Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:53, 6 November 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

The History Files

Hey Does Misplaced Pages considers The History Files (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/) as a Scholar work; of-course on history? 117.211.84.74 (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be tertiary. You could probably drill down to the sources using this. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

InddedIndeed, it is? From the very first swift look, the main sources mentioned by The History Files are worthy. Allow me to say that your comments under-explain what your're looking to highlight?

Thanks to you, I've just had a good look at WP:TERTIARY, and I end up concluding that Misplaced Pages encourage the use of scholarly tertiary sources.

Again, we're struck over the same -- Does Misplaced Pages considers The History Files (http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/) as a Scholar work; of-course on history? 117.211.84.74 (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you be more specific regarding how you would like to use the source? Which article? For what statements? Etc. My point was that although tertiary sources are ok, if we can provide a secondary source then that could be better. - Sitush (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable for history. The articles are introductory overviews, and there is no indication that they are all scholars. That's the general principle; if per Sitush you want to make a more specific enquiry we will consider it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's about page also notes that it accepts contributions from anyone.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, tertiary sources are acceptable; obituaries are commonly used in GA articles (and probably FA ones; didn't check). Whether they can be used depends on author, publisher and content cited. In this case the publisher is not an RS (seems pretty much close to user-generated content based on strong sources). I think we should directly use the sources they mention; the site is useful for research purposes, and looks good enough to be used in the external links section. Churn and change (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Easy guyz, easy! Sitush, thanks for the clarification; but, when content broadcasting is involved encyclopedia-wise, it has to be either way -- definitely not MUST but SHOULD (because the website is focused on a very single subject, History; unlike Misplaced Pages, which has a wider scope); at-least, I'm asking you to be specific.... let me explain, it's like whether the work is scholarly or not? We cannot apply dichotomy with subsets:- scholarly and fringe. The website is a single entity, and what I've asked is quite an easy one!

Itsmejudith, thanks for commenting; but when was the last time you read WP:TERTIARY? The article says, "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources.... (contd).... Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics...." 117.212.43.201 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the content seems quite updated! The job appears to be worthy, and the sources aren't unworthy; as Churn and change also end up observing. 117.212.43.201 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The questions of whether it is tertiary or not, or academic or not, areless important than the question of whether the source can be shown to have a reputation for fact checking, concerning the subject matter it is being cited for, therefore (1) the context IS important and (b) the most important point made so far is that this source seems to allow anyone to contribute. Is there any sign that controbutions are vetted in any way, and/or that the source is respected and cited by people who can be reasonably expected to know something about history?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, needs a bit exercise! Just a little disagreement Andrew, whether it's scholarly or fringe does matters; but so does the reputation for fact checking! Their about page mentions three points:- 1. "First, and least, many are drawn from news media and contain archaeology or science-based news on historical or prehistoric topics."....(contd).... 2. "Secondly, a few are reproductions of previously published material.".... (contd).... 3. "Thirdly, and most importantly, many features are contributions from individuals with an interest in, and some knowledge of, history. Anyone is welcome to submit material. Submitted material will be highlighted on the front page as a banner feature for at least seven days, and the author will be fully credited for their work, with their name appearing on the appropriate features index page, something that only happens for original material. The work must be your own, and not a direct copy of something that already exists." Now, it's very much evident from point 1 and 2 that the reputation of the sources does matters to them, and they take the job seriously by keeping things updated; so fact checking should be fine. But, point 3 is a bit tricky to resolve here? I think they does expect the chap to be familiar with the subject if he/she looks forward to ask for kind of an an edit request. Point 2 backs up that the work is definitely reviewed; so yes, there is sign that the contribution are vetted. 117.212.46.75 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning your second sentence, I did not say that being fringe does not matter. Being reliable matters more. We report fringe theories under some circumstances. Concerning your bigger point this situation can approached by asking whether any other sources treat this source seriously. That a source sees itself as serious is not enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, a number of the the sources used by them are good (as WP:PROF + WP:BIO may not be equal to WP:RS), and rest of the sources used by them are very good (WP:RS); though, not all the sources used by them are WP:RS, but no any such fringe theorists are cited.

The content remains updated, and the contributions are vetted if in case kind of an edit request is made.

BUT as Andrew asked, "whether any other sources treat this source seriously", I admit that I'm kind of struck here!

And, it would be real nice if we may some more participators, or else the good source may be derailed here? 117.212.42.125 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Andrew Lancaster, there does not seem to be much editorial oversight. Tom Harrison 13:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So, as per the consensus, this source fails to qualify under WP:Reliable; Hence, it cannot even be WP:ELYES; but, does the source qualify for WP:ELMAYBE? 117.207.190.151 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the section is archived with the continued silence of the admins over the WP:ELMAYBE issue; one may be inclined to assume that the source may have missed out on WP:ELMAYBE? 117.207.51.103 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz and poll results

Is this news article in Haaretz reliable for reporting the results of a poll without inline attribution to Haaretz or should it be attributed to Haaretz? nableezy - 22:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that every other RS that reports on it attributes it to Haaretz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG's statement is not correct. See for instance the Sydney Morning Herald news article that independently reports the poll with no attribution or even mention of Haaretz. Dlv999 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Crediting Haaretz as having first published the results is not equivalent to attributing it to Haaretz. For example, The Globe and Mail says the results were published in Haaretz, the leading Israeli newspaper. It later calls it the Dialog survey, attributing it to Dialog, not Haaretz. nableezy - 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Globe and Mail article, you'll see that it's full of "Haaretz said" and "Haaretz noted" and other stuff that makes it quite clear that they got their information from Haaretz and not the poll itself.

Here's a list of sources from the article talk page. Except for SMH which I missed, they all attribute the information about the poll to Haaretz. I didn't mean to say they claim Haaretz conducted the poll, but that they got the information from Haaretz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, and then what? The question is if we need to explicitly attribute a well-regarded newspaper for what they report as the results of a survey conducted by a third-party. nableezy - 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail, Guardian, Independent and everyone else who reported on it (except SMH) attributed it to Haaretz, why shouldn't we? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may, the Haaretz article is currently paywalled and I don't have a password at home. It looks as if it was conducted by a firm named "Dialog." Typically when reporting polling data, it's responsible to say who conducted the poll and on whose behalf. If dialog was hired by Haaretz, then it's appropriate to say "A poll by Israeli firm Dialog, contracted by Haaretz, found tktktk." If Haaretz was simply reporting the poll, no need to mention their name, though it's reasonable to say who the poll was paid for (if it wasn't simply conducted by Dialog on its own, as sometimes happens). If Haaretz were the first to publish a poll they didn't commission, that's irrelevant; don't mention Haaretz (the other papers are saying "according to haaretz" in that case because they haven't seen the poll themselves. If there's a question that Haaretz lied about the contents of the poll, that's another matter. I see no indication that's being asserted).Dan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz did not commission the poll, it was commissioned by the "Yisraela Goldblum Fund". nableezy - 01:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Haaretz has been accused for manipulations with the poll results. There are sources which testify that many of the conclusions reflected by journalist articles are not based on any poll itself, rather on original research of Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy who reported this poll. --Tritomex (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Could you please read WP:OR, and not apply it to what journalists do with their news sources? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Using a blog to attack an actual RS? Seen that once or twice before. nableezy - 16:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I "did not used a blog to attack reliable source" I wanted to point out that there are other opinions on this issue. Here is the articlkle from CAMERA-Committee for accuracy in Middle East reporting that states "Unsurprisingly, Levy’s article was full of omissions and distortions. He apparently ignored the data that did not suit him and emphasized those that were in accord with his own well-known anti-Israel world view. At times, he completely reversed the survey’s findings. The sensational headline represents, at best, Levy’s interpretation of the survey and does not represent objective, factual reporting. " Goldflam further explaines manipulations with both the results and with the question itself. Beyond Levy’s ignoring of the survey’s nuance, with his blanket assertion that Israel "practices apartheid against Arabs," are the problems inherent in the survey question itself – which Levy similarly ignores. What is "apartheid in some areas" or "apartheid in many areas"? The term "apartheid," contrary to its superficial use in the survey, and contrary to the concept of "discrimination" has a very clear and precise meaning: According to the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it refers to "an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."There is no such thing as "some" apartheid. There is either apartheid or no apartheid. Apartheid is not simply discrimination – the sort that exists in almost every country around the world including Israel, which is precisely why the term was created specifically to describe South Africa’s regime." In fact average people nowhere on earth have political education and the usage of foreign political terminology is always avoided in polls which are intended to be neutral. Considering the results ,Goldflam accuse Levy with serious manipulations and with direct misquoting of the results "Does the overall picture obtained from these results support Levy’s characterization of most Israeli Jews favoring discrimination against Israeli-Arabs? On the contrary. Most people reading these results would perceive just the opposite, that a majority of Israelis do not support discrimination against Arabs."

So the question is now, should Misplaced Pages quote an article which was described by other articles as misquoted and manipulative, present it as "absolute fact" without balancing this in order to achieve NPOV with the opinion from other sources like CAMERA. Or should this newspaper article which present entire nation as racist be avoided due to very serious allegations against the main editor of this sources. --Tritomex (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Giggle. CAMERA wants to attack a media outlet. Wopdee do. Haaretz on one side, CAMERA on the other. I wonder which is "reliable". You brought a blog and CAMERA, neither of which are reliable sources. No reliable source that I am aware of has said Haaretz has misrepresented the poll in any way. nableezy - 20:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the question is, "is this news article in Haaretz reliable for reporting the results of a poll without inline attribution to Haaretz or should it be attributed to Haaretz?" On the article talk page you wrote that CAMERA are "a highly specialized institution with a defined aim to promote journalistic accuracy", which is like saying Liu Yunshan's aim is to promote freedom of the press. This is meant to be an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and organizations like CAMERA don't get to decide which newspapers are reliable. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why we would not cite this source, but I lean towards attribution in such cases. My reasoning is that interpretations of such polls by journalists is often controversial and variable. There is often no "gold standard" single interpretation. So when editors find it hard to agree, then that seems a good enough reason to attribute.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If you suggest we attribute in this case, what about where two or more independent news reports agree on the details. For instance, the Sydney Morning Herald and Haaretz agree on details - do you think it is still necessary to attribute? Dlv999 (talk)

It depends on the case. I think no sensible general rule can be formulated for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Update - Haaretz issued a clarification stating: The original headline for this piece, 'Most Israelis support an apartheid regime in Israel,' did not accurately reflect the findings of the Dialog poll. The question to which most respondents answered in the negative did not relate to the current situation, but to a hypothetical situation in the future: 'If Israel annexes territories in Judea and Samaria, should 2.5 million Palestinians be given the right to vote for the Knesset?' In light of this amendment which makes clear the article relates to a very particular hypothetical situation, and not as first depicted across a variety of sources that were based on the original Haaretz story, attribution is a must, assuming that this material is considered notable enough for inclusion in the first place. Ankh.Morpork 20:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The hypothetical situation to which Israeli Jews responded on the negative — whether Palestinians should be given equal rights in case their ancestral lands were annexed by Israel — does imply that most of Jewish respondents support an apartheid policy, as affording unequal rights on account of ethnicity undoubtedly constitutes apartheid. The content should is therefore relevant for the entry. As there's no question as to whether "this material is considered notable enough for inclusion in the first place". Haaretz is itself a RS, and the story was picked up by a number of other notable, reliable sources (The Guardian, SMH, Christian Science Monitor, Times of Israel, and many non-English sources as well.) Guinsberg (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that A) This is a personal opinion B) This is an incorrect personal opinion C) The editor in question has been blocked for 72 hours. --Jethro B 22:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An editors block log in an unrelated matter is totally irrelevant to this discussion, please stick to discussing the source. Dlv999 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The salient points of the poll can be summarized as e.g. 1) most of the respondents said Israel practices apartheid, 2) most said Palestinians should be denied the vote if the WB were annexed and 3) 30% said Israeli Arabs ought to be denied the vote, these can be sourced at least from the Independent, Guardian and Telegraph sources. (The Telegraph doesn't have the last one, but does say most support preferential treatment to Jews in Israel). As far as I can see these can go in simply on the force of these three sources, with the criticism of the poll being handled as a separate manner when it's settled which criticism sources are reliable and which are opinion pieces. Point 2) is in-line with the new headline of the Haaretz piece, sidestepping the whole issue. I don't see a problem in saying the poll was published in the Haaretz. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this issue still live? I see no reason why the findings should have to be attributed to HaAretz -- it wasn't HaAretz's poll. This newspaper is unquestionably a reliable source for this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC) :I see no problem with using the poll,it comes from a reputable Israeli newspaper.No need for attribution either. Kabulbuddha (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC) blocked sock

Atlas Shrugged - Rotten Tomatoes user rating

I was asked to defer to here after going to WP:DRN.

As an easily skewed user poll, the user ratings of Rotten Tomatoes, which is considered RS as a critic rating aggregator, is explicitly discounted as a reliable source under MOS:FILM#Audience_response for film articles.

Except for the recently released Atlas Shrugged: Part II. Two editors, User:Jonathan Hemlock and User:Rahmspeed, have put in a lot of work to try and get that rating included. The whole thing looked like the fruit of political partisans - the user rating as much more charitable than the critics - so I went to DRN first. There was some feedback before I was sent here on the article talk page, but there's hardly the consensus that JH claims there is.

Most of the defense seems to revolve around this Fox News article that purportedly references the user rating. It doesn't. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments

I'm an editor brought in by another noticeboard. I'm unsure this is the appropriate venue for this discussion. Nobody in the discussion surrounding RT's user reviews are asserting that RT is a legitimate third party source nor that RT is supposed to be used as a general indicator of popular opinion. Instead the RT score is being highlighted by interested editors, along with the RS at Fox, as an unusual outlier in the review panorama of the film. It's essentially being used as a primary source on itself and carries the precedence of thousands of other Misplaced Pages film articles who routinely mention RT popular scoring. It should also be noted the the "prohibition", if you can call any guildline or manual of style such, against inclusion of RT user ratings is new and without established consensus, as indicated by the discussion page at the relevant MoS page. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but the quote from the article is "Part II has managed to pique the interest of the general public, with a 72 percent audience interest rating on Rotten Tomatoes." Personally, I feel that the box office gross says otherwise, but the main thing is it does not discuss the user rating. The way this is used as a source in the article is fine, but it does not justify the user rating, which is something different entirely.

As for the user rating conventions being controversial, they've been around for a couple years without too much of a fuss. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

One last thing - regarding a consensus to ignore the rule, as JH keeps insisting we do in this case, I couldn't find more than three editors really pushing for it before I put out notices, and editors more active in film articles did step in to try and remove the rating. I asked JH to point out the people supporting him...I think he's too mad at me right now to talk. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the discussion on the film MOS you're referring to this? If so, it looks like the discussion didn't go very far, and it seems that they pointed out a alternative, and reliable, means to report user ratings is CinemaScore. Jonathanfu (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The siteshows scores for many recent releases, but Atlas Shrugged 2 is not one of them. I wonder if anyone on Wikiproject Film would have a subscription to their service. Jonathanfu (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

RT scores are frequently mentioned in entertainment news and could be mentioned, as well as any comment on the score in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

FMEP

Is this partisan "nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples" which publishes reports "containing analysis and commentary" a notable source when not referred to by independent sources, and a reliable source for I-P related topics that it be used for making third-party claims? Ankh.Morpork 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source can be an individual. AnkhMorpork has repeatedly removed an article by Nathan Brown. Brown is professor in international relations at George Washington University with a specialty on Middle East politics. Author or editor of such books as:

• The Dynamics of Democratization: Dictatorship, Development, and Diffusion Johns Hopkins University Press 2011
• Between Religion and Politics Carnegie Endowment 2010
• The Struggle over Democratization in the Middle East Routledge 2009
• Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords: Resuming Arab Palestine University of California Press 2003
• Constitutions in a Nonconstitutional World: Arab Basic Laws & the Prospects for Accountable Government SUNY Press 2001
• The Rule of Law in the Arab World: Courts in Egypt and the Gulf Cambridge University Press 1997
• Peasant Politics in Modern Egypt Yale University Press 1990

He has repeatedly been published in peer-reviewed journals. I invite anybody to review this. this, and this and tell us if they think Professor Brown is a reliable source for the material repeatedly removed by AnkhMorpork as being by a "non-RS". nableezy - 19:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that rambling verbiage; I asked a query about the FMEP and your incoherent babbling about Nathan Brown is totally irrelevant. I await some independent and well-considered responses. Ankh.Morpork 19:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you asked about an organization to back up your attempt to remove a renowned expert in the field whose analysis happens to dispute your favored narrative. The source you are removing is Brown, and people should understand what it is that you are trying to use this for. nableezy - 19:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trolling this noticeboard. I asked a question whether the Foundation for Middle East Peace is a self-published source and yet you persist in making ludicrous allegations regarding my supposed motives and babbling about an unrelated discussion. I do not share your obsession with "Mr Nathan Brown" and am posing a general query about this group - kindly refrain from injecting your personal theories and assuming conspiratorial meaning and motive in my question. Ankh.Morpork 20:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on its context, and the context here is you repeatedly removing a renowned expert in the field to remove anything that disputes that "Palestinians are bad people" narrative that you have spent the majority of your time promoting. nableezy - 20:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

THIS IS A GENERAL QUERY AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "NATHAN BROWN". I would like to know whether this is a self-published source that can be used for third party claims. That is all. Ankh.Morpork 20:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

RS/N is used to determine if a particular source is reliable for a particular fact. And the particulars here, made evident by your recent edits, is your attempt to remove what one source called an authoritative study on the topic you are removing it from. nableezy - 20:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, Nableezy has a point. Please see the instructions at the top of this noticeboard about how to post here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. You challenged the FMEP on the Yanun page three months ago, and got nowhere, because it is self-evidently a research and policy organ of recognized status in Washington. It is a significant middle of the line Wahington think tank that has been widely praised by numerous policy wonks and American state department officials for the quality of its reportage. Trying to dismiss its annual reports as 'self-published' is pointless. It publishes papers from top American foreign policy experts and academic analysts of the Middle East. The quality of their work speaks for itself. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at their frontpage, and it shows us everything we need to know about this foundation. It's interests clearly aren't to promote peace in the Middle East and act non-partisanly, and it's a completely one-sided organization. On their homepage, 9/9 links in their middle column all deal with Israel in a negative light or attacking settlements. 6/6 latest additions also all deal with Israel or their elected government in a negative light. Both of their "special reports" tabs also deal with Israel, although I can't see the content, since it says that the content doesn't exist. On their left tab, they have a section with maps of Israel from 1947-2012, to allegedly show "the growth of Israel’s occupation and settlement project from the 1967 War to the present," a section called "Settlement database," a section called "Settlement freeze," a section with a report they write about settlements, and then an events section. And that's it.

To deny that there aren't other issues in the Middle East regarding conflicts and peace is silly - what about that "thing" going on in Syria, where tens of thousands have been killed? Or that "thing" in Iraq? Etc etc. Not a single thing on their frontpage about it. OK, so even if they don't focus on the rest of the Middle East, fine. But their focus on Israel is solely to attack it or issue reports about settlements. They also fund Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, which is a one-sided anti-Israel organization.

It's clear where the foundation's line lays. They are one-sided and biased, and are obsessed with Israeli settlements, leading them to publish tons of reports on them and dedicate all their resources to it, while not focusing on anything on the Palestinian side to bring peace. In fact, I wouldn't even call them pro-Palestinian, as I don't see anything on their website to indicate that - they're just obsessed with Israel and settlements. And while that's perfectly OK for an organization to have, it doesn't make them into a reliable source to be used on Misplaced Pages. It makes them a biased advocacy organization. --Jethro B 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You have said that you think CAMERA can be used if attributed. Yet FMEP is one-sided and biased and a biased advocacy organization whose frontpage shows everything need to know. FMEP hosts sources which may or may not be reliable. When they host a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in PNA schools that paper is reliable as it is authored by an expert in the field. But please try to find a more consistent approach in your evaluation of sources. That would be awesome. nableezy - 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have never said such a thing. I wrote "as far as I'm aware." Please refrain from twisting my words. That's just not awesome. If what I wrote isn't the case, which you said afterwards, then there really isn't any contradiction. --Jethro B 01:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Will someone please explain the context of what types of wordings are being sourced to this disputed source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Their personal reports that "contain analysis and commentary" on I-P topics. Ankh.Morpork 08:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That is still too general. Please give real examples relevant to the discussion above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor does not want to specify the context, because they are going to try to use this discussion as a pretext for deletion of material cited to this source irrespective of context. Dlv999 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

it seems to me that they are a think-tank/blog status organization. no editorial board/oversight, etc. - they are committed to a particular line. so, as usual, they can be used for their own opinion, but not for facts. if they produce a report that is picked up in RS, then fine. but otherwise.... no. why are they different than an academic research institute like ngo monitor. jcpa, etc.? Soosim (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think there is any WP community consensus that there is such a thing as a "think tank/blog" status. Think tanks are quite different from blogs, and think tanks and blogs both have wide ranging reputations for reliability. To repeat: please see the procedure at the top of this noticeboard. For sensible discussions, context should be clear. Broad generalizations are often very misleading.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the context is simple. AnkhMorpork had repeatedly attempted to delete a paper by Nathan Brown on textbooks used in schools run by the Palestinian National Authority. That paper had been hosted on FMEP, though I cant find it there now. Nathan Brown is a well known and respected academic specializing in Middle East politics, and he has written extensively on the subject of Palestinian textbooks. AnkhMorpork, on the basis of FMEP being a supposedly "non-RS", repeatedly removed that paper, absurdly calling it a primary source because it wasnt repeated by a newspaper. Note how he is asking for views on their personal reports. Of course he wont tell you what those personal reports are, because if somebody brought an academic paper authored by somebody of Nathan Brown's stature they would be laughed out of this noticeboard. So instead of actually answering the repeated request to specify what source is being challenged, you get these obfuscations as seen above. That is the context of this request, and it is plainly evident to anybody who looks at this, this and this. nableezy - 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the personal reports I was referring includes their "Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories containing analysis, commentary, maps, and other data on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." which are self-published. Ankh.Morpork 16:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the NYTimes self-published? nableezy - 17:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork unless I am missing something I do not think this source (FMEP) is what we normally call self-published on WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

By that, I mean not referred to by independent main-stream sourcing. Ankh.Morpork 17:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you were re-defining the words to mean other things than everyone would understand? So this whole conversation is meaningless?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, what fun. "Crowd-sourcing" the reliability of publications. 1. Nathan Brown is a renowned scholar, and everything he writes should be considered reliable. I'm pretty sure his initial paper was published in Teaching About Terrorism , a book issued by the Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish Education (a bit on the background of that organization is here ). That FMEP also hosted his paper is neither here nor there. If you don't have access to a library with Brown's paper, email him; he's a good egg, sure he'd send you a copy. Should every paper/scrap of data hosted by FMEP be treated as ipso facto reliable? No. The group had a good reputation for care in its data, but it's always best to consider scholarly writing or factual claims on their merits. Their maps on the growth of settlements are widely accepted as accurate. An effort to exclude all publications/information that appears on its website on the grounds of "unreliable" should be treated as the transparent bit of gamesmanship that it is.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good overview from Brown on Palestinian education and misconceptions about textbooks from 2001 (I suspect, but don't know, that it's largely the same as the paper in CAJE and that used to be hosted at FMEP). . The paper was prepared for the Adam Institute's (Jerusalem) 2001 conference on "Attitudes towards the past in conflict resolution."Dan Murphy (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There were 2 papers by Brown about this, Democracy, History, and the contest over the Palestinian Curriculum was the second. nableezy - 17:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, your devotion to Nathan Brown is very endearing but nobody in this thread has yet questioned his credentials, and it is on a different issue that I seek clarification. Ankh.Morpork 18:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What issue then? Is this author the one you do not want used on WP or not? If he is then you can not separate him from the material he wrote. You appear to be avoiding issues and trying to score on technicalities? If you can define your case properly there can be a proper discussion, otherwise we are going nowhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I have no interest in Nathan Brown. The amount of psychic powers claimed in this thread make his namesake, Sylvia appear almost mundane in comparison. My question relates to FMEP's personal data and publications regarding settlements that have not been referred to or corroborated by independent sources. Can the herd please stop bleating "Baaaarown, Baaaarown" and attempt to address the actual query. Ankh.Morpork 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Asked and answered, both in the abstract (see below) and with a request that you specify which personal data and which article it is used in. You havent answered that request yet. nableezy - 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Either name a specific publication/news article/book/etc... you're seeking an opinion on (I rather doubt you have anything specific in mind) or stop your bleating. You have yet to mention any specific source, or any specific wikipedia article, or any specific edit. Short of these things, general advice is to treat FMEP as reliable as most researchers and reporters do.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So you leap from professing to know my exact intention to supposing that in fact there's none at all? Can the herd stop bolting from one direction to the other, and instead stand still and ruminate on what's being said. The settlement content for the settlement articles is the ambit of my query; I could name a specific statistic for a specific article if it would make any difference. Seeing as you imply it might, please clarify in which context you would consider FMEP unreliable. Ankh.Morpork 19:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please identify something specific. Which settlement content? What specific statistic? As I've said, the organization has a good reputation for accuracy and integrity. That said, I can imagine a host of reasons why a specific citation connected to FMEP in some way or another might be problematic (out of date, something that was subsequently proven by further research to be wrong, an opinion piece hosted at their site written by an individual who has a poor track record for accuracy or honesty are a few possibles off the top of my head). But in general, their work has stood the test of time as high-quality. Professionals consider a range of issues when deciding to trust or use research. The first step for considering a specific piece of work is considering the reputation of the organization or organizations to which it's attached. That first step has already been taken in this case (verdict: pretty good reputation among professionals). The second step )"what about the specific document in question?") can not be taken until the document is identified. So what document would you like an opinion on?Dan Murphy (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask a specific question about what source, for what purpose, in what article if you'd like a specific answer. As to the general question of "should FMEP be treated as a reliable source" the answer is: "In most cases, yes."Dan Murphy (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This source fails under questionable sources category as it have quite clear some set goals and thus conflict of interest concerning those goals according to WP:RS.So it general it couldn't be used as reliable source in Misplaced Pages but of course there maybe some special cases for example if used in article about itself or quoted in secondary sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Shrike the organization's stated goals that you say constitute a "conflict of interest" that makes it "unreliable" are the following: "The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) is a nonprofit organization that promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples." So, yes, they support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is such a main-stream general starting point as to be banal (putting them, as it does, in a tent that includes Bibi, Abu Mazen, Ronald Reagan, the Dali Lama, Bruce Springsteen, and a majority of scholars of the Middle East, from across the ideological spectrum). I have never seen the organizations work credibly called into question. I am unaware of major falsehoods and fabrications ever being uncovered in any of their research. They are serious people, doing serious work, who take their reputations for fairness and accuracy seriously. An argument, with actual facts being brought to bear, would need to be made to demonstrate the outside Misplaced Pages consensus on this organization is wrong. What a madhouse!Dan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And all the work that they do is to promote peace and a 2 state solution, which is done by obsessing over settlements and bashing Israel. In this way, they are exactly like Netanyahu and Reagan etc, who bash Israel and settlements in order to create a 2 state solution. C'mon, the stated aim of an organization doesn't make it true. --Jethro B 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I have never seen the quality of their facts and basic research called into question. It is generally accepted as top-shelf work by professionals. There is an implied assertion by the pro-settlement editors on this thread that their evil support for a two-state solution (horrors!) somehow negates the reliability of research that is generally accepted by professionals outside Misplaced Pages as reliable. And that's a crazy assertion. It's basically about manipulating tortuous internal Misplaced Pages "crowd-sourcing" logic to disqualify facts (not opinions) that some would prefer didn't exist.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous by the byte. FMEP hosts a number of things, some may be reliable, some may not be. If somebody actually has a specific article that they would like to challenge then by all means, bring it here. What wont happen is that a collection of involved users banding together to force a game a pretend "consensus" at RS/N that it is a "questionable source" or "unreliable". Bring the actual source that you would like to challenge and exactly what it is being cited for. Otherwise this is just a waste of time. nableezy - 20:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, any pro-active "foundation" or organization with an open unapologetic one way PR and spin agenda cannot possible be a source for WP:RS. At best, perhaps, if it is part of actual events themselves in the real world it can be pointed to as saying "According to publications from foundation XYZ that says such and such and so and so" or it could be used in a "See also" section in an article. But it's certainly not a neutral reliable source regardless if it is from CAMERA, FMEP or any other such set-up that has an obvious propaganda purpose. This is unlike newspapers and the media, that while they may have prejudices focus mostly on reporting events rather than spending their time raising funds and being paid off by donors who call all the shots in foundations. IZAK (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, that is nonsense. FMEP and CAMERA are not in any way analogous. Again, FMEP hosts a number of things. Some of those things may be reliable, and some may not be. And sources are not "neutral". nableezy - 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That level of generalization is useless. See the procedure at the top of the page of this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is something that needs to be established with reference to Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources. That FMEP fails in that regard has nothing at all to do with a perceived bias among a perceived "band" of editors. If anything, the energies being invested here to try and demonstrate that there is a group of editors "banding together" for anything more likely than not is the result of a real and destructive bias on the part of those editors trying to impute bias to other editors with whom they don't see eye to eye and whom they'd much rather see banned from the Project than have to actually deal with the substance of their arguments. Enough with the red herrings. Is RMEP a partisan think tank operating with a defined political agenda? Yes. Is the material it publishes peer-reviewed? No. Is there an editorial board that monitors FMEP.org's output? No. Is some of the stuff published at FMEP.org reliable? Possibly; if the author of the material is an expert in the field, then there are circumstances in which the material can be used with attribution and in consideration of WP:UNDUE. Can FMEP in general be considered a reliable source for facts in the same way that we consider the New York Times and the National Geographic Society reliable sources for facts? No, it cannot; at best, it can be considered a reliable source for its own opinions.—Biosketch (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of that simply is not true. Geoffrey Aronson, an expert on Israeli settlements, is editor of the Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There has been exactly zero evidence that this organization is anything that several people have claimed, only the usual cries from those who will regularly cite JCPA or MEMRI as though it were second nature that any source that, gasp, reports on Israeli violations of international law is "biased" and "not-neutral" and "unreliable". And people still havent given an example of a specific source and where it is used. When FMEP reports that the population of settlers in Beit El grew by 28% between 2000 and 2007 thats a fact. Not an opinion. And there has been zero evidence given that this fact is anything other than accurate. But no, even recording that fact makes an organization a biased propaganda outlet. nableezy - 04:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - it is only fact if the proof is from some reliable agency - gov't or otherwise. they are not reliable for population growth statistics (unless they are quoting from somewhere else, in which case, the 'somewhere else' might be the RS - or not.) Soosim (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally an example we can actually comment on in a way relevant to this noticeboard: I notice that The New York Times cites statistics from "Geoffrey Aronson, director of research and publications and an expert on Israeli settlements at the Foundation for Middle East Peace in Washington". This implies that the statistics Nableezy points to have a reputation for reliability in a recognized third party publication. Whether Wikipedian private opinions agree or disagree with the NYT is beside the point. BTW, WP does not necessarily see government figures as perfect for all uses either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note http://www.fmep.org/reports with some well known people apparently vouching for this data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is simply another of the multitude of NGO's that espouse a distinct position, and cannot be relied upon to objectively present material pertaining to I-P matters. There does not appear to be any editorial overview and they openly declare their Middle East "vision" on their website. They should not be used for I-P issues unless where referred to by a reliable third party source. Opportunidaddy (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have no knowledge of these matters but just following the links here this particular organization seems to be widely recognized as a source for statistics? Recognition matters for RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the organization has a very, very good reputation for accuracy in its statistics and factual reporting. Their settlement and general historical data are treated as rock solid on these matters by every news organization that covers Israel and Palestine (including my own). Their work is frequently cited by scholars . This discussion is quite frankly astonishing.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That is your view, Dan, but what is not clear is whether you have a very, very good reputation for accuracy in factual reporting. For instance, how would you reconcile this edit summary with your recent comment? The general standards that have been applied to sources relating to I-P topics have been to exclude those with an obvious political standpoint and a conflict of interest in line with "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." A host of pro-Israel NGO are avoided for this reason (without any inaccuracies proven) as you well know, and some consistency is expected. And this is without considering FMEP's editorial overview. Ankh.Morpork 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You are an anonymous propagandist playing a game, using Misplaced Pages's weak standards against it. If one uses the standards of the real world of research and accountability, one sees that no case has been made at all. Almost every individual or organization on the planet has a point of view. How they manage their point of view while conducting research and how they conduct the research itself is what matters. "General standards?" I know not "general standards." This organization does reliable work in general. Others do as well. And still others do not.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, a quote from policy. Lets go through that. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." First, a poor reputation for checking facts. Has such a reputation been established? Im sure any of the large number of sources citing FMEP would like to know. Second, meaningful editorial control. The NYTimes called the editor of the Settlement Report an expert on Israeli settlements. Last, an apparent conflict of interest. What pray tell is FMEP's conflict of interest? I had no idea they were an involved party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or that they had some sort of fiduciary responsibility to one of those parties. But perhaps you can enlighten us. nableezy - 22:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FMEP is clearly a partisan advocacy source, with a defined political agenda. It does not have the kind of editorial oversight that a peer-reviewed journal, university publishing house, or even a popular newspaper would have. It is reliable only for its own opinion, not for facts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely unsupported assertions without basis in Misplaced Pages policy. nableezy - 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::: I think that the website is fine,it is stating factual evidence as far as I can see and carries articles by various authors including Israeli academics.Kabulbuddha (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC) _{blocked sock}

excuse me propaganda groups ar terrible sources for info on the topic that they propagandise about. who sets the standards? nobody! If the info is relevant then other proper sources will have talked about it in a proper manner with context. this source is not to be trusted as wp:rs says. Dave Eggersly (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that this is one blocked editor responding to another with the opposite POV. I guess that says something about where this discussion and the several related ones that started at the same time are at.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a source, redux

Sorry, I didn't mean for people to have to weigh in on what they think happened in Houla. Briefly: should the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung be considered an important or reliable source in Misplaced Pages? Thanks in advance, -Darouet (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's one of Germany's leading newspapers, and is clearly a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's slightly on the conservative side of the spectrum, but has one of the best reputations of any newspaper in Germany, and a strict policy of separating reporting from opinions. I'd accept it as a RS comparable to the New York Times or Le Monde. The usual caveats apply (don't use opinion pieces, every source can make occasional errors, check for retractions...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

For political issues, which yours is, as others have already mentioned it is an RS. However, for political stories in a war often the first version reported changes are reporters and others learn more. This rarely ever is published as a correction or a retraction; newspapers just print new articles containing the new facts they know and their new perspective. The disconnect between the Zeitung and other sources may partly be from that. Der Spiegel has published a report here. Personally, I would say an encyclopedia should not include this material until we have enough secondary sources covering the issue, and that will take time. These newspaper reports based on witness accounts are primary sources by our definition. I realize there is little chance of stopping people from putting current events in, so the primary/secondary source debate is useless. Churn and change (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In general FAZ is a RS, but I agree with C&C above as per it's specific usage here. a13ean (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as it is a main stream German newspaper.Kabulbuddha (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock

Yes, it is rs, in the same category as the NYT and English broadsheets, and you should use it in the same way as other high qualitiy newspapers. TFD (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Carl Robert Katter as a political advocate

The lead of the Carl Robert Katter article currently states that he is a "political advocate for many issues including LGBT rights, better education, public transport, sustainable development, access to housing, protection of our environment, a low carbon economy and better health services." The reference provided is from The Age, but it is quoting Katter himself. "I'm not a one issues person. I'm very passionate about access to public housing," etc. My question is, is he a reliable source for the issues on which he is an advocate? It seems that everyone in the world would be an advocate of "better education", and that this is just political rhetoric. But I've discussed it on the article talk page with the article creator and haven't seemed to get anywhere. Please help. StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead needs no citations because it is a summary of the body text, and the citations should be in the body text. That Katter is an advocate of LGBT rights is substantiated in the text. That he advocates the rest is not, and the citation in the lead can only be used to support the attributed statement "Katter states he is an advocate for better education, public transport . . ." Churn and change (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

From the brief quote, he does not say that he is an advocate of anything other than LGBT rights, just that he is "not a one issues person". Presumably all he means is that he has opinions on various issues, not that he advocates for them. TFD (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy

When checking Good articles with old cleanup tags I came across Sibyl de Neufmarché, which has had sources to the above website tagged as unreliable since November 2010. I found an old discussion here Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Foundations - Journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy regarding a journal from the same group. The links are and they are used to source seven different statements. The author is cited as Charles Cawley and some other citations from the same author from a different source have also been tagged. It has been brought up at the talk page, but it would be good to get an opinion from someone who knows a bit more about reliable sources so we can either remove the tags, find new sources or delist the article. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As you mention, this has been discussed a few times. I think there was no simple consensus, and generally we should consider exact examples of sourcing not generalize about all possible uses of a source. But perhaps the following is an acceptable summary of positions I recall from various people including myself:

• The website itself is clearly a bit more than just someone's personal website. It is connected to a journal, and no one seems to have clear complaints about the quality of information on it. Nor do I recall anyone proving that this type of information is easily available somewhere else.
• Because the journal and its associated database of medieval genealogy is a not an academic one, but rather one run by volunteers, and contributed to people who are not all historians by training, it is not considered an extremely strong source. (I think further study could be done to see whether the journal gets much citation, but OTOH, medieval genealogy is not necessarily a big academic subject to begin with. So I doubt much will be found. But to name an academic in this field: "Keats Rohan".)
• The typical advice in such cases is that such sources are better than nothing, but caution should be exercized for anything unusual and surprising or controversial.
• The information is largely collections of primary material. While this can certainly be useful in many editing contexts, especially if you also have secondary information to add to it, this is a disadvantage in the sense that we have no modern historian helping us understand how to interpret the old documents. This means that we should tend to attribute the raw data rather than take as clear and obvious "according to a medieval document from a Coucher Book of the Abbey of Furness...". Many old records are simple, but for any that are a bit complex, and really needing interpretation, caution should be exercized as usual with any primary material.
• A useful thing about this source is that it provides reasonably clear referencing to primary sources. This can help people to find not only the primary sources, but also perhaps any stronger secondary sources. It is always going to be better to add secondary sources to any discussion using primary sources. (Medieval sources are not obvious and simple to interpret.) But remember WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and also remember that deleting mention of primary sources is not required by WP:RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent summary, Andrew. Andrew Dalby 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is being brought up again. Haven't editors better things to do than conduct witchhunts against GA articles. Mayhap work on improving all the pathetic little stubs that litter Misplaced Pages like drowned mushrooms. FFS, Misplaced Pages is cutting off one testicle to pander to the other.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very comprehensive. So from a practical point of view we should look for better sources first, if none are found and the statement is not deemed too controversial attribute it to Cawley (or to the source he is using) or for controversial statements possibly remove the source and information altogether. There of course will be differing opinions on what is considered too controversial, but that could be worked out on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is a reliable source. Also if any of the facts mentioned on the site have been overlooked by historians, then they are too unimportant to include, per WP:WEIGHT. We should not use primary sources without validation from secondary sources, because it is often a matter of judgment whether the person mentioned in the source is the same person as the subject of the article, i.e., it requires original research. TFD (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh so we then remove information which is useful to readers just because some professor with a PhD hasn't given it his or her royal seal of approval. At this stage trying to write anything longer than a stub here is like attempting to fly a fighter jet on cat piss. And the train wreck rolls on.............--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

TFD. Whether to have an article about an historical person is another subject. I would tend to agree that if we have an article and the notability of the subject is contended, that editors defending the existence of the article should be able to point to more than just primary sources. But I do not know if this is really a concern in any actual examples? My general remarks above assume that we have a valid article and someone is asking whether the named webpage can be used to give it more material. I think the answer will often be yes, but it depends on the case. I see no problem using primary sources in many types of article, and indeed focusing artificially on secondary comments could end up turning an article about a minor figure or event into a literature review about whatever fringe essayists have said about them. But we should really discuss practical examples.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to leave our community if you find yourself unable to abide by the consensus. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is this invitation directed at Fifelfoo? I see that for once your comments are refreshingly brief and you've spared us the lengthy drivel you are normally wont to post here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not resorting to personal attacks. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OT: Jeanne and Fifelfoo I am confident both of you have similar goals here, but just hitting the subject from different directions. It is of course very easy to get worried about the intentions of others, and very understandable. Of course we do not want "witch hunts" which delete material just because of anything unusual about a source, and of course we do not want editors just ignoring reliability of sources as an aim of all editing on this project.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think notability of the whole article is a concern. If I am reading TFDs comment correctly I think they are saying that if the only source of information for a particular fact comes from these sources then they are not important enough to mention in the article. My current concern largely lies in making sure articles rated as Good are at the required standard. Any article, rated good or not, with sources tagged as unreliable deserves further investigation, not to be ignored (especially as these have been tagged as such for two years). So we can either decide here that the sources are reliable for the information they present and remove the tags or decide that they are not and look for replacements. I don't actually want to delist the article, otherwise I would have simple opened up a reassessment and be done with it. However, it would be much easier to sort this out if there was a bit more of a collaborative effort from the main authors. AIRcorn (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are seven sources which are attributed to Cawley published by either the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy or Medieval Lands (although one has no publishing details - something that needs to be fixed up as a minimum). They are used to support thirteen statements. Some of these have other citations that appear beside them, although whether they alone are enough to support everything cited will have to be investigated. I was hoping for some general advice on how to approach this, but if you want we can list individual cases here and work our way through them one-by-one. AIRcorn (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Having a look at the 7 references it does seem that not all the tags are equally well justified or difficult to fix, so generalization beyond the above is not necessarily the highest priority. For example one points out concerns an incomplete citation which should certainly be improved. Another questions a basic fact about an historical figure with his own WP article that seems to have its own list of sources and seems to concur. In normal editing I would suggest that some talk page discussion is likely to be fruitful.

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but I just want to express a difficulty I have, because maybe others share it and someone can help me find the right approach. I personally find discussions about what is RS for a GA article often get a bit distracting/difficult on this noticeboard, because there is no RS policy especially for GA articles. As a result, our standard of reference often tends to become a bit unclear in practice.

• If the standard is simply the normal RS policy then the implication of questioning the RS status of a source is that a source is unacceptable in a simple and general way, which I think would be a controversial call in this case, as explained above.
• If the question is "can the sourcing be improved" then obviously it nearly always can.

Of course in theory GA judging uses the normal policies as a reference point, but in reality, (at least the way it seems to me) the GA process is something quite separable from normal WP editing, and in practice often working according to different aims. In this particular case, for example, I guess it would imply that we should be more critical of tags themselves, and not only sources. From the point of view of normal editing I would not normally think it a good idea to delete either those tags (at least some of them) or the sources they question. From the point of view of judging this article as GA or not, it is perhaps more of a dilemma. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The application of the Good article criteria is a bit subjective and reviewers will interpret the criteria slightly differently. According to the criteria references are only needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The "likely to be challenged" part allows a lot of leeway to the reviewer to ask for references. However, one of the criteria is also that there should be no valid maintenance tags. As not all tags are valid to the criteria this can be a little contradictory (tagged deadlinks is one I usually ignore when cleaning up articles). From reading the above there could be an argument made in this case that the sources themselves don't strictly fall foul of the GA criteria, but the presence of the tags themselves may. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, this source raises emotions on both sides. It is a great resource for beginning articles, especially on medieval women and on other family members whose notability has in the past slipped under the radar of historians. There are very many such people, and because Misplaced Pages isn't paper we can begin such articles and watch them develop from there. I would strongly disagree with anyone who argues we shouldn't, and I could cite many cases of articles begun in that way that have blossomed.

I'd say that by the time an article reaches "good" or "featured" it should be citing other sources (including the ones that Cawley cites) and the reference to Cawley should be in the external links. There may be exceptions, and there may be cases where Cawley's opinion on an issue needs to be mentioned in the notes, but that would be my general rule of thumb. Andrew Dalby 09:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Now commenting on one of Andrew Lancaster's points: the tagging issue is crucial because references to Cawley's work have been unified by a bot and they all carry a tag. It took me some weeks of dogged argument to change the tag and make the change stick, and even the revised tag makes it unlikely (I suspect) that an article referring to Cawley would pass GA. One can see why Jeanne, in an earlier discussion, called this a "crusade", though to the bot owner I guess it was just a bit of tidying up. The whole painful business certainly put me off working on en:wiki (but I can just go back to Vicipaedia and lick my wounds).

Looking again at Sibyl de Neufmarché, however, I see that the "self-published source" tags are separate from the precise (or not-precise-enough) references to Medlands pages. The "self-published source" tags can be removed. An earlier discussion here concluded, touch wood, that this is not a self-published source. That might help slightly! Andrew Dalby 10:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes and after looking at it just VERY quickly the article sourcing can easily be improved by anyone worried about high standards, and if everyone working according to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM then this discussion would seem a little silly. I will prepare some notes on it, but it does not take long to confirm that whoever added the Cawley references did improve Misplaced Pages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to get the article to a stage where the tags are not needed. I agree about the self published tags and will remove them. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby. I think the only way to be certain if an article with tagged sources should pass GA is to open a discussion there. I think most would say no. However my understanding was that a sources reliability depends on the information it cites and how it is presented. For example an official blog could be used as long as it is attributed to the author. Would this problem go away if we just attributed these sources to Cawley? I don't have time right now to look at the examples below (I will hopefully get to them tonight). Thanks both of you for all your advice. AIRcorn (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2). It appears I have inadvertently stepped into a hornets nest here. It explains some of the antagonism above and the not this again response that initially confused me. To be honest, I am seriously thinking that opening up a community reassessment for this article is the best approach. It should at least give an answer as to the GA suitability of articles with similar sourcing issues. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed action just proves that it really is a waste of time working one's backside off to get an article up to GA or FA. This is sure one hell of a smart move to attract new editors to the project. Misplaced Pages keeps shooting itself over and over in the balls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Quit the hyperbole why don't you. I have no intention of working with you to fix this article. I have got other GAs to witchhunt improve you know. See you at the reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hyperbole? I see Aircorn has got the dictionary out and taken a "hardman" stance as well. Well, I am suitably cowed and accordingly reduced to a quivering wreck but may I ask just one question before I'm taken before the Inquisition? Isn't Misplaced Pages supposed to be a team effort?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jeanne, I might be missing something but see nothing in Aircorn's posts here or on the article talkpage which is taking a strong position one way or the other. Aircorn saw tags, and then asked what they were for. Aircorn is correct that the fact that these tags have been posted around WP is at least a sign of "something" not going right.

@Aircorn, I think that in terms of asking for more community discussion on this subject it would be good to define what the discussion would be about. To me, the main issue you have hit is coming from the use of bots or some sort of automatic rule in order to post tags in a general way (not looking at the contexts at all) against one source, which, as you have seen, is to say the least not the type of source that would normally be given any sort of general ban or black listing, if it were ever discussed properly. Generally speaking RS policy, and this noticeboard's policy, is that determining good sourcing requires looking at the exact case. There is a clear community consensus on that. General clean ups which do not look at each edit are rare, and are only initiated only after there is a clear consensus that there is a general problem, and even then such clean ups normally require a lot of work, not just a bot. That does sometimes happen for good reasons, for example when we get one bad editor posting something from their favorite pamphlet all over the place, or whatever. That did not happen in this case. And it is also not a case were we have one or two bad editors posting something on some mission. Instead we see this source is being widely used by experienced editors in a variety of contexts.

What do I suggest? I am guided by the aim of being practical, and of trying to make sure edits always improve WP, even if incrementally. I have also shown below how using this source can be to the great benefit of WP even for people with the strictest standards, aiming at GA standards for example, by detailing the sourcing a bit more and adding to this source with supporting sources - something which it helps us do very well. (It is in fact in my opinion a great source. No one has seriously been able to give any reason to think otherwise. All complaints have been in terms of formalities such as the qualifications of the editor. I have to say I doubt there is any better source for this type of thing.) Also, for those who think the source should only be plundered and then not mentioned, deliberately and knowingly, this would normally be WP:Plagiarism and a violation of the guideline to WP:saywhereyougotit. Practical: I think in all or most cases reading the source and adding a bit more sourcing can resolve any serious doubts of WP editors whose main interest is improving WP. I think trying to start a community discussion is not likely to give a much clearer proposal than that? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What I have been doing for the last few weeks is going through Good articles with various clean up tags on them. Sibyl de Neufmarché can be found as the oldest one under accuracy disputes (Agnes von Mansfeld-Eisleben and Gebhard Truchsess von Waldburg are remarkably similar - citing different websites - although they have only been tagged for a few months). My general protocol has been to remove or fix the tags if I can, leave a note on the talk page or open a reassessment if the articles are very bad or if no one responds to the talk page request. Apart from here and another editor currently facing a community ban, the rest have at least been receptive to the issues.

I don't really want anything more to do with this article, but would be interested in fixing up some of the other ones. To be honest I still don't really know what to do from a GA point of view. While I know you don't wish to generalise, it might be helpful to give suggestions using the current article. That way I can use my own judgement on similar articles, only coming back here if necessary. This is my understanding (using examples from Sibyl de Neufmarché):

1. If we can link to a primary source we should, as long as we say where we got it from (cite 34)
2. If there is a secondary source that supports the statement we can either leave up the unreliable one as well, remove it, or put it in the external links. Would depend on what extra, if any, information it provides (most instances of cite 15)
3. If it is the only source of information then it can be used provided it is marked as needing better sources. (the last two 41 & 42)

Do we only really need the tags for the third instance? I think I might start a discussion at WT:GAN focused more on the general question; if articles with "better source needed" tags can be considered Good? AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The direction of your thinking sounds reasonable to me. Let me make an attempt in the same spirit. But this is specific to Cawley's website, because I have not looked at the others you mention. I know there are a lot of websites around which are really more classic cases of what I would call self-publication.

• The links to Cawley should be completed properly. In many cases they are incomplete, making it harder to verify.
• Sources cited by Cawley will generally be a good thing to ADD to the Cawley citation. (Perhaps we can use a format of citation which mentions "cited in" or "Cawley, citing...")
• Where verification fails, which is what has basically happened in 41 and 42, because unless I am wrong Cawley and his named sources do not say what our article says, then indeed it is recommended to try to find better sourcing. (But I think that in both those cases what needs to be sourced is going to be easy to source. So perhaps the intention of the original editor was to add further reading also, which future editors might be able to work with?)

Concerning your second point I do not really see an easy general rule. You are talking about cases where several sources support each other. Technically you can be minimalist and go to whichever is the best single source, as long as it says exactly what it should say, and is a very strong source no one will complain about, but practically this is not always a good idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

going through the examples

Maybe this should be copied to the article talk page, but for more general interest here are some notes about the 7 uses of this source on the article mentioned:-

1. Note b says that Richard Fitz Pons was brother-in-law of Miles FitzWalter de Gloucester, being the husband of his sister, Matilda. It references Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, English earls 1067-112. But the English earls link is not included and is here: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#_Toc321390470 . Note that specifically it is in the section concerning the Earls of Hereford. The relevant passage about Mathilda gives as its source

• Ancient Charters (Round), Part I, pp. 21-2, citing Cotton Charter, XI, 60, and Regesta Regem Anglo-Normannorum (1956), Vol. II, Appendix, CXXXIV, p. 341.

2. Footnote 15 refers to the same Cawley URL and is actually a footnote for 5 places in the article. The sentences in our article which link to this:-

(1.) "the outcome of Nest's declaration was that Sibyl (whom Nest acknowledged as Bernard's child) became the sole lawful heiress to the vast lordship of Brecon, one of the most important and substantial fiefs in the Welsh Marches"

(2.) "Henry's maritagium referred specifically to Sibyl's parents' lands as "comprising Talgarth, the forest of Ystradwy, the castle of Hay, the whole land of Brecknock, up to the boundaries of the land of Richard Fitz Pons, namely up to Brecon and Much Cowarne, a vill in England"; the fees and services of several named individuals were also granted as part of the dowry."

(3.) Sometime in April or May 1121, Sibyl married Miles (or Milo) FitzWalter de Gloucester, Sheriff of Gloucester and Constable of England.

(4.) The listing of Sibyl's 8 children. This listing also shows other sourcing for the first 3 children and 7 of these children have their own WP articles.

(5.) In about 1136, Stephen granted Sibyl's husband the entire honour of Gloucester and Brecknock; afterward appointing him Constable of England, whereby Miles became known as one of Stephen's "henchmen".

The first three above are about Sybil's inheritance and marriage. Cawley cites these sources for this:

• Dugdale Monasticon III, Brecknock Priory I, Quædam de Loco, et Dominis eius Historica, p. 263.
• Dugdale Monasticon IV, Priory of Bergavenny or Abergavenny in Monmouthshire, Cartæ I, p. 615.
• Ancient Charters (Round), Part I, 6, p. 8.
• Dugdale Monasticon VI, Lanthony Abbey, Gloucestershire, III, p. 136.
• Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, Vol. I (1834), XX, p. 168.

These same sentences are also already backed up in our article by two other sources, currently 13, 14 and 16. These back up Cawley but Cawley gives a reader a more complete list of primary sources. I think that is something we do not want to delete.

• Ward, Jennifer C (2006). Women in England in the Middle Ages. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1-85285-346-4. Retrieved 25 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Ward, Jennifer C (2006). Women in England in the Middle Ages. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 25. ISBN 1-85285-346-4. Retrieved 25 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Foliot, Gilbert (1965). Gilbert Foliot and His Letters. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 37. Retrieved 28 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Concerning the listing of children, 2 have other sources already attached in order to back Cawley up, (footnote 26 cites Cawley again, see below 3.) and 7 have their own Misplaced Pages article. NOTE: I am not going to list all the dozens of sources given for these children, just for practical reasons. There are all here: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#_Toc321390470

The last use of footnote 15 is also backed up by another source already, although once again Cawley gives a much more complete biography of the true sources. NOTE: but I see no source for the word "henchmen".

• Matthew, Donald (2002). King Stephen. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 96. ISBN 1-85285-272-0. Retrieved 22 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

3. Footnote 26 is an incompletely finished reference to Cawley, but in a section (the listing of children) which already cites him. It appears to be intended to be a citation for "Walter departed for Palestine on Michaelmas 1159, and died shortly afterwards without leaving legitimate issue.". Cawley gives a citation for this to Keats-Rohan Domesday Descendants, p. 512. Keats-Rohan is probably the strongest source we could ask for in modern academic medieval genealogy. But the bigger listing of information by Cawley adds a lot of colour not yet reflected in our article.

4. Footnote 32. Used to source "Sometime after 1137, Sibyl, together with her husband, made a further endowment to Llanthony Secunda." It cites Wales Lords of Brecknock, October 2010 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |title-date= ignored (help). Cawley in turn cites

• Dugdale Monasticon VI, Lanthony Abbey, Gloucestershire, III, p. 136.

But once again Cawley gives interested readers a lot more information and other sources.

5. Footnote 34. Used to source "Matilda gave her permission for the transfer" of "the honour of Abergavenny from Brien FitzCount, the (likely illegitimate) son of Duke Alan IV of Brittany". The URL should be added, which would be http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BRITTANY.htm#_Toc284059583 . However I do not immediately see the right information there. Perhaps better is the Hereford URL again where Cawley gives the following sources:

• CP VI 453. (Concerning Mathilda's grant to Miles.)
• CP I 20. But Cawley notes of this source that "it is said that the relationship between Brien FitzCount, or his wife, and Earl Miles (if any) has not been proved."

Note that according to Cawley's Bibliography, CP stands for

• The Complete Peerage (Cokayne, G. E. revised and edited White, G. H. (1959) The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct and dormant by G. E. C, revised edition 1910-59, Vols. I to XIII (microprint edition, Alan Sutton, 1982)

6. Footnote 41. Used to source "Eleanor and Humphrey's son, Humphrey de Bohun, succeeded his grandfather to the titles in 1275" This Humphrey has his own Misplaced Pages article with its own sourcing. The URL given is http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#HumphreyBohunHereforddied1298A. What Cawley supplies here is a record that Humphrey was indeed heir to these titles in 1266/67, but apparently he was too young to take up the titles at that time. Reference he gives is a primary document:

• Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. I, Henry III, 654, p. 205.

I would suggest looking to Humphrey's own article for a source for 1275, but I see no big reason to remove reference to the further information in Cawley.

7. Footnote 42. Used to source "By way of Edward's daughter, Elizabeth of York, every monarch of England and, subsequently, the United Kingdom, from Henry VIII up to and including Elizabeth II, descended in a direct line from Sibyl de Neufmarché, as did the various royal sovereigns of Europe who shared a common descent from Mary, Queen of Scots." The URL given is http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm

Maybe a more exact URL would be http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm#_Toc321390528

The basic point being made here is about Elizabeth of York, a member of the royal family. Elizabeth married Henry VII of England, the founder of the Tudor dynasty. Often such information is not even sourced, because it is widely known, uncontroversial, and easy to check if anyone has a concern.

Overall the sourcing seems good. Simple improvements should be made, but deleting a source which gives readers more leads would not seem to be a way of improving WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to take the initiative and copy this to the talk page like you suggested. That way it will not be lost in the archives and if the tags are kept it can be used as a basis to keep the article as Good. This is much more detail than I was expecting and I want to thank you again for taking the time to look into this. AIRcorn (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes thank you Andrew for going to all the trouble to read and post the sources.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Hansard the UK parliaments minutes a reliable source?

I have used Hansard the UK parliaments minutes as a source to a piece that I added to the History of Cambodia page.I added it under my IP address as I forgot to sign in 1. I had removed the word allegedly from a sentence and added the link to,Hansard. The statement that I feel the source is supporting is "The British government trained the Khmer Rouge" there is slightly more to the sentence than that as can be seen in the link(there is another source for that I believe) but that is the part that the source supports.The piece that I added was reverted twice by an editor who claimed that the "Source fails verification" and in his second revert his excuse is " But it says the UK only supported Sihanouk". I am of the opinion that he did not even read the source because if he did it states " British advisers are, however, still to be found training Khmer Rouge terrorists in Thailand." and " I shall add to what my hon. Friend is saying by quoting from a letter written by Susan Eliot, who has worked for many years with Cambodian refugees. She has evidence that in Malaysia, British advisers have helped to train Khmer Rouge guerrillas. She states :

"The training was conducted by Malaysian army officers, through the medium of English language, with British and American trainers acting as advisers. Not only were the troops trained together but they travelled to and from Bangkok."

The quotes are from members of the British parliament from a debate in 1990 in parliament. So is this a reliable source for the information in the article? Thank you.Kabulbuddha (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock

Of course, there are lots of quotes in the source, many of which say the opposite, or make far weaker claims. We use academic sources for historical articles, not political rhetoric taken from primary source government documents by means of original research. The history of Cambodia article already gives wildly undue weight to such politicized issues, and the allegations did not hold up in court when they were challenged. Even the quotes he cites often contain many qualifiers or uncertainties regarding the details of the alleged training. The source hardly replaces the academic one currently being used.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)Hansard is indeed a perfectly reliable source for what British MPs said, but that is all. You should write something like "In a parliamentary debate Joe Blogs, MP for Lower Puddlesley on the Marsh, said "British army advisers are....."<ref>Hansard... Roger (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes,thanks, it can be backed up by newspaper reports from main stream UK papers that reported the same thing including the Telegraph also there is a John Pilger main stream UK TV documentary on the subject which states the same.I believe also that former member of the SAS Chris Ryan has stated that he was there training the Khmer Rouge.Kabulbuddha (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock

Too bad Pilger's claims didn't hold up in court! Anyway, if you "believe" there are other sources, provide them. Just remember that this controversy probably does not deserve more than a sentence in the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hansard is only a reliable source for what members say in Parliament. It should only be used to express the exact wording of comments that are mentioned in reliable secondary sources, i.e., rarely. TFD (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) has the following presented as a source for a contentious claim: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/alan-joness-demons/2006/10/20/1160851142104.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 which appears to simply be an excerpt from an "unauthorised biography" without any comment from a reviewer etc. Thus I thought it was equivalent to citing the book for information about the book (that is - a primary source remains a primary source if it is copied without any comments at all indicating a normal secondary source report). Is the printing of excerpts different from the book itself? And where the book makes contentious claims about a person, does citing a publication of excerpts become a stong source for such claims? (I am here asserting the claims about a living person to be "contentious using the normal Misplaced Pages usage of that term). Collect (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the original book is a secondary source. A primary source would be a book by Jones, or papers of Jones. The fact that the SMH serialises parts of the book does not change this classification. It does, however, strengthen the claim that the book is RS - it was not only accepted by the publisher, but also by the editorial staff of the newspaper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The book is a secondary source, and the excerpt can be thought a convenience link, because the citation would be to the original book . I found one review here and it is positive. Australian BC canned the book, but that seems to be from worries about legal liability than about content quality. I notice we have a separate article on the book. Since the author is an investigative journalist, we probably have to attribute his statements, but he is likely notable enough for his statements to be included. Churn and change (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Payne's biography of Hitler

The 1973 biography of Hitler The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler by Robert Payne is used on the page Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to support the claim that Hiter's vegetarian diet - and ascetic lifestyle overall - was propaganda invented by Goebbels. As far as I am aware this is the only biography that makes this claim, and is therefore possibly problematic per WP:REDFLAG WP:DUE and other guidelines. However, beyond this is the fact that the biography has been widely condemned for its many inaccuracies. In favour of its reliability is the fact that the author was an academic (though not a historian) and that it was published by a respectable publisher (Praeger). There has been a debate on the talk page of the article Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Robert_Payne about the use of the source. The debate itself has been somewhat confusing, with references to WP:BLP and other, to my mind irrelevant, policies. Any input on the reliability issue would be welcome. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I should add that this book is regularly used by vegetarians to "scotch" the "myth" that Hitler was a vegetarian , so the case might be made that its use for this purpose should be discussed irrespective of its reliability as such. Paul B (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hitler probably ranks as one of the most-studied people ever. We can do better than cite a biography written in 1973 by an English professor at the University of Montevallo (a good institution but not top-tier). I think the books on Hitler's vegetarianism per-se are unlikely to meet WP:NPOV (for some reason vegetarians seem to think the association denigrates them, and write books to prove Hitler was not one), but his general biographies, and books on World War II, Nazism, and German history, would contain references to this well-known issue. Churn and change (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading extensive notes on this a few months ago in Andrew Robert's relatively recent history of WW2. I think it was called "Storm of War"? Must be lots of sourcing possible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes

1. Academic consensus on these issues does undergo revisions. Note that many documents were released after the fall of Communism in East Germany.
2. One such is covered here: .

Electronic Intifada

This source has been discussed before on at least three occasions: Archive 20, Archive 37 and Archive 51.

There is an ongoing discussion here on whether EI can be used for "facts", and there is a disagreement as to what the outcome of the earlier discussions was. Therefore, let's assess if EI is reliable for a bland fact that doesn't express an opinion on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, for example a statement that a well-known NGO said something.

My own take on this is that EI seems to fulfil criteria discussed in WP:V. This is evidenced in at least two ways, firstly as an editor argues in the Archive 20 discussion, the Financial Times and ITV expressly endorse EI for professionalism (WP:V says "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Secondly, sources that are known to be reliable refer to EI: The Guardian, The Guardian 2, BBC, BBC 2, Le Monde, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Der Spiegel. (Spiegel describes EI as a "highly partisan alternative news network").

Summing up, it seems to me EI isn't as good as the BBC, but for a bland fact should be OK much like FOX News. We use partisan news sources all the time.--Dailycare (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dailycare brings three archives.

• One of them is essentially a response by a blocked user named PalestineRemembered, who is arguing that this blatantly anti-Israel website be allowed. There is no further discussion past his comment.
• Another is essentially a discussion between two editors that lasts about 5 lines with no outcome.
• The last one is a very long and comprehensive discussion that features various editors chiming in. The result can be seen there as being an activist website with a clear bias (their title includes the word Intifada...) and unreliable. I don't see why we need to bring this up again, just because one person would rather choose an archive that has one comment by a user named PalestineRemembered arguing for its inclusion and reject a more comprehensive discussion.

If you want a taste of some of their blog posts, just check out this post, where the owner of the website rants at how upset he is that the White House allegedly uses "Israeli hummus" (despite being a conclusion drawn by this Haaretz writer, and not the White House itself). A terrible violation of human rights, one that is certainly a violation of the Geneva Conventions no doubt. What does this source that someone is disputing is reliable teaching us about hummus in the White House? "Middle Eastern” is an identity which Israel claims – whenever convenient – to appropriate the culture of local people whose land and rights it is busy violently stealing, while simultaneously attempting to erase and even outlaw their identities and history." Yeah, very reliable.--Jethro B 22:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You're discussing an opinion blog piece, which is irrelevant to the question that DC has asked, which is about the reliability of their reporting of facts. As with most sources the site hosts different types of material, news is clearly separated from blogged opinions. You would not judge the quality of NYT factual reporting by reading an opinion blog hosted on their website, or a an op-ed or editorial. Dlv999 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

:: I see not problem with the website,it has some really interesting stories on it that are not picked up by the world press and gives a Palestinian point of view.Kabulbuddha (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, however, doesn't write from a Palestinian point of view. We write from a neutral point of view. EI's goal is to serve as an anti-Israel platform, I wouldn't generalize about Palestinians in such a way, but this doesn't make them reliable for our standards. They have a clear agenda and are an activist group. It's hardly different from CAMERA - will we now start differntiating between sections of CAMERA that have opinions, and other sections that have what one person believes to be a fact? Of course not. They're not academic, not peer-reviewed, and selfpublished agenda activist biased organization, with no neutrality. Our most comprehensive archive on the subject matter shows they are not a reliable source to use. --Jethro B 22:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages terms, writing from a neutral POV means we represent all significant views, which would certainly include the Palestinian view on topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I don't know why you're bringing CAMERA into this, if you want to discuss CAMERA start a new section. Here we should be discussing the factual reports of EI according to the question that has been asked. Dlv999 (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in making a new discussion on CAMERA, since we've already had a lengthy discussion on one. Just as we've already had a lengthy discussion on EI, and this discussion is simply redundant. --Jethro B 23:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This site makes Arutz Sheva seems like the Gospel in comparison. ::It has the obvious flaw of being self-published, it has an obvious conflict of interest as it is "aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin the EI creators feel is generally found in press accounts. and admits to rectifying "mainstream news stories that might not be balanced in their view." This is an archetypal questionable source and should only be used as a source for describing itself. Ankh.Morpork 23:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Fairly misleading representation of your citations. the Jpost article describes EI as " very professional, user-friendly and well written", which is fairly significant given that Jpost is on the opposite side of the fence both nationally and politically. The IE link says that they have factual news reports, but also provide media analysis/critisism - you have quoted them describing their media criticism/analysis, whereas the question is regarding their news reporting. Dlv999 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

: A neutral point of view means that both views are heard,therefore there must be a Palestinian viewpoint as there is an Israeli one. EI represents the Palestinian viewpoint and I see no problem with it being used.The Palestinian viewpoint is almost ignored in the west by main stream media so if we cannot use Palestinian sources then where are we to get information from for their point of view?Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not the people who get to declare that EI somehow is the voice of the Palestinians. When reliable outlets like The New York Times bring up views or statements by Palestinians, and it's notable, we include it. It doesn't mean we turn to a blog that's anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian and with a clear agenda in order to use them as reliable, just as we wouldn't turn to a pro-Israel website or blog to get facts from as reliable or report from. New York Times, scholarly works, and other RS are neutral, so we can rely on them to use as references and conform to neutrality, even if they present one side or two sides in a story. A site like EI is not neutral at all, and is unreliable to use as facts and declare them as the voice of the Palestinians to use in order to bring "neutrality" and present the Palestinian view, which could be presented through real neutral works. --Jethro B 23:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

::: The New York Times is not neutral/reliable at all,as I remember they ran off to the Whitehouse to ask what bits of the wikileaks cables they could print and anyway all sources are biased so I am not really getting what your point is.A site does not have to be neutral for it to be included as a source on wikipedia,if that was the case then we would be deleting many sources from the BBC,NYT and many other main stream media outlets,Foxnews? That the Palestinian do not have many media outlets means that the ones that they do have must be used with limits of course but not the limit that you just do not like them.EI represents the Palestinian view point of view.Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)_{blocked sock}Ankh.Morpork 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you extend the same philosophy to settler media outlets? Ankh.Morpork 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Have settler media outlets been used in the BBC,Washington post,USAToday,NYT,Financial Times? EI has.Kabulbuddha (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock

AnkhMorpork, can you please explain for the class what self-published means? nableezy - 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, please, a snarky tone isn't going to help bring this discussion to a resolution. Zad68 02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

with a name like intifada this website has biased agenda and isnt reliable. It is stupid that people can even pretend that it is reliable.Dave Eggersly (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

A RSN request requires:

1. The source--not just "electronicintifada.net" but an actual article posted there
2. The Misplaced Pages article by title
3. The content in context being considered at that article, using the source.

We don't have all three things here, and without it, this thread should be closed as a malformed RSN request. Zad68 02:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

agreed that it is a malformed request. agreed that it is no more than a blog with personal opinions, for which, by the way, it can indeed be used. if barak romney wrote a piece there, then that article can be used to say that barak romney wrote 'x', etc. - but ei is not an RS news source for any facts. just like all the others we talk about: camera, ngo monitor, jcpa, 972, etc. - all very nice, important, well thought through, but just not the same as cnn, foxnews, the guardian, etc. Soosim (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are obviously going through one of those periodic waves of such demands being made by teams of editors that we make highly generalized statements about sources they do not like because of differing POV. It is not how this board should be used. And to repeat yet one more time, basically no source is always appropriate, virtually no source is purely neutral, and basically no source is always useless. RS is context sensitive. We need to discuss real cases. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The specific point that prodded me to open this thread is this, namely EI is used to source something that Btselem has said. This provides the three elements referred to by Zad68 above. --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking at the edit you mention, it is a deletion of a sourcing footnote by AnkhMorpork, but not a deletion of the material being sourced, which indeed had two sources, the other one being Btselem itself, which as you say is the source for EI in this case. So presumably Ankhmorpork does not contend that the material that was being sourced was wrong, and AM's intention was to delete mention of a source based on an argument that it is generally and absolutely unreliable, which is also what AM's comment seems to indicate. Recent activity on this noticeboard has been dominated by attempts of AM and a few other sympathetic editors, all with their own apparent POV, to get acceptance of the principle that a source can be proclaimed generally unacceptable just because it has an obvious POV. I do not believe the principle has been accepted. Having said that, the deletion of this footnote also does not appear to cause much damage, because the original source is still there. My first impression is that it would be best for both sides to not spend too much time on this particular footnote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the footnote in itself isn't enormously important, but what is important is that it's resolved whether EI can be reliable for a "bland" piece of news (this case being an example). That way several future threads here would be pre-empted. --Dailycare (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

dailycare - nothing's been resolved. ei is not reliable for reporting information from a non-profit. it is not RS. the non-profit sends out a press release to dozens of places. a blog picks it up and quotes it. so? not sufficient. ei is only reliable for a particular author's opinion. not for facts. Soosim (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare if I understand correctly, what is "enormously important" here is not this unimportant specific case, but actually it is an effort to get a generalized judgement from this one example, which can then be used as a precedent in other more important cases. What I wanted to say above is that this way of working (and see Soosim's rejoinder) is directly against policy, because RS policy, and this noticeboard's standard procedure tell you clearly not to work that way. RS is context sensitive, and if there is a case that different editors judge differently, you have to try to find WP:CONSENSUS and not try to "win" on a technicality. My honest advice, is to bring your REAL "enormously important" specific examples here (AFTER you have tried to find compromise with all interested editors), so they can really be discussed. Do not go the path of the dark side and begin "wikilawyering". Please note by the way that I am sure you have good intentions. My advice is not intended to be seen as sarcastic. This kind of thing happens a lot and is a kind of natural reaction to common editing situations, but the approach I am describing is the one which works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^roaring applause^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nableezy - 22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - from my experience with problematic sources, there is a general misconception of editors on what are reliable and non-reliable sources. I have to emphasize that there is no problem to post POV sources (!), as long as they are withstanding the reliability test (usually proper author, desirably an editorial board and a trusted publisher), are balanced by other reliable sources (both POV and NPOV) and can be verified. In case of electronic intifada, which is a POV, the problem is not its POV, but that there is a clear problem of reliability of information and no proper editorial. It is much simplier to use alternative trusted sources, in case the information is verifiable from more trusted sites.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark, that is very likely correct, and would probably apply to many potential examples concerning this source. Properly structured questions or real examples would be good to discuss, but otherwise this question appears to have been one of a wave of similar questions by a group of editors seeking general rulings as precedents (note: that is a legal term) to help in editing debates. Some of these questions are going after stronger sources than this one. We have a general principle enshrined in WP:RS that we should be careful about generalization. This noticeboard should not be used as a way of getting out of dealing with editors who have different POVs than your own.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the conclusion here can then be (assuming I follow Andrew correctly) that it's not automatically OK to source "bland" news from EI, and it's not automatically OK to remove existing material just because it's sourced from EI. I agree that that follows the letter of the policy, however I also do recall that this noticeboard has frequently reached "precedential" decisions. Like the the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung section above, although I do see the differences to this case as well. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Generalization is part of human nature, and a cause of the best and worst things we do. How is that for a good generalizing answer? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry: my sense of humour was not good for clarity. My point is that good generalizing should naturally be something that can occasionally require some debate on the article talk page to get right. It is a normal and natural balancing act. Sometimes people come to this noticeboard before trying that, but it really is critical to Misplaced Pages to try that first. See WP:CONSENSUS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter

I had thought the Hollywood Reporter was a basic trade paper for the film industry, but it appears that it has changed focus a bit to include "sizzling entertainment". Is this article about a lawsuit and some related "sizzle" a reliable source for the information about the lawsuit? i initially used it to support these claims now i am not sure how much to trust it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That is stale news, the lawsuit has been tossed out: . They link to the primary documents in that report, but those briefs are as hard to read as you can imagine. If you still want to source the old news for whatever reason, there is a report in the San Diego Union Tribune, which is the main San Diego paper, and hence a major regional publication. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

At Suicide of Amanda Todd is the following news item a Reliable Source for her date of birth as I attempted in this edit but was reverted?

I would appreciate any general remarks about the need to cite her date of birth. As discussed by me Talk:Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd#Date_of_birth! on the Talk page it is cited multiple times (literally hundreds of times) in remembrance pages, inluding her family's remembrance page. Generally DOBs are not cited unless they are challenged. Barack Obama's is not cited for example, despite an entire conspiracy theory centered on his birth. In other cases standards are not high, as for example at James Blunt where a blog and a primary source for its quarter is used. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To round out the matter, the article in question is about a news event, not a biography. WWGB (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, really not relevant to the discussion here. For the sake of completness we can say that was the central issue in its AfD and the moderator left it unresolved. One can easily cite hundreds of close parallels, such as Mohamed Bouazizi and Malala Yousafzai where the date of birth is noted. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This may be a news event, nevertheless, considering the recency of her suicide, this is a BLP issue per WP:BDP. WP:BLPSOURCES allows editors to remove non-RS material, even when neutral, at once and multiple times. I don't think a shot of some other source flashed on a TV show is a reliable source. The remembrance pages too are unlikely to be RSes. Any public records, such as a police report mentioning her date of birth is unacceptable as per WP:BLPPRIMARY. These are all policies, not guidelines, and so are not subject to editorial consensus. If you want to include a birth date, you have to find a newspaper or a magazine reporting one. Yes, President Obama's birth date is cited. Churn and change (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Regarding Barack Obama I did see the ciation later. I note one of them is a primary source. In he case of Amanda Todd I trust a book will do as well. As soon as I find one I shall cite it. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Find A Grave source

While we're on the topic, Find A Grave is currently added at external links section. Note at the bottom that burial=unknown. Doesn't that mean that the contributor at Find A Grave did not find the birdthate from her stone? So, his sources are as reliable as ours. I think he got the date from her memorial site. Plus, Find A Grave contributors are like IMDB contributors. So, should that be linked anywhere in the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:ELNO point 12 does allow external links to "Find A Grave" as it is a stable site with a large number of contributors. WP:ELBLP requires higher standards in BLP articles, which this one is. It specifically asks editors to respect the spirit of BLP, which, in this case, is that of avoiding harm to those once close to the subject. I don't know the Todd case well enough to judge whether linking to a site with her birthdate could harm her friends or family. News sources haven't published it, though it is clearly available. Churn and change (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari: authorship of online erotica

I've had an edit reversed on Johann Hari's article. This is what I wrote:

Hari has also been accused of using the same pseudonym he used on Misplaced Pages (David Rose) to write "gay incest porn" online, which used some racist stereotypes.

1. Yiannopoulos, Milo (15 September 2011). "It will be racism, not plagiarism or libel, that finally topples Johann Hari". Blotr. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
2. Thompson, Damian (9 July 2011). "Johann Hari, Misplaced Pages and a porn site: an extraordinary new development". Retrieved 1 November 2012.

Comments

This was reversed on the grounds that a blog should not be acceptable for an article about a living person. My understanding of the rules is that it depends on the blog: if it's written by a professional and is subject to editorial control, then it's just as good as a newspapaer article. I think that these two sources pass the test, although I admit that the Blottr source is less respectable than the Telegraph one.

I have tried to find more sources, but unfortunately a lot are described as "blogs". Conservative Home ran the story, but used this blog as the source. I can't say that I'd heard of "Jack of Kent" and thought that this would fall into the unacceptable category, but this post was examined during in the Leveson Inquiry, which suggests that it has some national significance in the debate about irresponsible journalists.

The details on the erotica are printed at the end of this article by Christine Odone. I can't find the actual article on Google, and suspect that there's a good reason for that.

Are these sources sufficient to justify an edit to the article on Johann Hari to mention his authorship of online erotica? Epa101 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NEWSBLOG which says "use with caution." That Christine Odone piece you are quoting is worrisome for Misplaced Pages, indicating a failure of the BLP policy (she is claiming harm). I don't feel particularly inclined to agree the Telegraph piece, from somebody who sports a description of himself as a "blood-crazed ferret" as a badge at the top, and uses as his source still another blog (Jack of Kent, who is "David Allen Green," New Statesman's legal-issues blogger). Churn and change (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The two sources you list are also described as "blogs", and two blogs are insufficient for an extremely negative item about a LP. If this is verified, eventually a reliable source will print something about it. Until then, we need to avoid adding this content to the article. Misplaced Pages has never been the place to break news or be on the cutting edge. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 15:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree in general with KillerChihuahua, but I wonder what to think (in general, not necessarily in this case) of blogs officially hosted by newspapers. Can they count as op/ed sections of newspaper? I'd say yes, but I don't know what is the standard take on this. --Cyclopia 15:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they are almost always only useful as attributed opinions of the authors, such as "Jane Blogger wrote on date that she thought opinion." KillerChihuahua 08:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They are acceptable as they are not self-published and are written by professionals. That's stated here and here. However, I was not aware of the WP:NEWSBLOG point. That is relevant in moderating their use. Epa101 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC) What I think is a more tricky area of policy is the Jack of Kent blog. He says on it that he posts in a purely personal capacity and not as part of the New Statesman, so I can understand that this undermines its claims as a reliable source. However, this was the blog that was central to identifying Hari's disruption on Misplaced Pages and use of "David Rose" as a pseudonym. This was mentioned when he appeared as a witness before the Leveson Inquiry. I would argue that his blog is relevant to this particular subject, since it was central to the whole story, and that his follow-up post (on the subject of erotica) is relevant. Epa101 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A source does not get to be reliable just because its author is involved in the story. The other blogs are sourced from Jack of Kent's blog, who is no expert. None of the blogs are RSes. Churn and change (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing Bradley Manning's Motion to Dismiss

Do the sources removed in this diff need to be verified by third parties? Paum89 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Not resolved at all, if you are claiming that the Courthouse News Service can be used as a source for this story. From their 'About Us' page: "Courthouse News Service is a nationwide news service for lawyers and the news media. Based in Pasadena, California, Courthouse News focuses on civil litigation, from the date of filing through the appellate level." The Bradley Manning case is emphatically not 'civil litigation', and is thus outside their scope of expertise. In any case, the material linked doesn't support the material added in the diff anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the considerable media coverage of Manning, why is there a need to cite a primary source? Surely this will have been covered in a secondary source. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Rap Radar

As several editors of hip hop articles are repeatedly using this as a source, I thought I would bring it up here. Personally, I'm not too sure, as its page here is just a redirect to some other magazine where the editor of this site works. Also, the links meant to give information about the site ("About RR" and "Who We Are") display nothing. However, I need some further consensus. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Magazine

I will try to keep this short, I have sort help before to resolve the issue but believe my post was too large, and it also required Japanese language skills (which is no longer necessary) Many articles relating to Japanese musicians (possibly 100 articles) are receiving the following type of sentence in their lead "Rolling Stone Japan rated their album at "##" in their top 100 list of the greatest albums" as a form of achievement or an award. One article is Bow Wow, however Rolling Stone Japan is not being referenced, the reference is from an English language blog/web journal called neojaponisme, there is no actual evidence of the Rolling Stone list, the one at the blog could be fabricated. That is my first basis for being unacceptable for the wikipedia, now onto a second point, the cover of the issue does mention a list, although the contents of which are not actually known. According to the blog that is being referenced the list was not written by Rolling Stone but is actually freelance work by a person named Kawasaki Daisuke. On the cover for the issueRolling Stone call the list arbitrary and biased, that is another point I feel makes the list unacceptable for the wikipedia. Thirdly the claimed author for the list is not a notable person (as there is no information available about them on the internet) and the website the blog says he owns sells "beauty drinks", and it has nothing to do with music. Even if there was evidence to prove the list was actual and correct, I don't feel that just because Rolling Stone Japan agreed to print his list, that it is acceptable for the wikipedia, because he is not a notable person (he's a who is that?) and Rolling Stone themselves called his list arbitrary and biased.27.33.143.93 (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

For background, see this within User:Bbb23's talk page, and this within Talk:Bow Wow (band). -- Hoary (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this is not reliable enough for us to use. The list was pooh-poohed on the cover by Rolling Stone Japan, not featured, and the list was not repeated annually. It appears to come not from RSJ central but a throwaway freelancer. The freelance writer is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

YourEntertainmentNow.com

I'm reviewing a television episode article for GA and the editor added a citation to this website, specifically this article on ratings. Is this a reliable source? I'd never heard of it before and cannot find an "about" section. Comments would be appreciated. Ruby 2010/2013 00:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

All the postings on that site are by one person, Rosario T. Calabria. Looks to me a glorified blog. Not an RS, since I don't see any evidence of "expertise"; seems more a hobbyist. Churn and change (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Negative ex-whatever sources

A good number of organizations have websites run by ex-members which are extremely negative to the organization. I assume they can be cited in a controversy or criticism section as expressing their own views. They would seem to be primary sources talking about themselves. However, on ECyD the ReGAIN site is cited generalizing what was probably the case in a few limited circumstances a while back. Unfortunately, no date is given but by several other aspects, it would look like the situation they are explaining is about 8-15 years ago.

ECyD was accused by some critics in the past of over zealous recruitment of youth. They claimed that the Challenge and Conquest clubs were aimed at recruiting members into ECyD and are separated by gender to emphasize discernment of vocation at a young age. The same critics also claim that the clubs focus on members who have qualities that will attract other girls and boys into the clubs.

The header ends with a summary of this and a citation. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There are some serious WP:UNDUE-type issues with repeating material self published by disgruntled people who've left an organisation in the article on that organisation. Except in some unusual circumstances, for the criticism to be considered notable it needs to be reported on in a reliable secondary source, which can then be used as a reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is hard to make a general rule for all such cases. But it is important for any case to try to work out whether a source has a reputation for fact checking and reliability. We should be cautious about citing any information published by individuals on their personal webspaces, especially if it is not for information about them personally. Does anyone else cite the websites involved?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors site for use in Batman: Arkham City

I'm interesting in using this site in the above article to verify voice actors. The only other option I have found is IMDB which we don't use, and the game credits themselves give on a list of cast but not what they actually did (Because that's logical). I had a look around the above site and it doesn't appear to be user edited, and seems credible from appearance, but I can't see any kind of credential that confirms why it would be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on their FAQ, it sounds like a fan site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What about:

I think you made a mistake, your voice actor credit is wrong for this specific character?

Our site is not perfect but unlike user submitted sites like imdb, wikipedia or tv.com our sources come from official voice actor websites, resumes, DVD credits and other legitimate sources.

We do make mistakes sometimes. If you feel strongly that we made a credit mistake we would be more than happy to correct it, but only if you provide a legitimate source. We're sorry that we can't just take your word for it. We need actual proof.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution