Sciences before "Arab conquest of Iran" or it`s Negligible to compare to Mental Sciences that produce after "Arab conquest of Iran" . but Ibn Khaldun , islamic historian says :

Among The Persians, the intellectual sciences played a large and important role, since the Persians dynasties were powerful and ruled without interruption. The intellectual sciences are said to have come to Greeks from the Persians, when Alexander killed Darius and gained control of the Achaemenid empire. At that time, he appropriated the books and sciences of the Persians

or another mistake of his interview with radio france in another time, he says :"cyrus cylinder had freedom to people of egypt and Babylon and Jews and Chaldea which cyrus the great was capturing them " but in fact cyrus the great didn`t capture egypt .

all of his interviews is in persian language. how ancient and medieval historian of iran can Notificat of his opinion (for Review of his opinion), when he had too many mistakes and Large claims in persian language ? how many of scholar heared persian (language) interview with a Unknown radio ? --Espiral (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If Katouzian stated uncontroversial facts in this broadcast, there will certainly be better sources for them (which might include his own published and peer-reviewed writings as well as those of others). If there are controversial opinions we should wait until he publishes them in print, and then consider whether they are notable or not. If there are errors of historical fact, their occurrence in a radio interview is not notable -- sadly, it happens all the time. So I can't see any reason to cite this interview, unless published reactions to it by other scholars cause it to become notable. As Fifelfoo rightly says, "use Katouzian's published works." Andrew Dalby 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Andrew Dalby. Uncontroversial facts will be available elsewhere (such as in the University Press published monographs). Controversial facts are not acceptably supported by radio interviews as historians do not publish controversial facts by radio interview. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources

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

An editor reviewed this question, but it did not have the required level of detail necessary to provide a useful answer. Source reliability, or unreliability, can only be assessed in context. Please cite the specific source(s) for that edit, link the affected article, and diff link or <blockquote> a specific edit, to help editors here answer your question. When you have done that, please remove this banner. Examples and additional info: The easier it is to find your source, and the edit that it is trying to support, the more likely you are to get a response from other editors. The "Better way" examples provided will often get you more results here. It is very useful to include a direct link to a website-specific page, and text: Basic way: "Is oprah.com a reliable source for saying beef from Texas is no good?" Better way: Is the third paragraph of to the Oprah.com website a reliable source for this edit , that says beef from Texas is too chewy? RSN editors respond faster when you provide a full, linked citation to your source: Basic way: Is the book "Early Childhood Education Journal" a reliable source for the Kindergarten article? Better way: Is the journal article, Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): pages 58--60 doi:10.1007/BF01628031 a reliable source for the assertion that attending Kindergarten makes kids IQ's go up 200 points, as claimed by this edit ?" We like a wiki link to the affected article you're talking about: Basic way: Some editors have been using bad sources about regional Australian towns. Better way: I'd like an opinion on these sources used about ] and ]'s populations, I've listed the sources in question below. Are there any relevant talk page discussions that could be helpful on this issue? Basic Way: See talk page for our discussion about this Better Way: This issue is discussed at: ] and ]

---

I'd like to please request a clarification on what exactly constitutes a "third-party source" in a specific case. If a scholar had been involved in a lawsuit against a person, is he/she a third-party source on the credentials and social standing of said person? Or should the testimony and statements of the scholar on that subject (e.g. during the said trial) be considered to some extent unreliable on the basis that they are directly involved with the person? -- Director (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This relates to Talk:David Irving#Historian or writer, and is (in my biased opinion) a fairly non-neutral way of expressing the issues there, as the material in question goes well beyond statements made during the trial, as it includes expert reports and professionally published books. But views from other editors on this issue (as well as the other issues under discussion) would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow.. you're following my contributions. I don't know if I should be creeped-out or flattered.

I grant that I remained vague on the names as I did not wish to prejudice anyone, but I don't think it matters. And again you are misrepresenting what I write (its quite remarkable, really, that you do so every time). I did not limit my request only to statements made during the trial, I merely mentioned that as an example since you're using Evans's actual testimony. I did not post this here looking for input on the article (as this is hardly the venue), but I also would welcome additional participants.

For goodness' sake: you're quoting 1) the prosecutor against the person, 2) a scholar that was repeatedly harangued and actually sued by the person, and 3) a scholar hired by the defense (allegedly for 250,000 dollars) as a witness against this person. In my opinion, these are not third-party sources. And you're using them, not only as "impartial third-party sources", but as the (quote) "foremost experts on the person". In addition to this, I'd like to point out that the case falls under WP:BLP and its more stringent criteria for what constitutes an RS. I don't like the fascist guy any more than the next person, but imo this is really too much. Hitler has a more fair and balanced lead. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Third-party" or "third party" in WP:RS refers to the publisher, and means not self-published, although self-published sources are acceptable under some circumstances. It has no relevance to the dispute. Also, you should assume good faith. Nick-D follows this notice board, and has posted numerous times to this notice board, including above where he commented eight minutes before you started this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So the author can be anyone, but the publisher should be entirely independent? I find that rather hard to believe. Self-published sources are certainly a good example but they're hardly synonymous with a non-third-party source. To my knowledge, such a source is one that is not entirely independent of the subject being covered. And prof. Evans hasn't even published his opinion given in the trial, which arguably makes using that (primary) source to draw conclusions - OR. He doesn't even expressly deny that the person, strictly speaking, is a historian. He basically says that he does not meet his personal definition of a historian. And all these sources are reliable and perfectly fine for a BLP article? And its kind of hard to AGF every time with the kind of subtle-yet-belligerent behavior Nick-D's been continuously displaying from the start ("so you're saying he's Mother Theresa reborn? you madman!"). But I have and will try again.

Fellas, I've heard your position back at the article, and perhaps you're right. But lets hear from the community. The sources we're discussing, now that we've gone into the specifics, are here. -- Director (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This specific discussion is about what "third-party" means in WP:RS and it is referring to the publisher. But I do not think the issue is RS - no one challenges that Evans said Irving is not an historian. The issue is weight - what weight to we assign this view as opposed to the view that he is. If we assign zero weight to Evans' opinion, and to those who have endorsed it, then we can say unconditionally that Irving is an historian. But if we assign any weight to Evans' view then we cannot. TFD (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually we can call him an "historian" and we can also say Evan's opinion is that he is not an historian for the reasons Irving gives. The ideal is NPOV - and it is clear that Evan's opinion is not related to Irving's training and background, but to Evn's opinion of Irving's opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is precisely what I've been saying and advocating. -- Director (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion thread, where you ask, "what exactly constitutes a "third-party source""? TFD (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but it was not I who began disclosing the dispute here and asking for feedback. -- Director (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edit where you set up this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Third party" has nothing to do with the relationship between the author and the publisher (whether the source is self-published or not).

It has to do with with relationship between the author and the subject matter. In this case, the author is definitely not independent or disinterested, but he might technically be a third party. (Reality is more complicated than Misplaced Pages's policies are prepared to cope with. Good sources are both independent and third parties.)

See Misplaced Pages:Party and person#Doesn't "third party" mean "independent"? and Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using self-published sources for more information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 August 2012

This discussion is about policy, not essays that "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints". In any case the essays do not claim to discuss WP:RS, which uses the term "third party" in reference to publishers, not writers. "Third party publisher" means that the article was not self-published by the writer. TFD (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. WP:RS talks about third-party "sources" and third-party "publications", but never third-party publishers. And it also links to the same "may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints" essay on the subject twice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Book by William F. McNeil

References to the following book on a couple articles are being aggressively purged by a couple of editors who are hostile to the subject matter, with the claim that it is "unreliable". I say, it is being used on these articles to reference a school of thought or viewpoint, following on the books of Barry Fell, Gloria Farley and actually several lesser known authors. What say ye? Is all talk of this stuff now suddenly verboten on wp?

• McNeil, William F. Visitors to Ancient America: The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus. McFarland, 2005. ISBN 0-7864-1917-2

Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The book is not peer-reviewed or published by a scholarly press, and the author is an expert in baseball, not archeology. Neither have the book nor the theories it contains ever been mentioned in independent reliable sources. As it is not an element of the scholarly debate on a scientific topic, and has not been discused, either positively or negatively, by independent scholars, it remains a not-notable fringe source. This has already been exhaustively discussed on the article talk page ] and at FTN ]. At best it would be reliable only for the opinion of its author, and then only if that opinion were notable, which it is not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As this is basically what I've been saying, I can only agree. A book by a non-expert which hasn't made more than a tiny, tiny ripple anywhere, even among the fringe. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a book is not peer-reviewed or published by a scholarly press does not necessarily mean it is unreliable. Sure, scholarly sources are MORE reliable than non-scholarly ones... but there is a difference between relative reliability and complete unreliability.

A lot depends on the context in which we use the source... In this case, we have to look at the type of statement we are supporting with a citation to McNeil's book. McNeil would not be reliable for a statement as to archeological fact ("X proves that ancient Europeans came to America long before Columbus")... but he can be considered reliable for a statement about the beliefs or opinions of a certain group of fringe theory advocates ("Fringe theorists believe that X proves that ancient Europeans came to America long before Columbus"). Context also determines whether or not we should mention the opinion of this group of fringe theorists... see: WP:UNDUE. In an article or section about the pre-Colmbian contact fringe theory, it is not undue weight to discuss what advocates of the theory say (in fact it would be undue not to mention what the advocates say). Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not if the "theories" have never been mentioned by reliable mainstream sources. We would have no basis for deciding whether the "theories" were notable or not, or how much weight to assign to them, if any. Absent substantial discussion in reliable independent sources, scholarly or otherwise, we can only conclude that the "theories" are not significant, and therefore should not be mentioned at all in WP. To do otherwis would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You should mention what statement you want to support and which article. Since the book is published by McFarland & Company, it meets rs, although it is probably not the best source. However, the opinions expressed in the book probably do not meet WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The information from McNeil's book on Pre-Columbian contact theory that was in particular question, is found on page 223. There he describes his fellow Pre-Columbian theorist Gloria Farley, who discovered the Turkey Mountain inscriptions in 1975. She showed the carved letters to Barry Fell, another Pre-Columbian contact theorist who read the markings as Punic and Gaelic. Nobody else has ventured a reading, but some sources describe them vaguely as "runes" without interpreting them. There are plenty of sources that describe all this, and photos of the inscription, etc. - yet every last one including mainly McNeil, Fell, and Farley's own book on the discovery, has been declared "unreliable" or "insufficient passing mentions" by DV and DW, and I have thus been accused of "original research" just as if I made up the whole reading out of my own head myself, and the longstanding article informing wp readers of the existence of these petroglyphs has even been put up for deletion now, as they are obviously quite committed to making certain nobody finds out about the Turkey Mountain Inscriptions from wikipedia, regardless of how many other sources they could easily get such info from. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

McNeil would be reliable for an attributed statement as to what McNeil says in his book... such as: "According to author William McNeil, the inscriptions were discovered by Gloria Farley in 1975. McNeil states that she showed them to fellow enthusiast Barry Fell, and that Fell believed them to be Punic and Gaelic." However, this is probably a round about way of discussing the issue. If your intent is to cite Fell's belief, then it would be better to cite Fell directly. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a reliable source for the type of statement that Blueboar suggests. It sounds to me like the question is really one of DUE weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement attributed to a person

I would like to have the following statement's source be reviewed from the article Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War:

"He branded those who supported the use of Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state."

which is sourced from this book:

• Tania Hossain (2006). "Language policy in education in Bangladesh". In Amy B.M. Tsui, James W. Tollefson (ed.). Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 245. ISBN 978-0805856934. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

which further cites it from this opinion based article:

• M. Waheeduzzaman Manik. "The impact of Jinnah's anti-Bangalee design on the political sene of Bangladesh in the early years of Pakistan: An Assessment". Commentary. Virtual Bangladesh.

I asked about it at the talk page but the major contributor of that article is of the opinion that this opinion based article is cited by an academic published book and that is why it is a reliable source. --SMS 17:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, the statement in the article is supported by Hossain and Tollefson's book. Hossain and Tollefson cite Manik's article. You disagree with the statement, and therefore you want to say that Hossain and Tollefson's book is wrong because they cite Manik's article, and you believe Manik's article is just one person's opinion and therefore unimportant. Do I have that right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes you got it right, but that is my opinion. What I would like to know is that can an opinion based article be cited for saying that someone called a person/group of people traitor, enemy of state, etc.?

If this political statement is well-founded it should be possible to find less oblique sources which report it (eg newspapers or political histories). The citing of a source of unknown reliability by a single academic article on a tangential topic is not enough to confer reliability on the source and thus the statement. Martinlc (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with you, given the source used is a secondary source citing a primary source it falls well within RS guidelines. But here is another source which also supports it. Encyclopaedia on Jinnah p56 2008. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE would come into play. If it is an important quote representing an important view, there will be multiple sources to support it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another editor just posted another source on the talk page Braj B. Kachru; Yamuna Kachru; S. N. Sridhar (2008), Language in South Asia, Cambridge University Press, p. 138, ISBN 978-0-521-78141-1 That is three academic sources, how many do you want? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The text in "Encyclopedia on Jinnah" is exactly the copy of this source (which I already gave above) without being attributed to the author, I guess. The second source "Language in South Asia" quotes Jinnah as saying this:

"it is for you, the people of this province, to decide what shall be the language of your province. But let me make it very clear to you that the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan"

which clearly can't be used to source the statement in the article (quoted above in my first comment). It will need to be altered. --SMS 01:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the source used is not only RS the person they are citing is am academic also. So I really am not seeing a problem with the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In this speech by Jinnah he called those who supported Bengali traitors, fifth columnists and enemies of Pakistan Darkness Shines (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to find the words "traitor", "communist" in this weblink that you gave. In fact there are Jinnah's speeces/quotes related to the issue and he doesn't call anyone more than "enemy of Pakistan" on this issue. Some of his speeches: , , . --SMS 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And about the author (Wahiduzaman Manik), his article says it all about the neutrality. --SMS 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

SMS, what do you think a quisling is? But for your ease "I tell you once again, do not fall into the trap of those who are the enemies of Pakistan. Unfortunately, you have fifth columnists --and I am sorry to say they are Muslims --who are financed by outsiders. But they are making a great mistake. We are not going to tolerate sabotage any more; we are not going to tolerate the enemies of Pakistan; we are not going to tolerate quislings and fifth-columnists in our State, and if this is not stopped, I am confident that your Government and the Pakistan Government will take the strongest measures and deal with them ruthlessly, because they are a poison" From one of his speeches Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly a reliable source. The general rule is this: a reliable source does not have to cite its sources at all. Therefore, we do not dismiss sources simply because we believe the reliable source is citing weak sources, except in the extraordinary case of us having another reliable source (such as a newspaper correction notice) directly saying that there is a problem with the cited source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok I accept that I didn't read this speech of Jinnah before, it will be useful if this speech is read completely, to understand the issue, since it is the one from which Manik concluded that he called anyone supporting Bengali as Communist, Traitor and enemy of state. --SMS 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Book used in Pantheism article by leader of pantheism movement

A question has arisen at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard about whether or not the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books) by author Paul Harrison (pantheist), founder of the World Pantheist Movement should be used as a source for the Pantheism article. The book is used for about a dozen facts, mostly about modern pantheism. The issue is whether the source is too much of a primary source; or is written by an author that is too much of a partisan. The DRN discussion has quite a bit of background information. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Harrison appears to only possess appropriate scholarly qualifications in geography and other humanities other than Theology or comparative religious studies—he isn't an appropriate expert regarding religion. Element Books appears to be a trade publisher with an interest in non-standard topics, rather than a scholarly comparative religious studies or theological publisher. I don't see why the work should be used at all, given that it appears to be the first publication of a unique theory that has received no scholarly attention (a defunct curriculum document, and a claim that pantheists believe "These aspects of @ tend toward divinity and inspire pantheism as ‘nature worship’ (Harrison 1999)." (10.1017/S0034412503006814 p70). The criteria commonly used to establish scholarly worth are: field appropriate research level qualifications; publication by a scholarly press who publishes in an appropriate field; recognition of a work other than the above in the appropriate field's scholarly review process (review and citation). This work was published by a writer with no field appropriate scholarly publications, it was published in trade by a less than esteemable publisher of non-fiction, and has received no attention in the literature. Pantheism is an article regarding a religious or philosophical opinion about the outside world; the standard for religious and philosophical articles is either scholarly expertise, or high level practicioner expertise ("professional Theologians" etc.) This work fails to meet those criteria. Given that the expectation that Pantheism be established in the context of philosophy, theology and comparative religious studies (all scholarly discourses), Harrison's works fail to meet the standard of reliability required for an opinion worth citing in Pantheism. Harrison should not be used in Pantheism, as Harrison's work lacks the capacity to possess a notable opinion, or to generate appropriate "facts." Harrison's work could be used regarding his own views on pantheism (for instance, on an article regarding Harrison), but only while avoiding Undue, (for instance, where popular criticism of Harrison (for example) draws attention to the importance or notability of specific elements of his views on pantheism. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Comics Database wikia reliability and use as a reference

I am wondering about the reliability of the Marvel Comics Database. Its a Wikia, and - on a lark - was able to sign up myself in about 30 seconds. Nott hat that means anything, but I'm not seeing a lot of editorial oversight or permanence. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone can create an account and edit then it fails as a reliable source. I thought wiki's were automatically failed as RS given anyone can edit them? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Darkness Shine's reasoning. A closed wiki with evidence of possessing an editorial policy equivalent to a traditional media object of an equivalent kind could be reliable. Almost all wikis are open, almost all wikis are not edited in an equivalent manner to a traditional media object. Of course, on top of this, a wiki would need to be relevant to the article, and the scope of the claim—even if the author and publisher were acceptable "generally speaking". Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if Marvel (and the rest of the big comic book companies for that matter) would gett off their posteriors and set up their own databases. I have a feeling there wouldn't be half the amount of retconning that currently goes on if some writer could actually read What Has Gone Before™. Sort of a "Bible", like tv series and the like. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be, or if the fan communities realised that if they want to cite their own work they need to establish proper editorial procedures to raise the standard of their works. There's nothing wrong with an open wiki, except when you try to cite it on wikipedia. As far as the absence of house bibles by the comic book houses—I think they value selling an exercise in interpretive hermeneutics, 24 pages at a time. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so much hermeneutics (though I get the reference, since we are talking about "bibles"), but rather revisionism. Considering the way that comics books treat women and anyone who isn't Caucasian, I'd even go so far as to term it misogynistic xenophobia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

India and state sponsored terrorism

On this article there is a dispute over the use of a book published by International Business Publications, USA. This publisher is a print on demand company, as can bee seen on their website and also on the Cambridge information Group site which ranks them alongside Books LLC AuthorHouse and other self publishing company's. Do books form this publishing house fall under WP:SPS? The book in question is India Foreign Policy and Government Guide, Volume 1 Here on Google books and no authors names are given. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the entire text, but a large chunk appears to be copied from here. It would be better to just use the US department of state source. If text is in question is not from the section copied from the US Department of State, I am fairly certain you will be able to find it somewhere more reliable on the web. Ryan Vesey 05:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Print on demand houses that publish without taking editorial responsibility are identical to other texts published by their author—they are self-published sources as the publisher printer has not editorially intervened into the text. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Page 102 and onwards in the source is what the content in question is cited to. Please read through the pages and check before commenting. The information in the source is entirely fact-based and reliable. The information is highly valuable for the India and state terrorism article. It does not appear to be SPS, as the filer of this thread seems to imply. Also, I do not believe that International Business Publications is the author of this work, I am quite sure it is written by someone else. International Business Publications is unrelated and is just a publication group. Mar4d (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the material in the source can also be found on this Daily Times article: ‘RAW very active against Pakistan’. Global Security (Globalsecurity.org), described as an "an authoritative US security and intelligence information group" based in Washington D.C. appears to be the author. So the information can stay in the article and be attributed to this group. Mar4d (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly makes Global security a reliable source? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And if they actually wrote this "RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement." then they are not reliable at all, pure conspiracy theory junk. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is far more reliable than the junk that you're supporting on Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Your standards as far as reliable sources are concerned are appalling, I must concede. Mar4d (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from commenting on myself and concentrate on the sources in question please. If you feel the sources being used on another article are not RS please start another thread. As i said, and source which writes that the Indian government hijacked an aircraft to frame kashmiri separatists is junk, please refute that. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d if you have some problem with the sources presented by Darkness Shines your action should not be to include another non reliable source in a different article, this discussion is about the source presented by you.--sarvajna (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse the momentary outburst there. It just came as a bit of a shocker to see a user who insists on academic sources all the time suddenly supporting the use of opinionative webpages as sources while at the same time challenging a notable source like Globalsecurity.org. Someone's seriously screwed up. Mar4d (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Mar4d continues to revert the SPS back into the article claiming he is now citing Globalsecurity.org, which anyone can see from the diff he is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Secret History of Star Wars by Michael Kaminski

This source appears to be self published and unverifiable outside of the owner's website. It is extensively used in the Star Wars articles, and I feel it might provide undue weight towards the author's bias.--203.29.131.98 (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is published by legacy books press who say they are not a vanity publisher, they seem to be to me :o) I am unsure of this publisher, I would have to say not RS given the lack of other books by the same author, anyone know who he is? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Of passing interest, the Legacy Books Press books section only lists four publications, one of which is co-authored by the domain owner. Maybe not a vanity press, but not exactly a mainstream publisher. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding Source to Gawain article

Hi I was just reading on a site and a book about Gawain and I just felt it might be necessary to add them, now the preview would be both of these

Gawain in early literature

In the Gesta Regum Anglorum of around 1125, William of Malmesbury records that Gawain's grave had been uncovered in Pembrokeshire during the reign of William the Conqueror, and writes that the great nephew of Arthur had been driven from his kingdom by Hengest's brother, though he continued to harry them severely.

Gawain is a major character in the Arthurian section of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) written in 1136, where he is a superior warrior and potential heir to the throne until he is tragically struck down by Mordred's forces, although, some sources claim it was by Lancelot in a duel. Several later works expand on Geoffrey's mention of Gawain's boyhood spent in Rome, the most important of which is the anonymous Medieval Latin romance The Rise of Gawain, Nephew of Arthur, which describes his birth, boyhood and early adventures leading up to his knighting by his uncle.[Citation | last = Day | first = Mildred Leake | author-link = | contribution = The Rise of Gawain, Nephew of Arthur | editor-last = Wilhelm | editor-first = James J. | title = The Romance of Arthur | volume = | pages = 365–366 | publisher = Garland | place = New York | year = 1994 | contribution-url =}} Cite book| last = Pyle| first = Howard| title = "King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table| publisher = Waldman Publishing Corporation| year= 1993| location = New York City, New York| pages = 238| isbn = 0-86611-982-5]

An influx of romances written in French appeared in the wake of Chretien’s works, and in these Gawain was characterized variously. He is the hero, sometimes he aids the hero, sometimes he is the subject of burlesque humor. In the Vulgate Cycle, he is depicted as a proud and worldly knight who demonstrates through his failures the danger of neglecting the spirit for the futile gifts of the material world. On the Grail quest, his intentions are always the purest, but he is unable to use God's grace to see the error in his ways. Later, when his brothers Agravain and Mordred plot to destroy Lancelot and Guinevere by exposing their love affair, Gawain tries to stop them. When Guinevere is sentenced to burn at the stake and Arthur deploys his best knights to guard the execution, Gawain nobly refuses to take part in the deed even though his brothers will be there. But when Lancelot returns to rescue Guinevere, a battle between Lancelot's and Arthur's knights ensues and Gawain's two sons and his brothers, except for Mordred, were killed. This turns his friendship with Lancelot into hatred, and his desire for vengeance causes him to draw Arthur into a war with Lancelot in France. In the king's absence, Mordred usurps the throne, and the Britons must return to save Britain. Gawain wages two wars between Mordred and Lancelot. He was mortally wounded in a duel with Lancelot who, it is said, lay for two nights weeping at Gawain's tomb. Before his death, Gawain repented of his bitterness and hatred towards Lancelot and forgave him."Arthur Man of the Ages". Retrieved August 08, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) The Middle Dutch Roman van Walewein by Penninc and Pieter Vostaert, and the Middle High German romance Diu Crône by Heinrich von dem Türlin are both dedicated primarily to Gawain, and in Wirnt von Grafenberg’s Middle High German Wigalois he is the father of the protagonist.

Gawain in English literature

For the English and Scots, Gawain remained a respectable and heroic figure. He is the subject of several romances and lyrics in the dialects of those countries. He is the hero of one of the greatest works of Middle English literature, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, where he is portrayed as an excellent, but human, knight. In The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, his wits, virtue and respect for women frees his wife, a loathly lady, from her curse of ugliness. Other important English Gawain romances include The Awntyrs off Arthure (The Adventures of Arthur) and The Avowyng of Arthur.

These glowing portraits of Gawain all but ended with Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, which is based mainly, but not exclusively, on French works from the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate Cycles. Here Gawain partly retains the negative characteristics attributed to him by the later French, and partly retains his earlier positive representations, creating a character seen by some as inconsistent, and by others as a believably flawed hero. Gawain is cited in Robert Laneham's letter describing the entertainments at Kenilworth in 1575, and the recopying of earlier works such as The Greene Knight suggests that a popular tradition of Gawain continued. The Child Ballads include a preserved legend in the positive light, The Marriage of Sir Gawain a fragmentary version of the story of The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle. He also appears in the rescue of Guinevere and plays a significant role though Lancelot overshadows him. Gawain appears in Tennyson’s “Passing of Arthur” as a frivolous figure who is held in contempt by Sir Bedivere. The character appears in a positive light in novels like Gillian Bradshaw's Hawk of May, Thomas Berger's Arthur Rex, Hal Foster's comic strip Prince Valiant, and Stephen R. Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle. He is also the subject of Harrison Birtwistle's and David Harsent's opera Gawain.Pyle, Howard (1993). "King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. New York City, New York: Waldman Publishing Corporation. p. 238. ISBN 0-86611-982-5. "Arthur Man of the Ages". Retrieved August 08, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Now if you read carefully,these two are reliable sources, of how Gawain died and I just wanted to pointed out a claim as there are many claims for Arthurian myths, however, these come from Geoffrey Chaucer's time,

Pyle, Howard (1993). "King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. New York City, New York: Waldman Publishing Corporation. p. 238. ISBN 0-86611-982-5.

and

cite web |url=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4186/Arthur/htmlpages/kingarthurlegendpeople.html%7C title=Arthur Man of the Ages |accessdate=August 08, 2012.

Although, I believe it was suitable for the article of Gawain, there is one user who believes his/her source was more reliable than any other, and I stated I would share different claims from the mythology, but the user eventually, booted out, but it was reliable, and I wish to use this source and voice the fact, and will not edit on the article. I did edit this back in June as was reliable, and I wish to know I do have the right to use these reliable sources for the article, correct from the notability.--GoShow (...............) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I know there are different stories from a false warrior whether Gawain died from Mordred or Lancelot in later writings, but still there are many tales of him in the article, as well with myths about King Arthur, himself, thanks--GoShow (...............) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, but I would not use Howard Pyle - he wrote mainly for children and doesn't seem to have any academic credibility. And definitely not a geocities.com webpage. Mildred Leake Day is a good source. Malory obviously says Gawain was killed by Lancelot at Dover, and there was a story about this skull being on display at Dover Castle.

Geoffrey of Monmouth (HRB) states that Gualguainus was slain in battle agains the forces of Modredus at the port of Rutpi (Richborough). What exactly is the dispute? Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, well alright that's it I was trying to find the name about a source to come up with Lancelot killing Gawain and ok it was Malory, if I could just find a source about Malory's story I'm hoping to use a source for this edit, not Geoffrey, I couldn't figure out the name thanks.--GoShow (...............) 15:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Try . Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely!! , and I will hope it will work for the article of Gawain, otherwise, thank you tremendously!--GoShow (...............) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Is a press release a reliable source for an extraordinary claim in a BLP?

Specifically, the WP article on Arnie Zimmerman states,

He has been called "one of the most significant contemporary artists working in ceramics today".

based upon a press release by the Rhode Island School of Design Museum of Art exhibiting his work. I looked for corroborating sources but didn't find any, but it isn't my area of expertise. The source seems somewhat promotional to me, but I don't have a strong opinion so brought it here. Ward20 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "has been called", you should name the source in-line. But it seems to be the wrong way to approach this. The best way is to get a good book about "contemporary artists working in ceramics today" and see what they say about his significance. TFD (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Press releases are not ideal sources and should be noted when used. Furthermore I take it the press release is promotional, and that is also important. If it is the only source you can find we should indicate that the source is a promotional press release. But actually if the promo material says he has been called this, there must be (or should be) a mainstream media source somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The press release from The RISD Museum of Art is the source of the partial quote:

The RISD Museum of Art presents Inner City, an epic narrative of urban growth, decay, change, and life itself, realized in clay by one of the most significant contemporary artists working in ceramics today—Arnie Zimmerman (American, b. 1954).

I've never edited this article nor am I familiar with literature about his work. While casually reading the article I noticed the source seemed to be marginal and wondered how to improve it. I agree with TFD above about the best way to deal with it and initially spent about a hour looking for such a source but I failed. Again, this isn't my thing so a better source may exist, I don't know. Another way is to attribute the source as a promotional press release but I'm not sure this meets WP:RS conventions. The third way I see is to tag it with a "better source needed" notation. A fourth way is to remove the material as not having a reliable source. I'm looking for opinions or suggestions about which way to go. Ward20 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Press releases are dignified forms of advertisement, and are promotional in nature; they are not to be considered reliable sources for a claim such as this about anybody, living or dead. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I really like that "dignified forms of advertisement". They are also a serious problem because some newspapers reprint them as though they were stories, and they end up being cited in articles as stories. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that press releases like this are primarily promotional in nature and prone to hyperbole. I wouldn't consider it worth using at all, especially for a puffed-up sentence like the one the OP quoted. Agree with Dougweller about press releases being a serious sourcing problem, especially when they are published by (otherwise reliable) journalistic outlets as "stories" without any significant contribution or, for that matter, afterthought, by the journalist writing the "story". It's really a cheap and lazy way to fill page space on a slow news day. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Tributes.com

Joan Gerber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is tributes.com a reliable source for saying Gerber died? I'm uncomfortable with sites like this, particularly for citing deaths. I looked at the about us page, and it didn't make me any more comfortable. The WP article is essentially almost devoid of references. There's an external link to another dubious source that also says she died. Their about page doesn't reassure me, either. Do two not-very-reliable sources make one reliable source? :-)

It appears there's very little secondary coverage of Gerber, despite her rather prolific career, so I've been unable to find your usual obituary in a mainstream newspaper.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the tributes.com will do. It seems that the page is simply a feed from the US social security index. It is probably her, but this is to all intents and purposes a public record with all the dangers of that, and so per BLP:PRIMARY should not be used. --Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable assessment to me, too. It gets somewhat more confusing because tributes.com doesn't say what index it is using, the official paid index, or one of the unofficial indexes. At least one of those unofficial indexes doesn't appear to corroborate the death date given by tributes.com.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Subscription-only site sufficient for BLP claim?

I am wondering about this edit to Bryan Alvarez. I keep the article on my watchlist because it is frequently vandalized. A claim was added that his wife cheated on him, she is now pregnant, and they are going to name the baby Jamal after his father. I removed it as unsourced the first time. It was added back with a subscription-only article as a reference. I removed it, as I was concerned about the BLP content, but it was re-added with a note that I was being cheap and should just subscribe to the site. Is the sourcing sufficient for this claim? The free content on the website is used regularly for sourcing in professional wrestling articles, but I have never seen the subscriber-only content used as a reference, let alone for a claim like this. I might be completely wrong here, so I thought I'd see what people had to say. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the "journalists" are the "editors" this looks like SPS to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Material like that should definitely not be added to a BLP without rock-solid sourcing. I would say not only to remove it, but notify admins to block the editor if they keep it up and lock down the article if IPs keep trying to add it. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

California Birth Index and WP:BLPPRIMARY

• Source in question: California Birth Index, http://www.familytreelegends.com, particularly the Emilie Fridges record here
• Article in question: Emilie Autumn, in particular this diff that attempts to add "Emilie Fritzges" as Autumn's birth name and increase her age by two years.
• Countered by secondary source: Allmusic bio

Background: There's a long-running dispute on whether Autumn's last name at birth is Fritzges; consensus as I understand it is the chain of coincidences is too weak to allow it. The new source added is a record at the California Birth Index, showing an Emilie Fritzges born on 9/22/77.

However, this is contradicted by the Allmusic bio about Autumn, which lists her date of birth as 9/22/79.

On one hand, my concern is still that there is a weak chain of evidence linking Autumn to that birth record. The bigger question is whether the birth record should be used at all, in light of WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

So, before we even try to weigh the merits of the two sources, should the California Birth Index be disqualified as a public record that violates WP:BLPPRIMARY? —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the California Birth Index would indeed violate WP:BLPPRIMARY and cannot be used in a BLP. The case is a perfect example of why this rule is needed. Editors are guessing that the birth record refers to the subject of the article, and that guess is based on a further guess at a last name. Even in much simpler situations, anybody who has done any genealogical research knows just how easy it is to get led down false trails of people with similar names and location. Citing this kind of original research is precarious any article but is thoroughly inappropriate in the bio of a living person. This recent post on a similar topic gives a great, much longer explanation of the dangers of using such primary sources. Slp1 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

California Birth Index as well as the Texas Birth Index are databases related to Ancestry.com and FamilyTreeLegends. These are among the most reliable of sources in regard to accurate birthdates. If these violate WP:BLPPRIMARY then no references should be allowed as reliable sources on Misplaced Pages, which would obviously not be beneficial. C. Fred mentions allmusic.com as a reliable source. That website as well as other musical artist bio websites are notorious for dubious incorrect information, so if any site should be considered a reliable source it would clearly be CA Birth Index. Kardthrow (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kardthrow, did you read the link I provided where another editor describes the problems of ancestry.com? If you read it you will see exactly why secondary sources are preferred to original research in such repositories of primary source records, especially so in a BLP. Regardless of your opinion of the relative reliability of these sources, WP only allows allmusic, per WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If you don't agree, you'll need to change the policies in place here. Slp1 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Kardthrow, I see you just created your account and immediately came here to comment. Are you the same person as User:Circumfrintz who was introduced the material sourced to FamilyTreeLegends? It is okay if you are, but you should be up front about it, per WP:SOCKPUPPET--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The California Birth Index is an extremely reliable source for the fact that a woman named Emily A. Fritzges was born in Los Angeles on 22 September, 1977. Drawing anything beyond that, such as who this Emily Fritzges went on to become, is original research, and it should be left for secondary sources to draw that conclusion. Respectfully, Kardthrow, I think you have missed the point of Fred's statement. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org

This source has been brought up in a thread above An editor wish's to use it to source some very contentious claims about Indian state sponsored terrorism. The webpage the content comes from is cited is here This webpage says "RAW allegedly executed a hijacking of an Indian Airliner to Lahore in 1971 which was attributed to the Kashmiris, to give a terrorist dimension to the Kashmiri national movement." which is pure conspiracy theory stuff. I do not see how a source which cites conspiracy theory's like this can be reliable for such contentious edits. I would like some neutral opinions on the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The website has been discussed multiple times at this board. Here are the three most recent . The conclusion seems to be that sometimes it is reliable (and significant) and sometimes not. They reprint things mostly, so it depends on the provenance of the material. --Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

1. hall p.2
2. Wilhelm, James J. (1994). "Arthur in the Latin Chronicles." In James J. Wilhem, The Romance of Arthur, p. 7. New York: Garland. ISBN 0-8153-1511-2.
3. hall p.3
4. Performance artist Captain Cox is described as "hardy as Gawin," and knows the Arthurian romances including "Syr Gawain"
5. Whiting, pp. 193-194

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution