Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 25 February 2013

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

Necroshine

Source:

Article: Necroshine

Content:

Overkill "Necroshine" 20,585

Also a link claiming they got it from Soundscan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caughtinmosh88 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 January 2013

Document transcriptions on lobby group websites

Can I have opinions as to the reliability of the following documents, hosted on the websites of the currently active lobbying groups the UK Metric Association (UKMA) and the U.S. Metric Association (USMA).

The documents are being used to support a variety of assertions in the International System of Units article (section: United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa and Commonwealth of Nations), and are cited as if they are original and legitimate documents.

• http://ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/met1972.pdf (UKMA website)

Cited as: White Paper on Metrication (1972) – Summary and Conclusions. London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.

• http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/international.html#south_africa (USMA website)

Cited as: South Africa Metrication". South African Government. 15 September 177.

• http://ukma.org.uk/australian-experience (UKMA website)

Cited as: Final Annual Report (1980-1981) of the (Australian) Metric Conversion Board (MCB)

• http://ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/met1980.pdf (UKMA website)

Cited as: Final Report of the Metrication Board (1980). London: Department of Trade and Industry Consumer and Competition Policy Directorate.

212.183.140.58 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The original reports appear to be reliable in that they are coming from various governmental sources and have been referenced in other reliable sources. The UKMA and USMA may be advocacy groups but that does not disqualify the reliability of the original reports. Linking directly to the governmental sources may be preferred, but there is no reason to believe these are not faithful reproductions by the UKMA and USMA. Location (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The question of the reliability of these sources is a total red herring raised by somebody whose views appear to be diametrically opposed to the views promoted by the sites in question. The original questioner, in order to disrupt things, was in effect questioning the honesty of the organisation in question, rather than their opinions. Let me put it another way, if the URL was left out, would the original questioner have questioned the citation? I don't think so. Also, if the URL was left out, would it have detracted from the article in any way? I think yes - it would have been far more difficult for readers to read the source material themselves as they would have had to go to specialised libraries. In short, unless there is a suggestion that the organisations in question have falsified the material, or have only produced extracts so as to change its meaning, then the material is reliable. Finally, is this USMA posting reliable? Martinvl (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, and stop trying to disrupt this discussion by trying to second-guess, or assert, what my views might be on the subject of the article. I have never discussed them with you or disclosed them, so you cam have no idea of what they are, and they are certainly not relevant to this discussion.

I came here to see what those with experience in these things thought about the likely reliability of such apparent third party transcriptions of government documents. Particularly where they are cited as government documents, and with no statements concerning their pedigree, copyright status or whatever and with no way of checking the integrity and accuracy of the transcriptions and particularly with them being hosted on websites of single-issue lobbying groups, wand here those documents are clearly being used to support the activities of those groups.

If any of the documents were facsimile scans of the government documents that they are purported to be, or were hosted on reliable websites, there would be no such concerns. 212.183.128.131 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the two British documents, which, although in .pdf form, are not facsimiles. The originals, as government publications, were "Crown Copyright". Unless permission was obtained, these copies would be copyvio. (I'm open to correction: it's possible that some recent legislation has amended the copyright on such items.)

If these were verifiable exact copies, and not copyvio, we could use these links as a convenience when citing the documents. Since the copies are not verifiable, and are (if I'm correct) copyvio, we can't. Andrew Dalby 13:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

On the copyright questions please see the Open Government Licence. On the question of the exactness of the copies, the easiest thing would be to link to the UK national archive version - an example. Mcewan (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that copyright information. I agree, it's much better to link to the UK national archive version. Andrew Dalby 10:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

When I tried to access these documents from the Archive sites, there were problems which is why I went to the UKMA site. Martinvl (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

History Dept. at U. Massachusetts

Is this a reliable source for argument from silence? http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/silence.html Humanpublic (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What text is the source supposed to be supporting? What is the text of the source?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic definition for starters. But, really, just about all of it. It's the best brief overview I've seen. The summary is good and the ideas of it could go in the article: "In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural. But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the correct default inference from silence. That inference can be strengthened by relevant evidence of a positive kind, or by the continued silence of further evidence." In general, is the source useable (granting that there are obvious possible misuses). Humanpublic (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of "Argument from silence" section "Misuse of sources" ] to put this question into context. Humanpublic wants to remove the definition "An argument from silence ... is generally a conclusion drawn based on the absence of statements in historical documents", sourced to The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999, and John Lange, The Argument from Silence, History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288-301, and replace it with the statement he quotes, drawn from a website, which, as has been pointed out to him, is not attributed to an author, therefore with no way of knowing who wrote it.Smeat75 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The mere appearance of an article on a university server does not make it reliable. This source is interesting, and was probably written by someone qualified to write it, but without a named author I don't see how it is citable. Zero 11:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not just hosted at the site. The contents are copyright the University of Mass. I don't see where the reliable sources policy requires a single named author. The history dept. of U. Mass is obviously reliable on matters of history. Many sources, such as encyclopedias, don't have named authors. You look at the publisher, I assume. Humanpublic (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be part of the Warring States Project, which gives its staff here: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/project/staff/index.html - Bruce Brooks, a UMass professor, and various associates. I'd credit the Warring States Project at University of Mass. I'd consider it a reliable source, but not the only one, especiall if a dictionary says otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not just a dictionary that says otherwise, but a few other totally WP:RS sources if you look at the page. The general situation seems to be that arguments from silence are "so, so" at the very best but as one other WP:RS source said "stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished." On the positive side, there is a source already that says "although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events". In any case, it is not certain if the professor wrote that UMass page or the assistant. If the assistant did it, it is not great. And why not get a "proper WP:RS source" anyway. Is that web page the only source that says this? Why not get solid WP:RS sources whose authorship is not in question? History2007 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I took another look at the univ website and it is not clear if that statement is by Brooks or an assistant. But what is clear is that Brooks has some type of reputation for overdosing on arguments from silence for (on the same web site) a review of his book states: "the authors' liberal use of arguments from silence might disturb some scholars as might their generous use of some rather late and suspect sources to construct biographical accounts of Confucius and sons." The book review is pretty positive overall, but seems to view the args from silence as one of the weak point in his work. So Brooks is viewed as good, but as someone who ODs on args from silence in view of other scholars. In any case, that is not a blanket statement to be used, and the fact that other scholars think Brooks ODs on these reaffirms the views in the other RS sources that these are in general viewed as somewhat shaky arguments. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That is all completely irrelevant. Please cite a Misplaced Pages policy against the source in question. Humanpublic (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

History2007, you object to being called dishonest. Please start being honest, then. The review makes no generalizations about Brooks and the argument from silence at all. It doesn't say he overuses it. It does not say it is a weak point in that particular book, it says some scholars might see it that way. You are being obstructionist and distorting sources. Stop it. Humanpublic (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The number of WP:NPA disregards here and on your talk page is piling up too fast. And now we have WP:RS source deletion which quotes the source. I can not discuss items in this atmosphere. History2007 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks, all insults aside, what is the key point in dispute here? I read the page, and it doesn't seem to dispute the dictionary definition. It merely says that the argument from silence can be useful. Well, that seems perfectly fine for our page; we clearly need to give at least one example of a scholar who thinks it's useful, otherwise we're begging the question why it's an interesting concept at all. That doesn't mean we need to remove the counter arguments that it's not useful, it just means that we should give both sides. What am I missing? --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a scholar who says it s useful: it says "Louis Jacobs writes, If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing." And it is sourced to the A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion and I looked it up briefly and it looks right. So it is there, supporting it in the Talmud case. I am not sure if the first sentence of that paragraph comes from the same place, but Jacobs clearly likes them. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Magill and Limerick Leader

Magill Magazine

• Source Magill Magazine Issue 1, 2008, 46-47 / also held on the Limerick City Council website here
• Article Limerick pogrom
• Content diff is here: Over the last 25 years, historians and writers in Limerick have questioned the traditional narrative of the event, with the question of whether the event's description as a "pogrom" is appropriate being "at the heart of the matter"

The question here is around Magill, an Irish current affairs magazine which is now out of publication. At the time of the publication of the article in question, the magazine was being edited by Eamon Delaney. There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.

Limerick Leader

• Source Limerick Leader, Saturday 6 November 2010, "Jewish envoy says Limerick pogrom is 'over-portrayed'" / also held on the Limerick City Council website here
• Article Limerick pogrom
• Content diff is here: In 2010, the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, Boaz Moda'i, commented on the pogrom stating: "I think it is a bit over-portrayed, meaning that, usually if you look up the word pogrom it is used in relation to slaughter and being killed. This is what happened in many other places in Europe, but that is not what happened here. There was a kind of boycott against Jewish merchandise for a while but that’s not a pogrom."

The Limerick Leader is one of the Johnston Press Ireland titles. It is a local weekly paper with a relatively small circulation although is the largest paid-for newspaper in the whole Mid-West region of Ireland. On its website the newspaper claims to have "a cherished reputation as the local paper of record". There is a difference of opinion on whether this source is WP:RS the article - grateful for third party views here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am involved in this discussion with Once. Personally I am puzzled why this was taken to RSN. The question isn't whether the sources cited support the specific content proposed. The periodical quoting Gannon is a reliable source for Gannon's opinion. The newspaper quoting Moda'i is a reliable source for Moda'i's opinion. The question is whether the article's treatment of the opinions of these individuals is undue or not, especially when we have much more authoritative academic sources covering this topic. Zad68 14:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zad, the WP:RS challenge came from Jayjg - see a selection of comments below:

• ...In addition, the opinion is published in a small-circulation weekly newspaper (not a historical journal or history book), and Moda'i is a non-expert: a politician, not a historian. As such, we are clearly facing WP:RS issues... Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• ...Keep in mind, as well, that any material sourced to the personal opinions of politicians such as Boaz Moda'i or Robert Briscoe will fail WP:RS... Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• If something fails WP:RS, then it doesn't matter how brilliantly written it is, or how much one agrees with it. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Given the conclusive points above that the Limerick Leader and Magill sources are not reliable in this context, on what do you base your statements here? Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope that's clear. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think you two are talking past each other a little bit. Zad68 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Magill article is irrelevant in this "terminology" section (it's badly written, but it says it's about "questioning the traditional narrative", not about terminology). So we don't have to worry whether Magill is reliable or not.

The quotation from Keogh is the important one. Keogh knew the facts and can write clearly. It's almost all we need in this section, really.

But it is interesting to notice that an Israeli diplomat agreed with the point, because terminology in this field matters, at least in a historical sense, in Israeli politics. So, if I were writing the article, I'd say in the text that Moda'i expressed a similar view to Keogh, and perhaps I'd quote him as briefly as possible in a footnote, citing the Limerick Reader.

The Limerick Reader is reliable. Can't see any good reason to dispute that. Andrew Dalby 15:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course its reliable but the question of WP:UNDUE doesn't belong to this board but probably to WP:NPOV/N--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

About the "Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" article leaflets.

In the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, Binksternet keeps on believing that Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cities on the list and Hiroshima was not. I don't want to go any further as things will gets ugly in the "leaflet" section "http://en.wikipedia.org/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflets". I attempted to remove it in the "leaflet" section, and Bink kept on reversing it back to way it was without providing any legitimate explanation to me whatsoever. Everytime i tried to edit out the problem and everytime i tried to explain he keeps on telling me to go to the talk article and he kept on reversing the back the way it was. The whole thing is he keeps on believing that the Hiroshima was given a leaflet warning with 12 cites with Hiroshima not on the list which no major sources ever said it as i i said again in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&action=history Earlier, he puts on this last sentence on late December 2012, "One such leaflet is on display at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum; it lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed." This is really blatantly dishonest to deceive a reader because two books he put our there said it differently:

"Before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, the city was given the standard psychological warfare treatment prior to an incendiary attack. Leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, indicating, along with several other cities, that they were to be fire bombed within a few days and to evacuate the city. The leaflets are on display at the Peace Museum in Hiroshima and were dropped on the city several days prior to the atomic bombing." No Strategic Targets Left, page 103. F. J. Bradley. Turner Publishing Company, 1999."

"But, the leaflet continued, unless the country agreed to immediate surrender, the bombings would continue. On the back of the leaflet, along with a photograph of a superfortress, were listed the cities destined for destruction: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabaru, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima, it will be noted, was absent from that list; so were Nagasaki, Kokura, and Niigata." The Day man lost: Hiroshima, page 215. Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai. Kodansha International, 1981."

So based on the two links, I then remove that last sentence as i stated above because they are mixed together such as the leaflet was displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Museum (no link even said this nor i know many people who lived there did not say anything about it) to deceive a reader then Bink kept on adding in with the sources continueing on claiming to have that Hiroshima warned with 12 leaflets and Hiroshima was not on the list. He added this link: http://www.gifu-np.co.jp/kikaku/2008/gifu63/g63_20080804.shtml and he claimed that the leaflets were warned on Hiroshima based on the link he provided and said this: "One such leaflet lists 12 cities targeted for firebombing: Otaru, Akita, Hachinohe, Fukushima, Urawa, Takayama, Iwakuni, Tottori, Imabari, Yawata, Miyakonojo, and Saga. Hiroshima was not listed."

He kept on saying this because he believes that Hiroshima was given a 12 city warning when i saw no evidence providing to the contrary whatsoever. And he added the 2nd link in addition to the Japanese link claimed it was based on this: http://books.google.com/books?id=adI-6jRDipgC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

Would you read it and does it REALLY says that Hiroshima was given such as 12 city leaflet? I don't think so. This Google link specifically did not say anything about Hiroshima given the 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not which makes no sense and this link did not specifically say anything about it. I like the say the leaflet section is written as earlier on the article earlier didn't say any information about the leaflets, just had problem with the last sentence to claim that Hiroshima received a warning with 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not. That link isn't along with the Japanese link reliable enough to support the evidence. XXzoonamiXX

Discussion has been going on at the article talk page and at my user talk page. The latest discussion is here: Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Leaflet_listing_names_of_targeted_cities.

This is the full cite for the Richard Miller book:

• Miller, Richard Lee (1986). Under the Cloud: The Decades of Nuclear Testing. Two-Sixty Press. p. 43. ISBN 0029216206.

Miller writes, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The leaflets the Americans had dropped the day before warned of devastation to a number of other cities: Yawata, Saga, Takayama, Akita. Ominously, Hiroshima was not on that list. It was never on the list." This is as clear as it could possibly get, that Hiroshima was leafleted and that the leaflet message was about 12 other cities. The point is that Hiroshima was not warned specifically because Hiroshima was being saved from firebombing so that the atomic bomb's destructive power could be assessed without previously damaged areas confusing the matter. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First, leaflet image you put out can be applied to others since the 12 cities leaflet were dropped on many Japanese cities from July to August so that image is moot.

"possibly get?" You were saying to the fact that Hiroshima was WARNED with the leaflet drops which list 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. Also, you already put in the article main page that no warning was going to given to Hiroshima that the atomic bomb was going to be dropped so your argument is moot. I also already know that Hiroshima was preserved from firebombing so they could assess the damage caused by the nuclear bomb. Again that's completely out of the topic what we are focusing now.

2nd of all, it says, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The leaflets the Americans had dropped the day before warned of devastation to a number of other cities: Yawata, Saga, Takayama, Akita. Ominously, Hiroshima was not on that list. It was never on the list." However, it is clear that after the sentences, "In Hiroshima, the mood among the Japanese citizens was not encouraging. Tokyo had predicted an American invasion within a month or two. Almost all of the major cities had been bombed except four: Kyoto, Niigata, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima."

Now it goes off THEN saying Tokyo predicted the invasion then said that all the major cities had been firebombed and the rest nothing said about the Hiroshima residents in the sentences. It also says that the leaflets warned on which mostly like the Japanese cities in general which listed of cities for targeting and Hiroshima was not on the list so it did not say specifically enough that Hiroshima was given such a warning with four cities listed and Hiroshima was not. So you come to the automatic conclusion that Hiroshima was given such a warning of what you put out in which the link specifically nothing about it.

3rd of all, it says four cities in that Miller link yet it did not say about 12 cities listed and and yet that was put on the article main page. This is a bit deceiving at it's best as you mix two link together as you previously did before. Also, Miller's link inaccurately says that Hiroshima only housed 25,000 troops (All the major sources, including the Japanese ones, agreed that it was about 40,000 soldiers in Hiroshima). If Japanese citizens in Hiroshima was given such a warning (12 cities listed/Hiroshima not), then why didn't the residents say anything about the leaflets being warned with leaflet (12 cities/ Hiroshima was not) nor goes on the details that Japanese officers said so itself? The link make it seems like as it was a third-world source and it make no sense at all.

Also, I was talking about Hiroshima warned of a conventional bombing, not a nuclear bomb and I know that. I don’t want to discredit you but when you put out the last link when it does not specifically say it (As I told you above already) makes other sources seems very discreditable and assume to all sources that say leaflets was warned to Hiroshima about the conventional bombings a bunch of lies. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Commenting for Binksternet. Disclaiming that I'm not a regular contributor to this noticeboard, I'll say, yes, that book does contain that quote. We can verifiably assert that that book does contain that quote. I'm not sure, however, how much of that is simple statement of facts observed by the author and how much is supposition or synthesis on the part of the author. I wonder, for example, what information the author had regarding the mood among the Japanese citizens of Hiroshima. When he says, "It was never on the list", I wonder what specific list the author speaks of, and whether his information about its contents comes from his observation or his supposition. Googling around, I find another source, Studies in Intelligence, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 2002. According to the google search results I got, page 60 of this source says, "Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 55 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following ...". It would be interesting to learn what that source says that the text on the reverse side of the leaflet says. That information is probably easily and verifiably obtainable in U.S. libraries. Unfortunately, I am located on a small island n the Philippines and am unable to obtain/verify that information myself. Perhaps another Misplaced Pages editor might do that and let us know what it says there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes Miller did say Hiroshima was never on the list I never denied it but he assumed that based on the quote he got, Hiroshima was given a leaflet with 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. That the residents in Hiroshima received that leaflet which that book written by Miller did not specifically say that the residents of Hiroshima was given such a warning. You can look what i said above. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Studies in Intelligence source says that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities were leafleted on 1 August 1945. (The CIA webpage is somewhat confusing in that it positions the LeMay leaflet after the Hiroshima explosion, but the text is clear that the LeMay leaflet was dropped before the atomic bomb. A completely different leaflet warning of the vastly powerful new bomb was dropped after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki.) John W. Dower writes that the 12-city leaflet was standard fare in the days leading up to the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Dower writes on pages 186–187 of Cultures of War that the 12 cities "were small and of negligible strategic importance." He says that "several-score" (~40) cities received these LeMay leaflets. He says "neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki nor Kokura" were on the list of 12 cities shown on the leaflet. He says these leaflets were dropped on July 27, July 30 and August 3. (Note that the reported dates of the leaflet drops vary widely within the range of late July and early August. Many of the best sources contradict each other regarding exact dates.) Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very difficult for me to figure out how to explain the situation to XXzoonamiXX; the method of reading a dozen sources to come up with a suitable encyclopedic summary. It seems that XXzoonamiXX is upset that some of the dozen sources contradict each other about various parts of the leaflet situation. I get the impression that XXzoonamiXX wants the atomic bombing article to make some particular statement about the leaflets, but I do not know what that is. XXzoonamiXX's communication skills are confusing to me. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What am I missing? The version supported by Binksternet appears to be supported by a reliable source. What does XXzoonamiXX want the caption to read? Location (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I get what the sources say and i read it many times. My whole point is Binksternet kept on assuming that the residents of Hiroshima was given a leaflet with 12 cities listed and Hiroshima was not based on the Miller Link he has. That's my whole point. It's not that i discredit the facts from the sources that Hiroshima was not giving such a warning but the way you put it makes no sense. I strongly disagreed how you put that in the last sentence right next to "likely Hiroshima was leafleted on early July and August" sentence and the residents of Hiroshima was given such a warning. So i want to move it somewhere else in the "Leaflet" section and not to make it appear that Hiroshima was given such a warning with 12 cities and Hiroshima was not. And BTW, Location, he puts out a CIA article and if you click on the leaflet image of it, you see that 35 cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were targeted with leaflets but he puts out that Hiroshima was not listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Firebombing_leaflet.jpg look at the bottom. Even though it was supported by other book sources, it makes it seem like as if CIA specifically say this nor the image listed the names of the cities listed for destruction. Also BTW, Dower said that 12 cities were targeted on July 27 yet the USAAF chronology says it was only 11 cities. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

XXzoonamiXX, can you find the name 広島/廣島/Hiroshima or 長崎/Nagasaki on the leaflet? Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, faithful translations and transcriptions into English are not OR. Oda Mari (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you listen to what I said, that's not the point what I'm talking about. Specifically, the last sentence gives an impression that Hiroshima was given such as leaflet with 12 cities and Hiroshima was not when it specifically not so i want to move it somewhere else in the "leaflet" section. Also, the Japanese link didn't say specifically anything Hiroshima given such a leaflet, as with the Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai's book as well. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

In Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, there is currently the claim that Pope Benedict will choose to remain in the Vatican in order to avoid the possibility of lawsuits. This is clearly a very strong claim, and there has been some dispute about including it. The source being used is Reuters, so that's good, but the article, "Pope will have security, immunity by remaining in the Vatican", is relying on two anonymous "Vatican officials" as the source for the claim. The article also acknowledges that there are no current cases that name Benedict. So my query is whether or not this is sufficiently reliable for a claim of that strength. - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That is very much a disputed point, and should only be expressed as an opinion offered by whoever-it-is at Reuters. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem being that we don't know who whoever-it-is is, as it is only attributed to "anonymous Vatican sources". But I've attributed it that way, so hopefully it is ok. Thanks for your help. - Bilby (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

www.assassinationresearch.com

• Source: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1fetzer.pdf self-published by James H. Fetzer
• Article: Reclaiming History, a book authored by Vincent Bugliosi
• Content: In his 2007 review of Reclaiming History, conspiracy researcher James H. Fetzer contended that "Bugliosi has misled his readers by lies, omissions, and deliberate distortions, where, in particular, when confronted with evidence that is incompatible with his own—official but fanciful—theory, he either twists, warps, and distorts the evidence or simply ignores it. His key claims are not merely provably false but, in crucial cases, not even physically possible.."

James H. Fetzer has independent notability as an advocate of various conspiracy theories and he is certainly a reliable source for his opinion; however, Assassination Research and www.assassinationresearch.com appear to be self-published by Fetzer. I'm seeking other opinions on the permissibility of this source in the article given that WP:SPS refers to claims about third parties. (One confounding factor, the Fetzer article contains one or two of Bugliosi's opinions about Fetzer taken from Reclaiming History. Tit for tat?) Thanks! Location (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a major problem, because it is relevant that someone like Fetzer has criticised Bugliosi's book. So long as we adequately distance Misplaced Pages from this opinion, and indeed from Bugliosi's opinions, it is clear that we are simply reporting on a spat that took place. It would be good to include some reviews in the mainstream media, if there are any. I saw http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/he-died/ this but not much else. Normally, if there are no reviews in mainstream media, we question whether a book is notable, but in this case I think there were lots of sales so notability probably isn't in doubt. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

And New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1361358118-mkZHKQ+Nk9T2/Wv3GzAtvg Mainstream reviews should go first, in a Reception section. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Undiscovered Scotland

• Source. Undiscovered Scotland web site
• Article. Symbister House
• Content.

  Ghost stories are also narrated to this place, including that of an old sailor who was murdered for arguing with the gardener of the house during a game of cards.

  — Symbister House

In Template:Did you know nominations/Symbister, Symbister House, the web site Undiscovered Scotland is used as a source for the hook: "... that Symbister House (pictured) in Symbister, on the island of Whalsay in Shetland Islands, is reputed to be haunted by an old sailor who was murdered by the gardener during a game of cards?"; specifically the page: "WhalsayUndiscovered Scotland: The Ultimate Online Guide". Undiscovered Scotland. Retrieved 1 February 2013. I contend that Undiscovered Scotland's articles are paid-for placements and are thus not eligible as reliable sources. Please advise linking to policy and/or guidelines where appropriate --Senra (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say not reliable for the claim - That said the claim itself can be reliably sources Church Records from 1867 record it as haunted but no detail , Page 96 of "The Folklore of Orkney and Shetland" 1975 Marwick give it as haunted by a seaman murdered by the gardener. There may be other reasonable references I'm missing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved – Thank you for your response. DYK issue cleared using your source. --Senra (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While your specific Query was resolved it worried me that Dr Blofeld made the claim "Ask WP:Scotland, it's a top website on Scottish subjects which is used as a source for hundreds of articles on here." so I did a check and we have something like 578 articles using this as a reference. This is problematic undiscoveredscotland.co.uk gives no detail as to the reliability of any of its claims at best it's a tertiary source which makes no reference to its secondary sources, at worst its a mess of otherwise unverifiable material that if it can be verified should be sourced to the source of that verification not undiscovered Scotland. The material gives no credit to the author and may be in some cases either commercial in nature or the author may not be a reliable expert in the fields of local history/geography/Travel or may even be user added. As Senra notes above it is fully advertising orientated, and while the design is standards compliant it is rather dated giving the real concern that the content itself may also be dated. Generally these add up to a number of failures of WP:ELNO and WP:SOURCES and I feel that use of the site as a source should be discontinued with all existing pages amended to use other more reliable sites. Is this likewise the feeling of other WP:RSN editors? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Gary Webb (racing driver)

I am new to Wiki. I am the computer tech/financial advisor to Gary Webb (racing Driver) from Blue Grass. The last statement about him (married to ...) is wrong & causes family tension & I don't know how to remove. The rest of the article has incorrect dates & numbers I want to submit correct dates & figures but am not sure of the format needed. This is coming from Gary Webb's mouth so am not sure how to list source either....

Partially resolved. It looks as though another editor has removed the uncited information about a marriage. This was likely vandalism. Regarding dates and numbers for the article, its best to post that information on the talk page with an appropriate source. I'll bring this up at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject NASCAR for you. Location (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please post the information at Talk:Gary Webb (racing driver). I'll watch the page for your information. Please list what's wrong and what's right and I'll take a look at it. Also please list your sources (newspaper articles, magazine articles, books. You can just post a link by copying the web address and pasting it on the talk page. Royalbroil 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A silly claim referenced to unreliable websites

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs), an editor of some experience, maintains that we should keep a "rumor" in one of our articles, Volkswagen_1-litre_car#.24600_price_rumour, though it is based only on the evidence of a website, "truthorfiction.com": this rumor is reprinted here, with reference made to one single email. If you look at the talk page (unpleasant discussion ongoing; I had asked Gorlitz on their talk page but they moved it to the article talk page) you'll find another link, this one, on an even more questionable site, Resources for Life ("Holistic Wellness! Business Services!"). You'll also see that Gorlitz has defended the section before against two other editors. Now, Gorlitz, I think, claims the information is "reliably sourced" because, I suppose, he looked at a clip from ABC on that Holistic website. The clip is no longer there, and it's impossible to tell "what" ABC it was, or which one of their local (and often not so reliable) affiliates.

It is my contention that neither of these two websites are reliable sources; that the memory of Gorlitz having seen the clip is not enough to verify that the information was indeed every reported on a news program; and that the information should be removed since we don't report internet rumors unless they're reliably sourced and of some value to an article. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The assumption that the claim is "silly" is all the editor's here.

The unpleasant discussion is all at Drmies's hand. I am trying to remain pleasant. Sorry about for not devolving into name-calling so that it could have been more unpleasant. I'll see if I can work on that in the future as opportunity arises.

There was a link to ABC news, which they have removed as part of their editorial policy: archiving old stories. Unfortunately, it's a victim of link rot. No further copies of that story were available when later edits were made otherwise I would have added the source as well. Link rot applies to outside sources as well. And, contrary to claims, it's not just my memory that serves as witness here, but the author of the story claims it was there at one time as well. Thankfully, the presence of that video is not key to the reliability of this source however.

The question isn't whether there will ever be a $600 version of this vehicle sold in the US or any Western nation, it's whether VW ever intended to sell one in the Chinese market. That's what the issue was. Over a few edits, another editor and I came to this consensus or compromise. So the source is to confirm the idea (probably incorrectly labelled as a rumour) that such a vehicle may have been planned, and the reference does support it. For this purpose, that specific source is sufficiently reliable, and it links to other secondary sources. I suppose we could add those linked sources instead. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the previous two editors might disagree with your claim of pleasantness. At any rate, can you provide reliable sources for this rumor? Or will we have to build an encyclopedic article on the evidence given in an unreliable source that once upon a time there were reliable sources? In short: can we get a reliable source to state that VW intended at one point to etc.? For now, what you're defending is an unreliably sourced account of a rumor. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So the source is to confirm the idea (probably incorrectly labelled as a rumour) that such a vehicle may have been planned, and the reference does support it. -- Which source?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The source that's there is http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/v/vwl1.htm while all of the discussion here has been about http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item3583 --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That site is even worse, if possible. The page is simply a reprint of an alleged email. No sources are given, and the site has more ads than editors. It's owned by Branches Communications, apparently, and there is nothing anywhere about an editorial board or policy. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are very poor. It is clear that there was a hubbub of misinformed discussion on the internet, but it didn't make the mainstream apart from possibly ABC. An internet rumour which has left no trace except on discussion boards and rumour sites seems about as non-notable significant as it comes for purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone complains, let's call this incident insignificant, rather than non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the correction, which I have now made. I made the same suggestion to Jimbo re notable/significance years back... you'd think I could take my own advice!!! Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East

• Source: Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East. Google Books link and publisher link.
• Article: Azerbaijani language
• Content: used on this revision – diff. Check page 79 of the source (book). Is this book RS to use for number/population of a specific language-speakers or population of an ethnic group? Zheek (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Two sources for Tough Trip Through Paradise

Looking for advice -- I'm about to embark on a major edit of the page for Tough Trip through Paradise, and I've got two sources to ask about.

The first is the Andrew Garcia--Mountain Man page on franksrealm.com, which was heavily used as a source by the last editor. The franksrealm page only gives "Donald Gilbert y Chavez" as its source, and I've noticed a number of discrepancies between franksrealm and the handful of print sources I've consulted thus far.

The other question I have is whether an online guide or finding aid to a manuscript collection held in an archives is considered an acceptable/reliable source. I know the manuscript collection itself is a primary source and therefor not to be used, but what of the description of the collection, as published to an online catalog by the historical society that owns the collection? The specific page I have in mind is the Northwest Digital Archives page for the Ben Stein research collection. If it's a no-go I have other sources to use, but I'd like to know before I begin my edits in earnest. (apologies for initial failure to sign; still new to this) RogueArchivist (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of franksrealm as a source would have to be justified based on the author's reliability in peer-reviewed publications elsewhere. Without that, we can't use it. Cite it under external links, that's all.

You can use primary sources if they are published or on line (assuming the people concerned are dead), but purely for what they say: you must use secondary sources for any interpretation.

It's a positive that this archive handlist is on line, so other editors can verify your use of it. These handlists are a bit like museum labels: probably OK, but reliability is difficult to judge and the material is unlikely to be peer reviewed. We are dependent on one librarian or archivist, a professional, but anyone can make errors in analysing documents. We discussed the use of museum labels on this board recently, but whether the use of archive handlists has been discussed I don't recall. Andrew Dalby 08:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

onefivenine

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#onefivenine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission

Two editors, (121.208.25.30/121.208.25.42/60.225.253.209/60.225.253.231/121.208.25.71) and (180.149.192.132/180.149.192.134/180.149.192.133/180.149.192.139) are repeatedly deleting the following paragraph from the article section Accusations of false claims on the grounds that it is "based on demonstrably false claims" and is an attempt "to discredit book." Moran is rather controversial as his books support Windschuttle's position in the History wars, ie:that while some deaths did occur there were no massacres of Aboriginals. The massacres are myths based on hearsay and the misleading use of evidence by academics.

Moran's claims regarding the reliability of Gribble were examined by Green and found to rely on unreliable sources, and where reliable sources are cited the claims are misinterpreted, false or can not be found in them at all.. — Green, Neville: Ahab wailing in the wilderness Quadrant June 2003 Pg 30-33

The reference for the above is a reply to two articles authored by journalist Rod Moran, Gribble out of Balance and Ernest Gribble's Dark Torment. Written by Historian Neville Green the reply was published in Quadrant magazine. As it is not online I have copy/pasted some of the relevant supporting text:

He did not, as Moran claimed, assist Trower in the investigation, and the Trower report, alluded to by Moran, does not exist...Moran claimed that "according to descendants," Jack Gribble "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island", was a bigamist and that he engaged in shady land deals. Jack Gribble has only one and she denied making any of the derogatory statements Moran attributed to her...In his attempt to vilify Ernest Gribble and denigrate Christine Halse, Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted.

Green's interpretation of Moran's work is widely supported by other academics such as archaeologist and historian Sylvia Hallam:

Moran states explicitly that he is following the example of Keith Windschuttle's recent book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History"... cites material which supports his contentions and ignores other equally available material which might support the opposite view. Rod Moran leaves himself open to similar doubts...Moran's preface throws some doubts on his claims of impartiality...The evidence Moran cites does not always support his conclusions.More important criticisms are lack of adequate context, lack of ballance and insufficient presentation and explication of evidence. — review of Moran's book Sex, Maiming and Murder: Seven case studies into the reliability of Reverend E.R.B. Gribble published in the Australian Aboriginal Studies journal by Sylvia Hallam

Is the source, Ahab wailing in the wilderness Quadrant June 2003 Pg 30-33, a reliable source per WP policies and does the text reflect the source's claims? Wayne (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To paraphrase how another user has put it, is it responsible Misplaced Pages editing to include text based on commentary (by Green) on a source (in this case Moran’s books and articles) where that commentary can be seen to be false simply by reading the source commented upon? When an academic gets it obviously wrong, makes demonstrably false claims or puts false information in print, why would we want to allow those false claims or that false information into Misplaced Pages?

Green makes claims that sources referred to by Moran do not exist or do not contain the information Moran says they do. Let’s take the first example, Wayne has given from Green’s article: “He did not, as Moran claimed, assist Trower in the investigation, and the Trower report, alluded to by Moran, does not exist..”

Moran does not claim that “he” (being Police Sergeant Buckland) assisted Bishop Trower in the investigation nor did Moran refer to “the Trower report”. In Massacre Myth (Moran, Rod (1999). Massacre myth: An investigation into allegations concerning the mass murder of Aborigines at Forrest River. Bassendean: Access Press. ISBN 0-86445-124-5.), Moran refers to Trower twice only, on page 41 Moran wrote:

“The Commissioner obviously knew of the case because he remarked that Bishop Trower, who was at Forrest River at the time, said there was nothing in the allegations. (Q2625) The latter had carried out his own enquiry into the matter. But Nairn pointed out that Gribble had said there had been a massacre of a whole camp. At Q2629 he asked Neville: “You found no justification for Mr Gribble’s report?” He replied: “No. We found that natives had not been killed”. In fact, the enquiry found that the police had acted in self-defence while trying to apprehend a murderer.”

The Neville referred to here was A.O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia.The enquiry referred to by Neville was the official enquiry.

Moran’s second reference to Trower is on page 152: “However on investigation, it was found that, in the words of , Chief Protector Neville—in response to the question “You found no justification for Mr Gribble’s report?” --- at Q2629: “No. We found that natives had not been killed”. The Commissioner himself noted earlier that “I think…Bishop {Trower] reported that there was nothing in the allegations”.

So Moran does not claim that there was a 'report', in the form of some kind of document. He merely notes Commissioner Wood’s use of the word ‘reported’ in terms of what the Bishop said. There are no other references to Trower in Moran's book.

Let’s have a look at the next part of Wayne’s selection of examples: “Moran claimed that "according to descendants," Jack Gribble "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island", was a bigamist and that he engaged in shady land deals. Jack Gribble has only one and she denied making any of the derogatory statements Moran attributed to her...”

The references to Jack Gribble Melville Island and the phrases "according to descendants," "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island" and the allegations regarding land dealings, bigamy, etc, come from page 215 of Massacre Myth. He gives a footnote for that paragraph. Moran makes no reference whatsoever to Jack Gribble’s female descendant, he identifies the source in the footnote 23 as “Gribble and Race Relations, p 432” (this is Dr Christine M. Halse’s thesis where she says on pp 432-433 “Of his later life, the Gribble family and others talk shyly about shady land-deals, a disreputable stint as a missionary on Melville Island, and a court-trial on a charge of bigamy.225” and she gives the following reference for those points (reference number) 225 "interview, Mary Oxborrow and Mrs Eric Gribble, Sydney, 12 March 1986." So it is Dr Christine Halse who reported the interview. Green, however, chooses not to let the reader know that fact.

There are a couple of other examples of Green misrepresenting what Moran used as sources or found in sources on the talk page, if anyone wants to take a look.

Can we really say Green’s article is a reliable source?

The fact is there are 2 principal books written about Forrest River, one by Neville Green and the other by Rod Moran. There should be fair and accurate representation of both in the article. The fact is that some historians have commmented unfavourably on Moran's work and some including Professor David Day and Dr Josephine Flood have commented favourably. Incidentally that claim in the Hallam review that "Moran states explicitly that he is following the example of Keith Windschuttle's recent book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History" happens to be false too. There is no source whatsoever for the claim.60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC) I see that my ISP address has been reset/changed again. I'm AKA ]/121.208.25.42/60.225.253.209/60.225.253.231/60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI the references to "Q2629" above are to a question number in the record of the 1927 Royal Commission.60.225.253.141 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Simply reading the source commented upon for Misplaced Pages to come to a conclusion regarding the reliability of Green is not permitted. The subject is prominent enough that the three academics who support Moran should have published something in the 10 years since Green published. Your entire post is irrelevant, synthesis and original research and as such can not be used to determine reliability. For an example of why we can't use original research... you claim that Green is making a false claim because Moran was only citing Halse. That is irrelevant as Moran still made the claim in his own book without any fact checking which would have quickly revealed that Jack Gribble was serving in the Navy for the entire period in question and that the mission on Melville Island was Roman Catholic, making it unlikely that Gribble, who was a Protestant minister, was acting as a missionary for them. Thus Green's criticism was correct. As for the two books, we have the mainstream view (ie:historian Neville Green's peer reviewed book) that the massacre occurred and the minority view (ie:journalist Rod Moran's self published book) that no massacre occurred. We must give prominence to the mainstream view regardless of the Misplaced Pages editors own views. Moran's book is adequately covered. Wayne (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a somewhat flexible view of what Misplaced Pages standards are for preferred sources. The statement: “Of his later life, the Gribble family and others talk shyly about shady land-deals, a disreputable stint as a missionary on Melville Island, and a court-trial on a charge of bigamy.” and the reference for it are contained in Dr Christine M. Halse’s PhD thesis (which since it was specifically about Ernest Gribble and his family, makes her the leading academic expert on the 'field' of the Gribbles). This thesis went through the entire process of review, acceptance and approval by the University of Queensland. The claims by Neville Green "that Jack Gribble was serving in the Navy for the entire period in question and that the mission on Melville Island was Roman Catholic, making it unlikely that Gribble, who was a Protestant minister, was acting as a missionary for them" are contained in an article dashed off by Green and published in Quadrant magazine. You are saying that Green's magazine article, which did not go through any process of peer-review, is to be regarded as correct and is to be preferred to Dr Halse's PhD thesis? By any standard, both Misplaced Pages and Moran are fully entitled to accept that Halse is the reliable source, not Green, and since Moran relied on the reliable source, he has to be regarded as correct on this issue.60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Next point, you refer to Moran's book as "self-published" which is a term that has a defined meaning. Moran's book was published and sold by Access Press which expressly advertises on its website that it does not provide self-publishing services. So that's an incorrect claim by you.

It seems that your idea of Misplaced Pages editing is that editors must switch off their brains. If text is based on claims that are obviously false, editors are obliged to remove it.60.225.253.141 (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Access may have paid for distribution, but Moran still paid for the book to be printed. What is "obviously false" to you is irrelevant, you can not use any original research in WP. Wayne (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this really an RS question? Using our common sense to say that a source is weak is type of reasoning we can use when deciding on what weight to give a source, which is something to be judged on the article talk page, but it is not really relevant to what is normally discussed on this noticeboard. I see nothing at first sight which gives a reason to invoke RS as a reason for not using the sources under discussion. The discussion seems to be one more about getting the right balance between WP:RS-acceptable sources? That seems to be for other forums, but concerning other policies I would point out that concerning the question of due weight, we do not normally accept "common sense" arguments for removing any well-known sources. We aim to report whatever is mainstream and when the mainstream is controversial, report more sources, and show the controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The two anons believe that mainstream and minority views should be given equal weight, they are oblivious to Misplaced Pages policies regarding reliability and no one else has weighed in on the article talk page. I was hoping that bringing this here and getting a few editors to tell them that they have to provide sources rather than base reliability on what is "obvious to them" would end the matter. What other board would be more appropriate? Wayne (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am seeking fair and accurate representation of the Moran book in the article, nowhere have I asked for ‘equal weight’ nor, that I can recall, has the other editor who objects to Wayne’s use of this material, asked for ‘equal weight’ . The particular text that I and the other editor object to is being used to mislead the readers of Misplaced Pages into dismissing the book as having a valid contribution to the debate on Forrest River by pretending that Moran falsely claimed that he had found evidence in sources when Neville Green ‘proves’ that the evidence is not in those sources.

Green reproduced a part of the text of Moran’s book, pretended that Moran had only 1 source for it, Constable St Jack’s patrol journal entry, and then reproduces that journal entry which does not contain all the information that Moran had reported. Moran, in fact, clearly listed multiple sources for that reconstruction in his book, not just the journal. Green pretends the others don’t exist. No original research required for that, it is simply what is written in the source. Green claimed that Moran , in his review of Christine Halse’s book, had claimed to find ‘suggestive’ evidence in Commissioner Wood's report regarding Gribble’s motive for inventing a massacre that never happened. Reading the review “Ernest Gribble's dark torment”, Moran clearly makes no claim to have found that evidence in the report and the sources that Moran actually used are clearly stated in his book Massacre Myth. Other examples, where Green misrepresented Moran’s work, are discussed above.

Green's article seems to be a case of him lashing out with wild and false accusations at Moran because Moran's book challenges the book that Green made his reputation on.

Surely there is a fundamental issue of reliability where the magazine article that Wayne wants to use as a source makes claims that are false.

We can certainly give prominence to the mainstream view on what happened at Forrest River but we shouldn’t allow the minority view to be misrepresented which is what the text that I and the other editor object to does.60.225.253.141 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is a controversy amongst mainstream and/or notable sources, then we should report that controversy and not take sides I'm afraid. The internet is full of venues for expressing our own opinions, but this particular site has less ambitious aims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that it is Wayne who is asking for this noticeboard to ‘authorise’ the inclusion of his wording in the article over the consensus/objections of the other 2 editors. It also seems that the basis for his request is a very narrow interpretation of Misplaced Pages’s policies on reliable sources. Just because you have a source for something doesn’t override the fundamental need for whatever you put into the articles to be correct, to be accurate. The 2 ‘anons’, as you refer to them, have given very strong reasons why this wording introduces incorrect information into the article. If their assurances that the information in Green’s article is not correct are not enough for you, I’ve just pulled Moran’s book from the stacks, looked at the relevant pages and can confirm that the ‘anons’ are correct. Green’s article does grossly misrepresent Moran’s sources. I suggest that you go back to the sources yourself and reconsider whether the material is something fit for inclusion. Misrepresentations about someone else's book like those Green makes have no place in Misplaced Pages where, I would hope, most editors strive for accuracy and honesty.The Schoolteacher (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning RS policy, you are right that WP editors do not need to feel any compulsion from RS policy to include a work. (RS is more a guideline about what not to include.) But other policies are relevant. Is Moran's book well-known? For example is it frequently cited and well known? If so (and it seems so from comments above) then not reporting its opinions could be considered WP:censorship and WP:OR. It could make WP report a different WP:balance from what a reader would find if they went out and collected the most cited WP:mainstream sources on this subject. Being asked to avoid this can of course be a frustrating thing when you find that a field has very widely cited badly written sources, which happens often. I think what you ideally want to find is a published criticism of Moran so that you can report the controversy. If the controversy is only with WP editors we should not be basing our editing on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

OpenSecrets.org

Is the use at KochPAC proper in using pages from OpenSectrets.org to make statements which use information compiled from that site? Specifically the detailed information about how many candidates received X amount of money from the PAC? In addition, claims are made in that article which do not even seem to originate from Opensecrets.org on the pages cited at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

First, are there other secondary sources that contradict the OpenSecrets compilations? Second, Center for Responsive Politics is the OpenSecrets group. They are a respected organization, publishing contributions in a non-partisan manner. Third, they are cited in hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles. Finally, if you know of "facts" at the KochPAC article that are not supported by the cited sources, then tag them with the failed verification template. Binksternet (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You answer what I did not ask -- my question is whether the counting of how many received how much money is, in fact, SYNTH when the claim is not explicit on the source. That is "3 received $X " where the source is a list from which the "3" is a derived figure. In short - since I did not say the raw data was wrong, answering that is nicely irrelevant. The question posed is - are figures derived from the raw data also proper? Collect (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_summary makes it clear to me at least that this particular summarization is entirely proper. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CALC allows simple math in Misplaced Pages articles, such as adding multiple figures from multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Richard Keatinge and Binksternet in regard whether the summaries are reliable. However, there used to be an identical page that was not referring to KochPAC, but to Koch Industries; which included KochPAC, any other PACs run by any of the Koch companies, and contributions by self-identified employees of Koch companies. Assuming good faith on CRP's part, it would be logical to assume that this is still the combined data, although now it says KochPAC, and hence not appropriate for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While CALC uses the term "sources", the caveat is that there be consensus on their usage. It does not mean that data from multiple, disperate sources be used to achieve an end result. For example, adding numbers from different data bases, which have different sample sizes, populations, times of collection, etc. would be improper. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

FOIA document question

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Salvatore Giunta#February 2013. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Second hand account from a primary source

Decided that it might worth checking for. Source in question is a primary source, to be more precise it is a personal account of the author regarding to the events in question. However in a preceding section of the book the author has noted not being at the time of the event at the location in question. Later when describing the event on entry marked as '14 September' the description is phrased as

Что же здесь произошло?

Я знал следующее.

Новый Белоостров, захваченный было противником 4 сентября и отбитый нами на следующий день, снова три дня назад, 11 сентября, оказался в руках врага...

Rough translation:

What happened here?

I knew the following.

New Beloostrov captured by the enemy was on September 4 and batted us the next day, again, three days ago, on September 11, was in the hands of the enemy...

So the question is, is a second hand account (since the author has already stated not being at the location at the time) from a primary source a reliable source - since at least for me it appears to be rather questionable source.

Source in question: Luknitsky, Pavel (1988) (in Russian). Сквозь всю блокаду . Leningrad: Lenizdat. page 58 (In Russian) in article Continuation War used to back up a following statement:

However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You forgot another source (secondary) which is also used for that statement in the article:

Russia at War, 1941-1945, by Werth:

page 228: In the north, on September 4, the Finns occupied the former frontier station of Beloostrov, twenty miles north of Leningrad, but were thrown out on the following day.

page 265: There is also no doubt that the Finns did, at one moment, push beyond the old frontier, since they captured the Russian frontier town of Beloostrov only twenty miles north-west of Leningrad; here, however, the Russians counter-attacked, and the Finns were thrown out on the very next day, after which this part of the front was stabilised.

-YMB29 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I never forgot it. However Werth does not discuss N. Beloostrov in his text - instead he uses reference just to 'Beloostrov'. This is rather crucial since the nearby S. Beloostrov saw fighting at the time mentioned - as documented in plethora of secondary sources. In addition the Werth does not have relevance to the reliability of Luknitsky's diary. Especially since if you combine information from two separate sources you are already violating wikipedia rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the Werth book is relevant to the text from the article which you quoted, since that text is attributed to these two sources.

Only N. Beloostrov had a station, so the two sources are talking about the same location. -YMB29 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem is the Werth is not discussing of any railroad station, instead he is referring to a frontier station. Only location he mentions is 'Beloostrov' which can refer to either of the two possibilities. Just because you make your personal conclusion on the source that it would be discussing of N. Beloostrov it does not mean that it would actually be doing so - that is called OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, the station can only refer to a railway station, unless you think it was the 18th century US and not the 20th century USSR... -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong once again, by making the conclusion that it can only refer to a railway station you are already doing OR because the source does not say so. Also i never referred to anything in 18th century US, that is once again all your conclusions and OR from you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if it is not a railway station then what else can it be?

Common sense is not OR... -YMB29 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not for us to decide since it is would a conclusion done beyond what the sources are stating. Any 'conclusion' or use of 'common sense' goes beyond what the source is stating. Also for the note that source is still not relevant to the discussion at hand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It confirms the supposedly unreliable source you complain about.

The Werth source says station, if you think that refers to a colonial frontier station, a space station or a shopping station then that is your problem... -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again conclusion that it refers to colonial frontier station or space station is again your own OR. If the source does not state which it was then it can not be said in the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are claiming that it cannot be said to be a railway station, then you are implying that it might be a colonial frontier or space station... -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The source only specifies it as 'frontier station' however it never states that it would have been a railway station. It might or it might not. Regardless concluding that it was is already OR since it goes beyond what the source states. And only you have referred to it as colonial frontier or space station so it would better for all involved if you kept you OR away from the discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It would benefit everyone if you stopped making false accusations and admitted your OR that was confirmed by a third opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Which as it happens is not what person giving the third opinion stated. Regardless i see no point to spread that discussion here, it already has it's own discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are going to ignore third opinion feedback again? -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As said there is another discussion for this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the correct translation for the above Russian text is:

What happened here?

I knew the following.

Novyi Beloostrov was captured by the enemy on September 4 and retaken by us the next day, but three days ago, on September 11, it was in the hands of the enemy again.

-YMB29 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Luknitsky was a war correspondent. I don't understand why Wanderer602 thinks that he had to personally witness an event for his information to be considered reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what his position was. The work he made is a personal, unofficial, diary of the events in which the author admits the information regarding the fighting at the N. Beloostrov on 4 September 1941 to be second hand information. That is the only thing that matters. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He does not admit anything... I still don't understand why you think he had to be there himself for his information to be reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He states at not being at location at the time of the event and then states that he suddenly 'knew' something which had not witnessed. If it was not first hand information then it was second hand information (by definition, not by conclusion). Also it would be polite if you kept your OR from this discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The only OR is coming from you. You still did not answer my question... -YMB29 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a second hand account of events described in biased personal diary. And keep your own deductions and conclusions (i.e. your own OR) elsewhere. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So everything correspondents write is a biased "second hand account of events"? Keep your twisted logic to yourself... -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The information is confirmed by a secondary source and an army report. -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If by secondary source you refer to Werth, then answer is no, the source is question does not discuss of 'railway station'. Which means that the current entry is OR. However if we read the primary source you linked to without analyzing any of its contents or without doing conclusion on it then it has to be said that it does not discuss that N. Beloostrov would have been cleared of enemies - and since doing analysis or conclusion on primary sources is forbidden (needs to be read as it is) it can not be used as a source for such a statement - especially when there were two Beloostrovs next to each other in the Karelian Isthmus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You know other people read this...

The source directly mentions the Finns taking it and being kicked out.

So far you failed in your desperate attempts to prove that it is somehow unreliable. -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it is a primary and can not be used for analysis. As it does explicitly discuss 'Beloostrov' (not N. Beloostrov) in the second part of the statement - it could mean either of the Beloostrovs in the area - and since it does not say you can not conclude it either way since any analysis or conclusions from primary sources is OR. As you so quaintly put it, leave it to the historians. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It is amazing how quickly you can transform from pushing OR to vehemently fighting against it when you need to...

It does not explicitly discuss N. Beloostrov? Maybe you will notice it now: On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands. -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Only part which discusses N. Beloostrov is the section stating that fighting broke out at there. However rest of the text does not make that rather crucial distinction between the two localities - and since it is a primary source no wikipedia editor can do that conclusion either without it being OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So are you actually going to claim that the same sentence is talking about two separate locations?? -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It might or it might not. Point is that we can not tell. And since it is a primary source we can not conclude it either way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just too funny... -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You may disagree with wikipedia's rules but then again you shouldn't introduce sources which violate it either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not think that a "frontier station" is necessarily a railway station? Secondly, someone can at least find a clearer term than "Soviet sources" to describe the sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source in question is a book based on the diary of a Soviet war correspondent.

There are two towns, N. Beloostrov and S. Beloostrov. N. Beloostrov has a railway station (the last stop before the old Soviet-Finnish border), so when the author writes "frontier station of Beloostrov," which town do you think he refers to? -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If Werth discussed of a 'station' then there wouldn't be much to discuss - however he does not. He explicitly refers to it as 'frontier station'. He does not make any references for it being a railway station - by doing that conclusions you are already doing OR since the source does not state so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So what else can that mean? You are just being disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem with your stance, you have already concluded beyond what the source is stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The word "station" existed before railways existed. Even in recent English, "frontier station" might still mean "manned frontier crossing" rather than "frontier railway station". You'd need more context to be certain what the author meant. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew is correct. "Frontier station" can mean the same as "frontier post". In a military context it can mean a fortified outpost near the frontier. It is certainly can't be assumed to be a train station. Zero 11:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The other location was a settlement or village, not a military outpost. Again, this is not the 18th century US...

Yes, it would be incorrect to make that assumption... If one location did not have a train station...

Also, in the Russian translation of the book, the word станция (station) is used and that can only mean a train station.

Wanderer602 is just nitpicking. -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something but if S Beloostrov is not the one on the frontier, it will not be the frontier station no matter what the word station is referring to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The two locations are nearby, so both can be said to be on the frontier, but S. Beloostrov did not have a train station and was not a military outpost.

Furthermore, Wanderer602 is aware that S. Beloostrov was captured by the Finns earlier and the Soviets were not able to retake it, as mentioned in the article , so the author cannot be talking about S. Beloostrov. -YMB29 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Both S. Beloostrov and N. Beloostrov were on the frontier before the Winter War. There was no difference there.

As stated by other users term 'frontier station' can refer to other things than 'railway station' - which only verified that your conclusion that it must mean railway station is OR. And since we are editing English Misplaced Pages and that the original language of the source is English it is hardly relevant what Russian translation of English text states after it has been back-translated into English (as per WP:NOENG).

Statement regarding not being able to retake it is valid in broad context but a according to for example Russian historian Juri Kilin (in the source used for the text section, the book 'Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941', referenced above by YMB29) Soviet forces did reach the S. Beloostrov on exactly the date (5 September) in question after Finns had captured in on the 4 September 1941 and managed to capture it; however the Finnish counter attack to the Soviet counter attack managed to retake the village of S. Beloostrov to the Finns later in 5 September. I cut some parts of the description from the text - since it involved counter attacks and counter attacks against counter attacks - just to keep it simple. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You added the text into the article about the Soviet attacks on S. Beloostrov failing. Now you are trying to say no?

It is a translation of the same book, so WP:NOENG does not apply.

You will find an excuse for everything... -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As the source did, if we observe the whole of the 5 September then the Soviet effort to retake the village failed. Soviet counter attack launched on 5 September against Finnish advances of 4 September was successful in reaching the village (i.e. capturing) but Finnish counter attack to the Soviet counter attack to the Finnish original attack threw the Soviets out from the S. Beloostrov again still on the 5 September. Actually NOENG applies since you deliberately using back to forth translations to enforce your point of view of a certain term which we already have valid English language source (the original). - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The translation can clear doubts about the term, so WP:NOENG has nothing to do with this.

Reaching is not the same as capturing, just so you know... -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation can, yes, but in this case the source (original work) is already in English so there is no need for translations as per WP:NOENG. Performing personal back and forth translations is actually OR once again as per the guidelines given in wikipedia page defining what is not original research which quite clearly states together with WP:NOENG that English language sources are preferred and that previous translations should be preferred instead of new ones. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Magazine associated with Careers 360

Some questions arise about the use of the magazine associated with Careers 360. The main site of the organization is Careers 360 Following is a link to the magazine archives: Magazine archives.

The magazine is used as a source in Indian Institute of Planning and Management and is the subject of discussion in Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy

Both of those articles have cleanup issues, with dead links, citations needed and other issues, but one of the issues to address is whether links to the magazine constitute reliable sources.

Does the magazine arm of a career resource organization enjoy the same status as a news magazine? What should our position be on the use of this source?

This is one of the references used: example

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what it is being used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source is being used to support, inter alia, this claim:

As per Mahesh B Sarma in Careers 360, NVAO, the accreditation organization for Netherlands and Flanders,[ has clarified that IMI "is not a recognised higher education institution in the Dutch or French speaking part of Belgium" and cannot award recognised degrees.

That claim appears,on its face, to be supported by the reference. However, as the article goes on to note:

In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation charge against Careers 360. According to Arindam Chaudhuri, Honorary Dean of IIPM, the courts in February 2010 had admitted IIPM's defamation cases against Outlook and Careers 360. In May 2010, the court upheld that the contents of the Careers 360 article were "prima facie defamatory" and issued bailable warrants against Maheshwar Peri, publisher of Careers 360 and Outlook, and Mahesh B Sarma, editor of Careers 360.

I think we ought to have serious reservations about using as a source a publication which has been found to have published defamatory material. If this is were isolated, it might not be much of an argument. Surely many sources accepted as reliable sources have lost a defamation suit at some time. However, this suit was directly involved with coverage of this incident.

I should note that I am in OTRS email discussions with one of the parties.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors of these two IIPM pages which have seen quite some history. Initially, I had tried to remove Careers360 as a source. I had three points: (1) Careers360 is a student news magazine and is not as good a reliable source as editorially reviewed newspapers; (2) It focuses on advertisements from a lot of this institution's competitors and could have a conflict of interest in reporting; (3) The publisher of this magazine Maheshwar Peri was initially the publisher of Outlook, which not only is a direct competitor of the institution's magazine called The Sunday Indian but more importantly also had court rulings against it because of an IIPM case. The problem here is that Careers360 is, in my opinion, a classic questionable source. Not only has there been continuous litigation between the two parties (IIPM & Careers360), the Careers360 news reports have been asked to be blocked in India again in a court ruling last week that made news in India. If one were to look at the Careers 360 publisher's Facebook page (which I won't link out here but anyone can view it typing the publisher's name in Facebook; second name first), you'll see that every second post is a ranting against IIPM. Other editors had objected at that time commenting that Maheswar Peri was a respected publisher at Outlook therefore my views were mistaken. Of course, at that time, the courts had not ruled on this issue. Once the bailable warrants had come out, I think Maheswar Peri also had to resign from his Outlook publisher position. My view since then remains that this heavily conflicted source should be deleted. Such a large section like this has been built largely on a questionable source when we should purely use secondary sources to refer to such controversial statements. And if there are no secondary sources other than Careers360 for the incident, then this incident any way does not merit inclusion. Wifione 18:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Various sources at Politics of global warming

A number of what I think are questionable sources is used at Politics of global warming to make statements of fact. These include

• An op-ed reprinted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• This report by Joanne Nova published by the Science and Public Policy Institute to support a somewhat confused claim about "academia"
• An article by Greenpeace on funding of "climate denial"
• A discussion of Greenpeace at http://activistcash.com/
• An article by the Discovery Institute

There seem to be several other questionable sources and WP:OR there as well, so additional eyes would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work on this page. It was UTTER GARBAGE in December. SInce then I've tried to bring it up. I"m frankly tired of Rogue Admins and POV pushers showing up and attempting to oppose any kind of a reasonable work to DESCRIBE the extremely complex politics of global warming. I can't fight and win against an administrator who has been found to be Rogue. You guys do what you want. If you want me to try to write a good and balanced NPOV article on global warming, please let me know. Otherwise, please feel free to revert the page to the UTTER GARBAGE that I found here in December. Tired guys and very tired of the 4 year old POV pushing on the whole climate change issue. Trying to make it (wikipedia) better here. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephan there is not much we can do with this unless you explain the contexts, for example what was being cited. Asking this noticeboard for a general ruling about a source is not normally appropriate. You say statements of facts, but which facts? We need to deal with concrete information.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I know that would be ideal. But I had serious trouble - some of the statements "supported" by the facts seem to be rather unconnected with them, and some seem to be so confused that I really was not able to summarise them. Since I think the sources are generally unsuitable, I'd rather not first try to argue about what they say, and then have a second discussion on why they are unsuitable. As an example, the Discovery Institute source is attached to "Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy." I'm not even sure if someone thinks the article says that, or if it is supposed to be an example the such a campaign. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I feel strange about indirectly defending such weak looking sources, but still, it is hard to know how to comment in a serious way. We can say "looks like a weak source" but I am sure you know this noticeboard tries to avoid such loose comments because otherwise it just becomes an extension of talkpage debates. Most sources can be reliable for something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

St Martinus University History

en.wikipedia.org/St._Martinus_University_Faculty_of_Medicine

In the history section of this page there are multiple reference that are incorrect

St. Martinus University was established on May 22, 2000. In 2010 with escalating debts and low enrollment the university was forced to close. St. Martinus reopened under new ownership in October 2010.

The reference referred does not mention anything about the year it was closed. In fact the university was never closed. A verfiable reference that was provided that shows the university is awarding degrees since 2003 to current is being removed.

In addition the University is designated by Canada as an institute for highr learning. The requirement for the institute to be on higher learning are as follows:

   (a) An international post-secondary educational institution located outside the United States must meet the following criteria:
       be approved for the purpose of student financial assistance in its home country; and
       demonstrate stability by having been in continuous operation for a minimum of two years prior to designation.

(b) An international post-secondary educational institution must also be listed in one of the following references:

       International Handbook of Universities (International Association of Universities, Stockton Press),
       the World of Learning  (Europa Publications),
       the Commonwealth Universities website at www.acu.ac.uk/home  ,
       the International Association of Universities website at www.unesco.org/iau/members_friends/mem_membinst1.html, 
       the federal school look up for FAFSA, (US Department of Education www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw0607/fslookup.htm, or
       Accredited Institutions of Postsecondary Education (Greenwood Publishing Group),

2. International post-secondary educational institutions located outside of the United States offering medical programs must meet the following criteria in addition to the criteria listed above in section 2:

       Be listed on the International Medical Education Directory imed.ecfmg.org/ maintained by the Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER) or the World Directory of Medical Schools www.who.int/hrh/documents/wdms_upgrade/en/index.html maintained by the World Health Organization. 
       Be approved by a member of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada;
       Be in continuous operation for at least ten years.

The university is approved by Canada government in Jan, 3 2013. This implies that the university is continuous operations for the last 10 years.

This is logical that a wrong resource is being put. We kindly make a request to fix this error and correct tthe history sections.--Sharmauiuc (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.pearlfmradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2040&Itemid=73
2. https://imed.faimer.org/details.asp?country=667&school=st.+martinus+university+faculty+of+medicine&currpage=1&cname=CURACAO&city=&region=CA&rname=Central+America%2FCaribbean&mcode=665040&psize=25
3. http://tools.canlearn.ca/cslgs-scpse/cln-cln/50/reea-mdl/reea-mdl-1-eng.do?nom-name=inter

Cheers (season 1)

An editor removed a review from the Blogspot. I wonder if the removed content should be re-inserted. --George Ho (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on who W.L. Swarts is. For example, Ken Levine, one of the writers for Cheers, has a blogspot blog that should definitely be used as a reliable source. Is Swarts a critic of note or just some guy with a blog? Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Swarts is not affiliated with any newspaper whatsoever, and he is, like you said, "some guy with a blog" that makes reviews. That makes him unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. See WP:BLOGS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary of Foregon Terms as Historical Method Source

The text in question is highlighted here:

On the other hand, Adeleye et al state that such arguments are often based on less than stable foundations and may collapse like a "house of cards".

A link to the text being cited on google is here:

The source is being used to assert in the article that "Ex silentio arguments stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished." That text is an example of usage that dictionaries often provide. This can be easily seen by looking at other italicized texts in the dictionary entries. The source itself is just a dictionary, and not reliable as a source on historical method even if the opinion being expressed were that of the editors. Humanpublic (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No big deal anyway given this. You were again saying Seb followed you there, debate it for ever, go back on ANI and waste life for 3 days, I just left it out... Will take up the rest of my life this way on a small change... amazing... History2007 (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the RS issue? Humanpublic (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Claim: "Viet Cong insurgents reportedly sliced off the genitals of village chiefs and sewed them inside their bloody mouths, cut off the tongues of helpless victims, rammed bamboo lances through one ear and out the other, slashed open the wombs of pregnant women, disemboweled random civilians and draped their mutilated bodies on fences, machine gunned children, hacked men and women to pieces with machetes, and cut off the fingers of small children who dared to get an education."

Source: Reader's Digest, "The Blood-Red Hands of Ho Chi Minh," November 1968. Originally the claim was cited to this supposed reproduction of the Readers Digest article on a personal blog site. The link to the blog was removed when the source was originally queried but otherwise the citation remains the same. Article: Vietnam War

Normally RD articles are reprints and condensations of other sources. In this case, unless we can find this original source we are at something of a loss for evaluation. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, RD reprints are clearly noted (copyright acknowledgements are not "optional" <g>) - and most articles now, and for many years, are written for the publication itself. RS. The article is written by John G. Hubbell, who appears to have written a number of articles for it. Collect (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, Reader's Digest seems to have published this article. However, given it's conservative and strongly anti-communist editorial stance, and the fact that is was written at the height of the Vietnam War, makes me vey much doubt its reliability. It's useful as a primary source about what circulated in the US press at the time, but I would take its claims with a large grain of salt. I suspect that a 1968 article is still under copyright, in which case we probably could not link to , as there is no indication that it is reprinted with permission. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as we cite the RD article properly per WP:MOS, there is no Misplaced Pages rule that it be available online - that is a non-starter as a reason not to use a book or article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nam: The Vietnam War in the Words of the Men and Women Who Fought There also describes Viet Cong use of castration and impalement. A Bright Shining Lie mentions Viet Cong use of disembowelment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Both look like much better sources than a contemporary Reader's Digest article to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, a 1967 Newsweek article ("Off With Their Hands") mentions Viet Cong attacks on schools and hospitals, noting "Sometimes they chop off a finger or a hand, just as a warning. In other instances, they disembowel a man or impale him alive before the eyes of his fellow villagers". "The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam" contains an endless list of such atrocities.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Both are contemporary sources. The Senate report is definitely a primary source of questionable reliability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuller, John "The Day of St. Anthony's Fire"

There are a couple of articles that use John G. Fuller's book "The Day of St. Anthony's Fire" as a source for claims in ergotism and 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning. I'm wondering if, given Fuller's output, and not having seen the book itself, it can be considered WP:RS for purposes of describing the mass poisoning incident?

from Ergotism: "A severe outbreak of ergot poisoning occurred, however, in the French village of Pont-Saint-Esprit in 1951, resulting in five deaths. The incident is described in John Grant Fuller's book The Day of St Anthony's Fire."

from 1951 Pont-Saint-Esprit mass poisoning: "However, the symptoms exhibited by victims in Pont-Saint-Esprit were not consistent with this hypothesis."

Also Psychochemical weaponry:

"However, the symptoms exhibited by victims in Pont-Saint-Esprit are not consistent with this hypothesis."

Fuller, John (1969). The Day of St Anthony's Fire. London: Hutchinson. ISBN 0-09-095460-2.

-- #_ 04:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

1. World Dictionary of Foreign Expressions by Gabriel G. Adeleye, Kofi Acquah Dadzie and James T. McDonough (Mar 1, 2000) ISBN 0865164231 page 136: "Ex silentio arguments stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished."

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution