This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kauffner (talk | contribs) at 15:19, 2 December 2011 (→Tell me if I'm in the right place). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Most active discussions

After Midnight Project

Just to let you know. After talking to an informed source via Derek Gallegos( band manager), After Midnight Project has been disbanded.

Lizzie Phelan

This has a risk of being forum shopping on my part, but I see significant problems with the Lizzie Phelan article. It is currently up for AFD, with a lot of debate about her notability. None of the information in the article is negative - mainly because the article really isn't about her, she is being used as a soapbox for politics. I think the bulk of the sources are not reliable (lots of radical left "news" sites, but that is just my opinion. Looking to get more eyes on the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Need a Reliability check please

Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:CrownP/draft

Sources

cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=585085%7Cpublisher=Pharmacy Choice|accessdate=21 October 2011

cite web|title=Blue Cross of California Appoints Josh Valdez Senior Vice President, Network Development|url=http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=1852&cha=14%7Cpublisher=Hispanic PR Wire|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games.|url=http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/health-care-facilities-hospitals/5153373-1.html%7Cpublisher=AllBusiness.com%7Caccessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://pressrelated.com/press-release-aveta-inc-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico-inc.html%7Cpublisher=Press Related|accessdate=21 October 2011

cite web|title=JOSH VALDEZ APPOINTED TO HHS REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE POST|url=http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010917a.html%7Cpublisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services|accessdate=27 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games|url=http://www.businesswire.com/multimedia/home/20050607006105/en/1191710/Josh-Valdez-Named-Man-Year-Hollenbeck-Youth%7Cpublisher=Berkshire Hathaway|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Man Of The Year|url=http://www.hollenbeckpbc.org/pdf/New_Press_Release.pdf%7Cpublisher=Hollenbeck Youth Center|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Of Blue Cross of California Appointed to Advisory Council of The National Institutes Of Health|url=http://www.lexdon.com/article/josh_valdez_of_blue_cross/105429.html%7Cpublisher=Lexdon Business Library|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=The Latino Coalition Honors The Most Influential Hispanics|url=http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/the_latino_coalition_honors_the_most_influential_hispanics/%7Cpublisher=Havana Journal, Inc|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Appointed to State Health Policy and Data Advisory Commission.|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Josh+Valdez+Appointed+to+State+Health+Policy+and+Data+Advisory...-a0146751865%7Cpublisher=Free Library|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Aveta names Josh Valdez president of MSO of Puerto Rico|url=http://www.poandpo.com/who-is-promoted/aveta-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico/%7Cpublisher=Histerius%7Caccessdate=21 October 2011

Sites

http://www.pharmacychoice.com

http://www.hispanicprwire.com

http://www.allbusiness.com

http://www.pressrelated.com

http://www.hhs.gov

http://www.businesswire.com

http://www.hollenbeckpbc.org

http://www.lexdon.com

http://www.havanajournal.com

http://www.thefreelibrary.com

http://www.poandpo.com

Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:CrownP

Direct quote by subject of biography (Weston Price)

I am currently having an issue getting this direct quote in to the Weston Price article:

In his 1939 Nutrition and Physical Degeneration book Price made one passing comment about his 1923 work:

In my search for the cause of degeneration of the human face and the dental organs I have been unable to find an approach to the problem through the study of affected individuals and diseased tissues. In my two volume work on "Dental Infections," Volume I, entitled "Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic," and Volume II, entitled "Dental Infections and the Degenerative Diseases," (PRICE, W. A. Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic. Cleveland, Penton, 1923) I reviewed at length the researches that I had conducted to throw light on this problem. The evidence seemed to indicate clearly that the forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues, but that the undesirable conditions were the result of the absence of something, rather than of the presence of something. This strongly indicated the need for finding groups of individuals so physically perfect that they could be used as controls. In order to discover them, I determined to search out primitive racial stocks that were free from the degenerative processes with which we are concerned in order to note what they have that we do not have."

(Price, Weston (1939) Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers)

Several things here:

First, given Price had to vet through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers is the source reliable regarding Price's own view of Dental Infections and the Degenerative Diseases?

Second, just where does the work as a whole fall? Secondary source because it was vetted through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers or a Primary source because it was written by Price? (See Princeton University's classification of What is a Primary Source?)

Third, even if the passage itself qualifies as a Primary source is it reliable regarding Price's own view of his earlier 1923 work?

Right now I am going for reliability not NPOV so don't waste our time with that. Once the RS of this source is confirmed or denied we can work on the NPOV issues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like an obviously involved primary to me. For reviews and appreciations of scholars' works, seek other scholars' opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, this is wp:UNDUE weight on what you yourself note is a passing comment. All this quote says is what our article already says - that Price decided to seek out 'unspoiled' indigenous peoples to study. Include it as a link if you need to, but full quote is way too much. --Ludwigs2 16:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo and Ludwigs. It's a primary quote. As such, in principle, it's not totally disallowed, since the POV of the subject needs to be documented in articles about themselves. It's more a question of weight. Now if others in secondary reliable sources have commented on that quote/idea by Price, their views might be eligible. Whatever the case, regardless of whether you are 10000000% right, trying to edit war this into the article is just plain wrong, and no amount of forum shopping will change that. I hope you will respect this outside input from uninvolved editors and factor that into how you now discuss this on the article's talk page. That's where you should focus your efforts. Collaborate, collaborate, collaborate.... -- Brangifer (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Weston Price is that his modern fame seems to revolve around what others did with his work long after his death especially in the case of George E. Meinig's book. In the very long Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#Do_we_agree.3F section User:Griswaldo raised this important point which got lost in the shuffle. He again raised this point in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#arb_break_2 but it again got lost in the shuffle.

It took some digging to find the one reliable source that actually looked at Meinig's book in the context of what Price actually said and even that didn't go any further than the 1923 work. How much of what we are seeing is actually about Price's actual views and not about Meinig's interpretation of Price? I've noticed things even in the 1923 work that get ignored--I had to slug all the way back to 1935 to find a secondary reference regarding Price's conservatism regarding tooth extraction and even that called him radical though it doesn't explain as to how he was radical.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting subject that applies to some others whose original ideas have been misused by others, and it's the misuse that is what makes them notable. It's perfectly proper to document this situation IF it can be done using RS. That may not always be easy, but if it can be done, it would improve the quality of some articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I want to use Price's own words in a book published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers. Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Weston_Price_and_.22The_Charles_Darwin_of_Nutrition.22 established the precedent for correcting a popular misconception with a reliable source showing what the statement 'Dr. Pricewas called "The Charles Darwin of Nutrition' actually was. In that same vein I argue in the interests of accuracy that the information needs to go in to show that at least by 1939 Price himself admitted he could find no validity for his ideas regarding Focal Infection theory ("forces that were at work were not to be found in the diseased tissues") but first we need ot establish if it is considered reliable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to make a list of all the discussions on this, so we're not wasting time. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How about sticking to the matter at hand rather than wondering off on trivialities?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Long-term edit-warring and canvassing result in blocks - hardly trivial. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS BOARD, RONZ? NOT A BLASTED THING! STAY ON TOPIC. Getting back on topic I point to Misplaced Pages:Secondary_is_not_another_way_to_spell_good#.22Secondary.22_is_not_another_way_to_spell_.22good.22 to the mistaken attitude of Primary = bad that seems to be here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be just more canvassing to support long-term edit-warring that has gone on for over a year. While consensus can change, ignoring consensus and instead edit-warring and canvassing is disruptive to this noticeboard and the encyclopedia as a whole. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And Ronz again fails to stay on topic and just throws claims around.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I proposed we list past discussions. We can document the past edit-warring as well. There's also gaming the system by trying to edit relevant policies, guidelines, and essays in order to change the outcome of past discussions.

That said, this attempt at canvasing appears dead. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of reviving this discussion, I'd like to remind Bruce of what NPOV means: If "The problem with Weston Price is that his modern fame seems to revolve around what others did with his work long after his death", then the Misplaced Pages article should also "revolve around what others did with his work long after his death". Misplaced Pages is not the place to correct or influence the world's perception of Price's work. It should reflect the standard, mainstream, middle-of-the-road modern scholarly opinion, even if that means that the article "revolves around what others did with his work long after his death". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This raises the accuracy issue that in some quarters makes Misplaced Pages regarded as a bad joke and in part made "not truth" such a hot button issue over in WP:V. I would point out that the Weston Price article as it stands fails to explain in the lead just why Price is important now. Also, in terms of reliability the references to Stephen Barrett and Weston A. Price Foundation are total train wrecks--neither should be in an article about Weston Price as neither really qualifies under RS and the information on price himself on both sides leaves much to be desired.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Daily Caller as source of opinion refuting a technical white paper + secondary sources

I have never posted here before so please excuse any deviation from proper procedure. It would be inadvertent.

1.Questioned Text:

Ou, George; New tools to combat thieves online;Daily Caller 10/25/2011

2. http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/

3. Appears in Protect IP Act

4. Context:

Five Internet engineers, Steve Crocker, David Dagon, Dan Kaminsky, Danny McPherson and Paul Vixie have prepared a whitepaper suggesting that the DNS filtering provisions in the bill "raise serious technical and security concerns" and would "break the Internet", while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit.

I realize there are other problems with this sentence. For instance it cites "other engineers" and only documents one; NPOV is also a problem. I tried to change some of these things and was un-edited.

But the question right here right now is whether the Daily Caller is reliable in this context. I said no. The un-editor says it is, based on

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71. I read it and the following discussion ensued:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Protect_IP_Act&action=edit&section=28

By the way

The footnotes in that paragraph link, in the following order, to:

http://www.circleid.com/pdf/PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59599226/Debunking-DNS-Filtering-Concerns

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/new-tools-to-combat-thieves-online/

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/393667/engineers_protect_ip_act_would_break_dns/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/dns-filtering/#more-26745

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20069824-281/protect-ip-copyright-bill-faces-growing-criticism/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/l18internet.html?_r=2

this links to letters to the editor

Thank you for your thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who first introduced The Daily Caller source citation to our Misplaced Pages article. It cites an opinion piece by a network engineer, George Ou, in the tech section of that publication, and the Daily Caller article also supplies an embedded link to George Ou's full technical paper. The Daily Caller is not being cited to support an assertion of fact; it is only cited as a published source of an opposing opinion from another engineer. I admit I'm still unclear as to what possible specific objection the above editor may have to citing the DC as a source of opinion, especially in light of Elinruby's agreement about Ou's position linked above: "I have not investigated its claims in depth but it raises questions phrased in a respectable manner that suggest a valid alternate view. The author (George Ou) also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing." As near as I can tell, the objection has something to do with Gloria Allred...

Xenophrenic (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Any challenges or critiques of the white paper would have to be of equivalent reliabilty. The scribd source seems to be self-published. The Caller is clearly not a reliable source for technical matters, but the reliability of the source used rests on the qualifications of the suthor. In either case, as Xenophrenic Elinruby says, "the author (George Ou) also has some credentials, although not on the same level as the authors of the piece he is disputing", so his criticism would not qualify as of equivalent reliability or noteworthiness. PCnet, Wired and Cnet are reliable sources, but the criticisms presented in those articles are clearly attributed to individuals who have no competency at all to criticize a technical paper. The letters to the editor in the NYT don't mention the white paper at all. Basically, none of the criticisms presented come from an equivalently qualified researcher as the authors of the white paper, and thus should not be included in the article at all. The sentence and the sources cited should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• The sentence and the sources cited should be deleted? All 6 engineers, the reliable citations, the baby, bathwater, and everything? Interesting, but sounds drastic. I'd like to set aside the comments more applicable to a WP:NPOV weight discussion, and get back to whether or not the Daily Caller can be cited as a reliable source in support of the existence of opposing opinions. Specifically in support of this text in our Misplaced Pages article: "while other engineers and proponents of the act have called those concerns groundless and without merit." If I understand you correctly when you say "the reliability of the source used rests on the qualifications of the author", then I must assume you are giving the green light to use this source in this situation — as long as George Ou is qualified to give an opinion. George Ou and the other engineers have both issued technical whitepapers, and yes, both of those competing whitepapers are self-published. As a Senior Analyst at Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, and Technical Director for ZDNet, and an experienced network engineer, it seems reasonable that he would have an informed opinion. I can't speak to editor Elinruby's apparent personal knowledge of the comparitive qualifications of these engineers, but the Internet Governance Forum has seen fit to seat the primary authors of both of these papers elbow-to-elbow with each other at their 2011 annual conference. While they weren't able to reach consensus, they did argue their competing views. If you say we can cite the Daily Caller piece if George Ou is qualified to speak on the matter, then I guess this is resolved. But I'd welcome other input. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course I didn't mean the whole sentence, just the part about the criticism. I've looked at everything you've provided (thanks for the links), and it looks as if George Ou has indeed been recognized as an expert approximately on par with the five engineers, at least by the Internet Governance Forum, and that should be good enough for WP. Since their white paper was self-published, his self-published response can and should also be mentioned (the scribd source). I'm not to sure about the Caller source, though, as it seems a bit to polemical. It's basically a rehash of the scribd source, anyway, so it's probably not necessary to include it. As for the PCnet, Wired, Cnet and NYT sources, though, I can't find any identified engineers mentioned, or anyone who is on par with the five engineers, so their comments are not really notable (unless you can establish that they are indeed on par). But from what I see now, the only qualified expert criticism comes from George Ou, and he should be the only one who is mentioned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may clarify the context of my quoted remarks and change my question slightly -- I did make the remark that I am quoted above as making, but as part of a suggestion made in an attempt to find middle ground, an important piece of context not provided by the other editor. I suggested that if he could find the text in a journal, we would not need to have this dispute. No, I personally do not think Ou is of equivalent expertise, only that he has *some* expertise and makes an argument (which I have not investigated) which at least uses the right terminology. To my eyes, the Daily Caller does not add authority.

The five authors of the white paper almost seem not to need further authority; one of them actually co-wrote the most common implementation of the protocol being discussed. But that's my opinion, not Misplaced Pages policy, and most readers will not realize this. Xenophrenic is right about that. I actually went out to look for the Ou article in a journal or more reputable publication, as I really have other things to do with my time and wanted to put this discussion behind me. Unfortunately the only other place I found it was in an industry blog unaffiliated with a newspaper, which I suppose is why Xenophrenic is arguing so hard for the Daily Caller reprint. But that publication really does look like a trashy tabloid, and at a minimum is not a reputable *tech* magazine.

I have been asking questions elsewhere about an unrelated dispute we have over a different aspect of this sentence. It doesn't matter so much what that was; the important part is that someone pointed out to me that white papers are also, by definition, self-published. So perhaps the best thing to do would be to quote a secondary source such as Ars Technica about the white paper, as well as any reliable secondary source that can be found for the Ou piece?

That does leave the question of whether the Daily Caller is a reliable secondary source. I still say no, and argue that if nobody but a tabloid discusses Ou's editorial, then perhaps there is a reason for that.Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Caller doesn't discuss Ou's editorial. It merely printed it (with accompanying source links). Apparently, the DC agrees that Ou's is a "valid alternate view", and they printed it. The Internet Governance Forum also agrees. Not to belabor the point, but even in their October 12 letter to the United States Senate, those very same 5 engineers cite George's Ou's technical paper (although not kindly). Ou is indeed a reliable source for a point of view that is relevant and significant enough to be raised in our article. The only grounds to question the Daily Caller as a source for that opinion would be if you suspected they misconveyed George Ou's words. Is that the case here? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that the fact that he got to sit on a music copyright/piracy panel at a conference does not make him an authority on the DNS protocol. They seated a representative of the MPAA on the same panel. I am furthermore saying that although you keep telling me that the Daily Caller is a reliable source, and pointing me here as alleged proof, all references that *I* can find to this tabloid say otherwise, and you have declined to provide a quote to the contrary. When you asked, you told me to raise the issue here, so I am doing that. That's what I am saying. Since I well know that you seem to have a lot of free time to argue about such topics, I will stop there and see if we can get input from other editors, which was the whole point of this post. I propose, if I am correctly informed about the reliability of the white paper, that we rewrite the entire sentence. Perhaps even make it sentences. There are several undisputedly reliable sources footnoted at the end of the sentence that we could draw from. Elinruby (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)We should at least try to keep this factual. I am unaware of the music panel to which you refer, so let's get back to the DNS Blocking and Filtering panel which centered on a "discussion about the merits of DNS blocking and filtering as an answer to copyright infringement. The panel was divided on its views – some felt that DNS filtering and blocking represented the perfect answer to copyright infringement and media piracy, while others felt that a solution based on technical adjustment was the wrong way to approach what they deemed a human problem, not a technical problem. While a consensus was not achieved, the discussion addressed serious concerns about the damaging effects of illegal downloading on the content production industry, as well as the greater constitutional, technical and political implications of the use of DNS filtering and blocking. Panelists referenced the Protect IP legislation that is currently in the U.S. Senate." -- It is relevant to our Misplaced Pages article. Also in attendance was the chief technology policy officer for the MPAA. I've never directed you here as "alleged proof" of anything; I merely suggested you might get input here as to whether The Daily Caller can be cited as a source of opinion (and I also linked a past discussion that I felt you might consider interesting). Xenophrenic (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If the engineers' white paper were a peer-reviewd publication, I would say that Ou's white paper was not good enough to criticise it. But the engineer's white paper is apparently self-published, and Ou can be considered qualified enough to publish a meaningful paper on his own, even though his qualifications are not quite on the same level as the five engineers. He's clearly not UNQUALIFIED. However, I can't support the use of the DC commentary, which is not exactly neutral and objective, and a bit to polemical for my tastes.

The only way I can see of excluding Ou's scribd source is if you have reasonable doubts about whether Ou is misrepresenting his qualifications, that the article is a sham article posing as real scientific opinion, that the author is clearly a patisan source because of some conflict of interest (making his paper more junk science than real science), or that it has been challenged to the point where it can reasonably be said to be completely worthless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's partisan but I don't have the time to litigate that through every administrative board on wikipedia ;) As you can see the other editor really really wants it in and was attached to the Daily Caller because he was hanging it on the Caller's coattails as an allegedly reliable source. I think that anyone interested in the technical issues will be able to weigh the credentials of the authors. Elinruby (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DV in that Scribd can be used and Daily Caller should not. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My actual question can be narrowed down to the Daily Caller cite. There are lots of secondary sources about the white paper so I am not worried about that. I question Ou's credentials but could live with the Scribd text being used as reference as long as it's no longer used to back up a statement that "other engineers" say the white paper is nonsense, or words to that effect. Something like "at least one engineer disagrees -- George Ou has stated bla bla" would work for me. Or, if the other editor can find other critics, he can use the plural all he likes, shrug. I have a living to earn here ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with DV in that George Ou is qualified and can be cited for an opposing opinion. And while the Daily Caller piece may be a "bit too polemical" for Dominus Vobisdu's tastes, it isn't too polemical to be cited as a source of opinion. And it is certainly more neutral and less polemic than some of the existing caustic commentary sources presently in use in our article; it is, after all, a controversial political issue. The most polemic statement made in the well-reasoned DC piece is that the DNS concerns "were riddled with fallacies"; while the "meritless" and "unfounded" adjectives actually come from the Scribd doc that everyone says is OK. The Daily Caller is part of the White House Press Pool, and as a matter of Misplaced Pages policy interest: personal taste doesn't dictate source reliability, and "partisan" ≠ unreliable (else we'd have to scrub thousands of citations to FOX News from Wiki articles). Xenophrenic (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Can a blog on newsbusters.org be a reliable source?

There is an argument about whether a blog on newsbusters.org is a reliable source to claim that Muller admitted believing in man-made global warming at least as far back as the early 1980. Here is the blog . Here is the section of interest Richard_A._Muller#Hockey_stick_graph_controversy. Here is the diff of the addition . IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable, from the lack of editorial control, the partisan function, and the misspelling when quoting another journalist, not reliable for anything. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur. It's basically a blog site—albeit a professionally run one—but the emphasis is on personal opinion rather than factual verification. There is also a questionable level of editorial oversight. Betty Logan (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's unreliable for a blunt statement of fact about Muller, but it might be reliable for an attributed statement as to the opinion of the blogger. The question then becomes: does mentioning what the blogger says in his blog give that blogger's views undue weight (probably). Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The info about him reads: "Tom Blumer is president of Monetary Matters, a training and development company in Mason, Ohio. He presents workshops on money management, retirement, and investing.". He doesn't seem notable at all, particularly not about climate change so this appears undue weight to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, just cite the original source of information: . He says flat-out in the interview that he was an Anthropogenic Global Warming since at least the 1980. Good blogs cite their sources, so instead of citing a blog, cite their sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying I don't need to depend on a news story or some other source to point out that interview? I can just point it out myself? Frotz (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Private Eye...

The UK news/satire magazine Private_Eye has fairly recently starting putting stories on it's website - for example , and so I suspect that wikipedia is likely to find a lot more citations pointing to private-eye. I think it would be sensible to get consensus on the reliability of such citations (personally I believe them to be as valid as any other newspaper website) before, rather than after. (there's been some previous chat about citing the paper version at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#UK_news_magazine_Private_Eye).

Are people happy with this as a source?

Failedwizard (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As a source for what? It would certainly be reliable for a statement as to what was reported in Private Eye ... it might not be reliable for a statement of blunt fact. Or to put this another way... it would probably not be reliable for a statement like: "Prince Harry was involved in the scandal", but it would be reliable for a statement like: "According to Private Eye, Prince Harry was involved in the scandal". (Caveat... it may well be that mentioning what Private Eye says could give undue weight to a particular viewpoint... but that is a NPOV issue and not a reliability issue). Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of giving it carte blanche. Private Eye is probably OK for most simple statements of fact but it is not renowned for framing news neutrally. (And did they ever back down over the MMR thing?) bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

...and if we do find ourselves in a position where we have to cite Private Eye because it mentions something which no other source does (I gave up reading because a few years ago the main thing it printed which others didn't was gossip about a handful of other newspapers and reporters) then we should exercise great caution. Similarly, if multiple sources report on a controversy in different ways but you find yourself preferring the wording offered by a satirical clique... maybe that's not the best wording to use.bobrayner (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its investigative journalism is well regarded. Generally reliable, I would say - the serious sections only of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Private Eye does gossip, exaggeration and satire. The fact that they do these quite well does not make them a reliable source. They publish stuff not in other papers precisely because they don't do fact checking. Their reliability level is about the same as an anonymous blog. Yes, they quite often publish things not in mainstream papers and some of them are true. But that is because they have such a low bar for publication. Or are these comments saying that it is reliable just satirical? And on Blueboar's point, Private Eye's opinion should never be mentioned because they are not experts, even on gossip. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dingo1729, what is your source for your claim that "they don't do fact checking"? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 17:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll freely admit that that was simply based on their use of unattributed statements of fact. You often can't fact check anonymous sources, which is a problem for all news outlets but more so for Private Eye because they publish more borderline material. Also, simply from reading them over the years I get the impression that they are careless about details or simply exaggerate in order to be dramatic. I'll throw the ball back in your court. Do you have a source which says that they consistently fact-check their articles? Remember that it has to be consistent, or we're in the position of not knowing whether to trust any particular statement. I'm pretty sure wikipedia doesn't have a policy stating that a source is reliable unless we have a source saying that they don't fact-check. On the other hand, I think I was overstating when I said they were like an anonymous blog. They're more like a widely-read signed blog. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is JesusFreakHideout reliable?

An editor has questioned the reliability of the website Jesus Freak Hideout as a source for band genres. The discussion can be found here. I have asked about this site once before, and that time it was found to be reliable. Also, it is listed as a reliable source on the Wikiproject for Christian music. The editor opposing says that this consensus does not overcome it being self-published, and that the mentions in third-party sources are merely trivial.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes JFH is a RS. They have some sort of editorial board and a staff. In the realm of music, especially underground music, trying to claim that all RSes should be written by full time professional journalists is crazy. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that answer is going to satisfy this particular editor. I think he would appreciate a more in depth examination of the issue.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I am the particular editor in question. Finding legitimate reliable sources for underground music is not all that hard; there are professional, print magazines dedicated to the subject (and websites that otherwise pass the necessary checks). If a band is sufficiently underground to not be featured, with significant, non-trivial coverage, in these sources, that should immediately call into question their notability and hence their inclusion. Having an "editorial staff" of amateurs does not somehow miraculously allow a WP:SPS to pass WP:RS; just as anyone could set up a website to air their opinions about music releases, anyone could set up a website with their mates (or even people they've found over the Internet) as an editorial staff, without making it a legitimate source. If their contributors have not otherwise been recognised as "experts" in their field (in Wikispeak terms, they been published by an independent, third-party source), what they have to say is irrelevant. The content of the site in question isn't published by an independent, third-party source, and as far as I can tell its contributors are enthusiastic amateurs. The site's mentions on other sites/books is merely trivial. We do not, for example, use Metal Archives as a reliable source (ever, ever, ever), even though they technically have an "editorial staff"; I have no idea what the comparative Alexa ratings are (not that it would matter), but I offer it as an example of something that we by vast consensus disregard, despite having "some sort of editorial board and a staff". JFHO fails WP:RS by a country mile, in my opinion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't use a site is a personal choice. All RS requires is editorial control. In addition, Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music quotes JFH when discussing albums and bands. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How much is it quoted? Is it just the odd mention, or is the site used as a key source?--¿3family6 _contribs 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me exactly within WP:RS it states that all that is required of a website is arbritrary "editorial control"? I personally, for example, run a website that others contribute to; none are professional, and it clearly fails WP:RS. I do however have "editorial control". I think your reasoning is flawed, unless you can point me towards some part of the guideline I have missed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I agree that there is more to an RS than just editorial oversight. The content must be generated by an actual staff, for starters. I have done some digging, and I've found that numerous sources refer to JFH. For starters, they are used as a reference for Newsboys in Refuel: The Complete New Testament for Guys from Thomas Nelson Publishers, though I can't view the full reference because of being limited to a preview. One of the staff of JFH has written at least one book, but that just makes him a reliable source, not the whole site. However, the site has had non-trivial coverage in HM Magazine: Circleslide getting JFH's Reader's Choice award and House of Hero's playing for the site's 14th anniversary. HM Magazine also gave fairly extensive coverage of a story done by JFH for an album by Fireflight. There are also numerous, more trivial mentions of reviews by JFH: , , , , , , , , , , .--¿3family6 _contribs 14:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what weight this has, but I have found the following: On About.com, Kim Jones has Jesusfreakhideout listed as a review source, listed along with highly reputable sources such as Christianity Today and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There are several, admittedly fairly trivial, mentions of JFH reviews in Christian Today: , , , , . CCM Magazine also has a brief mention: . Christian media outlet Cross Rhythms uses JFH extensively as a source for interviews, as can be seen from this search of the site. Finally, Christian webzine Rapzilla, which is used by Salem Publishing to cover Christian hip hop news, also mentions the site: , , , .--¿3family6 _contribs 16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more findings: One of the staple sources of reviews for TodaysChristianMusic.com, a website run by CCM Magazine. The number of articles referencing JFH reviews, ranging from a quick mention to a major quote, is so long that I'll just give a link to the Google results. Two articles I will isolate are references demonstrating that JFH has exclusive music video streaming before a video hits other media sources: , .

There are also brief mentions of JFH in Crosswalk.com:, , , . Also a mention by a writer for Beliefnet: . The site Louder Than the Music list JFH among "major web sites" such as Gospel Music Channel.com, Beliefnet, and CCM Magazine, but I am not sure how reliable that website is.

But here is the most significant find: On page 12 of this PDF of a CCM Magazine issue, it states how JFH has become a major Christian music online resource.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In another CCM Magazine link, I found that John DiBiase was part of the magazine's review panel. Whether this specific info establishes the site as reliable, I'm not sure, but it means anything written by John DiBiase should be.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider to this conversation (albeit an occasional patron of the site in question), it seems to me the 3family6's sources, both in number and quality, are more than enough to establish the site as a WP:RS, especially those last two PDFs.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Electronic Sports

I am going to make a strong claim on why these sources are reliable.

• GosuGamers

Is it reliable? I am fairly sure that wikipedia does not have a 100% must work policy in determining what sources are reliable. However, according to alexa rankings, this site has a fairly high number of visitor, and has been linked to other reliable sources.

Is it disinterested? Yes. Though as been said, it is "MMo-centric", I discovered that it is actually not. Electronic Sports consists of very few major games, and GosuGamers covers most of the major games, in addition, it even covers POKER. So when a single game's scene is concerned, it should be considered disinterested.

Is it self-published? No. There are certainly self-published contents, mostly community events announcements, but as far as electronic sports scene is concerned, no. Jounalists/Editors are used in order to obtain the latest information and gather interviews from electronic sports scenes all over the world.

Is it a blog/fansite/whatever? No. The website formatting may seem to people that is it a blog, but there are zero mentions on the fact it is a blog. The content proves that it isn't a fansite.

• sGamer
• 178.com
• pcgames.com.cn

Even better, these sources covers at least 100 games each, and fits the profile of being not self-published and the alexa rankings. So when a single game's scene is concerned, they should be considered reliable.

• pchome.net

This one is about digital lifestyle, but also offers an abundance of electronic sports news.

• sk-gaming.com (Official site of SK Gaming)
• myMYM (Official site of MeetYourMakers)

These two sites are for these two organizations respectively. However, they do offer an abundance of news on electronic sport where their team are not concerned. Verdict They are reliable when their sources are not self-published (i.e. when their own team are not concerned)

Now lets talk about what kind of sources could establish notablility for an electronic sports player.

Significant coverange on reliable sources

• Significant coverage on a player mentioning on how they performed in a single game.
• Interviews with the players. Although interviews are primary sources, the fact that they are interviewed means that they are notable (See discussion Here)

Is it possible for an experience source checker to look into this? Thank You.
Redefining history (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry but... again with this? I thought you had moved on. Presenting the same arguments several times in several locations will not yield results you will like better, I'm afraid. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read it. DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS. Thank you. Redefining history (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what's going on here? Salvidrim, I started vetting one of these (pcgames.com.cn) and I'm not finished but it's looking to be possibly OK. Is there other information on this entity that can point me to or describe in a nutshell? Herostratus (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Graig Weich

Are the following webpages reliable for the notability of Graig Weich? I've been told that GPX Gaming and Geek Propaganda are "huge", but I'm not sure. Nightscream (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.gpxgaming.net/comic-books/446-interview-with-beyond-comics-graig-weich.html
• http://geekpropaganda.net/?p=4574
• http://geekpropaganda.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/graig-f-weich-is-part-of-what-makes-nyc-comic-con-fun/
• http://www.comicrelated.com/news/13785/watch-john-interview
• http://moarpowah.com/2011/10/27/silverwolfs-den-interview-with-graig-weich/
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/294-book-comic-company-interviews/8537-beyond-comics-interview
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/258-movie--series-interviews/8539-ravedactyl-life-beyond-death
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/259-book-interviews/8538-code-name-justice-interview
• http://movieandeventreview.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/graig-weich/

Geek Propaganda's Alexa rank is 4,229,756 i think it is far from "huge". GPX Gaming's Alexa rank is 4,411,147 it too is far from "huge" . Eopsid (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not the most central criterion. Reliability is. Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that these sites have editorial oversight, or a reputation for reliable reporting? In regard to GPX Gaming, this is not reassuring. Moarpowah at least lists staff members, see , but these seem to me to fall into the realm of fansites, and we generally do not consider them reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Verification/calculation procedure for transit ridership numbers

A kind user (66.183.40.56) recently contributed edits to several dozen articles to provide ridership numbers on the Vancouver transit system. It is the Passengers (2009) statistic in each of those articles' info boxes that is in question here. These are relevant and useful contributions to the articles. Unfortunately, I struggle to verify these facts due to the complex procedure required to do so. The user offers the verification instructions on their talk page. I have a couple of questions, and would like to hear others' thoughts.

1. How can proper citation or verifiability be brought directly into the articles, attached to the claims, where it needs to be? The facts are currently uncited. Supplying a URL won't give future users the ability to directly verify -- not without adding the instructions to the URL comment.
2. It seems a bit of a stretch to consider this procedure a routine calculation since it apparently involves downloading software, creating a new worksheet, and then performing some calculations. Can this procedure be cited as a reliable source, or does this look like original research or synthesis?

Hoping to find a way for the new facts to remain in the articles, so appreciate any insight or suggestions... --Ds13 (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

1. If the instructions are brief, it is acceptable to parenthesize them in the inline cite, at the end. Example:

<ref>Author (date). "Title+url". Publisher. (download app, create worksheet add the 'Station' dimension and 'Boardings 2009' measure)

2. WP:V says that as long as a source which can be considered reliable exists somewhere in the world, it's verifiable. This form of data is uncommon, but not out of bounds.

3. The newspaper article and its included data are reliable. I would strongly recommend using WebCitation to archive the page, the app, the workbook, etc. So I've done that. Article, workbook, workbook, but when I tried to archive the 25MB app, I got this error: "Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 25165824 bytes) in /home/webcita/public_html/metadata.inc.php on line 8".

4. The data source is a WP:PRIMARY reliable source. Reliable, but not an independent WP:RS. So I would continue to seek out reportage which includes the ridership numbers of interest. These could be industry trade journals - is there a Monorail Journal?

5. Oddly, this blog asserts that Skytrain doesn't have turnstiles, so ridership claims can't be validated. Assistance from other editors is requested. --Lexein (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't have turnstiles, but they do have ticket sales and there are counters on the platforms on occasion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the newspaper article and its included data, they are no more reliable as they rely on the same set of numbers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone actually follow the procedure. If the dimension is merely a "hidden" component of a proprietary format data visualisation display, then it isn't calculation, it is just "unhiding" a "hidden" component, like unsealing the sealed section of a women's magazine. We don't care about the OS / Software / "unhide" requirements to verify; but the citation needs to specify these. "Viewing foo.bar in Proprietary as obtained from Organisation "Document title" location; reveal the hidden data dimension of "x" via the "unhide" feature in the Menu item "Hiding things"". Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried - but failed. I could not find "Boardings 2009" but I did find an "Address" field based on which the unregistered user had made entries in the articles. Some of them do not to fit the actual station location. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Works for me - I've appended detailed instructions at User talk:66.183.40.56. The downloadable workbook is atomic and unchangeable - dated 2010, so at least it's fixed. --Lexein (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that this be cited as: "Fare evasion on SkyTrain and Canada Line" Vancouver Sun provides: cskelton (2010 Nov 7, 02:42 pm) Fare Paid - Ross.twbx (Tableaux Public data file) using within Tableaux Public Data="Matched (Fare Paid by Skytrain Station - Matched.xlsx)"; Dimension added to sheet "Abc Station"; Measure added to sheet "Boardings 2009"; The simple calculated sum Boardings 2009 is 78,845,243. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifelfoo (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. I'd rephrase slightly: "Fare evasion on SkyTrain and Canada Line" Vancouver Sun provides: cskelton (2010 Nov 7, 02:42 pm) "Fare Paid - Ross.twbx" (Tableaux Public data file) used within Tableau Public; Data="Fare Paid by Skytrain Station - Matched.xlsx"; Dimensions "Abc Station" added to sheet; Measures "Boardings 2009" added to sheet; The simple calculated sum "Boardings 2009" is 78,845,243. --Lexein (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm unable to download this program (Windows only?) can someone comment on the individual station statistics? I like the look of that citation code you have supplied, but is that for total system ridership or are there per-station numbers that can also be unhidden? --Ds13 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

From using similar statistical systems, adding a Dimension of "Abc Station" indicates the individual stations, alphabetically ordered. This does need to be tested by someone with a windows machine. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Bible geography for schools

Wheres Dan (talk · contribs) seems to have a faulty understanding of WP:RS and WP:VERIFY if I understand what he's said at Talk:Tribe of Dan correctly (also see his talk page). Here he insists he can use which is a "Third grade text-book in the Lutheran graded system for intermediate Sunday-schools". I'll let him know I've raised this issue. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha.... 3rd grade sectarian text-book from the 19th century, no less. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LNot actually ludicrous as a claim, howevewr. See the 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia 31:6) to work with Bezaleel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, in the construction of the Tabernacle (ib. xxxv. 34; xxxvi. 1, 2). Oholiab was "an engraver, and a cunning workman, and an embroiderer in blue, and in purple, and in scarlet, and fine linen" (ib. xxxviii. 23). E. G. H, and a bunch of Masonic and Catholic cites as well. Is there a reason for deeming this contentious in some way? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

biblical exegesis changed rather dramatically in the twentieth century. Out of date and not designed to reflect the scholarship even when created but rather serve pedagogical and pastoral purposes Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe this editor belongs at ANI, see his edit summary at " Samson was not the origin of the Tribe of Dan, stratagems placed that there by myself only to have you support that placement, but not the others, indicating you're objecting just to object". And his talk page. I'm going on a Wikibreak today (keep postponing it but really mean it this time). Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's because I don't like his Sunday school sources or that I don't believe the Tribe of Dan reached North America, but something has caused him to call me an anti-Semite. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Frogkick.nl

Is http://www.frogkick.nl/ a reliable source for an encyclopedic description of scuba gear configuration?

1. Cites are http://www.frogkick.nl/ : click on "Non-DIR" and then on "suicide clips" (exactly that) and five similar cites from the same website.
2. The website http://www.frogkick.nl/ is in Dutch and Google can't translate it because of the way it uses javascript and frames to generate content. But WP:RSUE is not the problem – the question is whether a self-published website that has no outside reputation for fact-finding and accuracy can ever be a source for anything beyond its own opinion, and whether that is sufficient to construct an significant part of an article upon.
3. The article where it is used (extensively) is Doing It Right.
4. For reasons of size, I'm sorry that I can't quote the exact statements, but it is used to reference an entire section Doing It Right#"Doing It Wrongly" containing 28 individual claims in bullet points. The section has been marked with {{Primary sources}} since June 2009.
5. A previous discussion occurred at Talk:Doing It Right#frogkick.nl that explored the issues, but was unable to reach a conclusion over two years ago. The current discussion is at Talk:Doing It Right#New attempt to sort out old problems. I haven't used permalinks as the talk page is not large enough to warrant archiving.

Any outside opinions would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

After a very brief look it seems the concern is not that the website is a in another language. The problem seems to be about trying to report about a certain controversy which is supposed to exist, but the only sources are online primary sources. Correct? My first impression is that this makes the controversy, however real, not notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Has anyone tried looking in relevant magazines?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, you've encapsulated the issue very well. I was attempting to ask the question so as not to prejudice the replies, but you echo my concerns. Unfortunately, dive magazines tend to give controversies somewhat superficial treatment (not to alienate any audience I guess), so most of the impassioned argument took place on online newsgroups and mailing lists. Although they are evidence that controversy existed, I wouldn't consider the lists reliable (or even consistent) sources of the detail of the issues as the article currently expounds them. I fail to see how the website meets our standards for reliable sources, but I'm an involved party and was hoping for outside opinions to help drive consensus on this one way or the other. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well any website can probably be an RS for something. If you just want to write "There is a website with a forum about this" for some reason then you could perhaps place a link to such a forum. But such a sentence would be of questionable notability I suppose, unless you can at least source something about the existance of this controversy from somewhere else. The bigger problems would come from trying to use this type of website to actually explain the details of the controversy. Strangely enough, internet forums are often not even good clear evidence for what subjects they argue about (at if you must avoid doing original research, as we do).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Print source denied as "obvious error" in favor of original research by contributor on RMS Titanic

In this edit I added a print source regarding the master of RMS Titanic's delivery voyage. An editor reverted it, describing the addition as "vandalism". I reinstated it, with a quote, here. Contributor removed it again, describing it as an "obvious error". Requesting an assessment of the validity of the print source, please.

Previous talk page discussion here—the contributor explains that he/she has been "...studying the disaster on my own as a hobby since the Titanic was discovered in 1985, I've learned never to trust or take for granted any information as fact...". It seems from this that the print source is challenged only from the contributor's original research.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• looks like a reliable source to me. The author is a qualified historian with a background in researching documentaries. This is the sort of claim that should be easy enough to check against official records, so I wouldn't expect it to be incorrect, and if it is incorrect it should be easy enough to prove incorrect. If someone wants to challenge a factual claim made by this book I would expect them to challenge it by citing other reliable source that counters the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks—I should have included the work here as well as in the link! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Does Undeadly count for reliable source on OpenBSD-related projects?

Undeadly is a news site with extensive coverage of OpenBSD, its developers and related projects. As I write on OpenBSD-related projects, I would like to know, does Undeadly on its own count as a reliable source in terms of WP:RS. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Economist blogs and New York Times opinion pieces

How do people see blogs at The Economist? For example, can this be used as a source?

Also, what about opinion pieces such as this in say The New York Times or other major newspapers? B——C_ritical 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG, it depends on the specific piece and how it's being used on Misplaced Pages. That Economist blog appears to be published by Economist staff ("by The Economist online") and reads more a factual piece than an opinion piece, but again, it depends on how exactly it's being used. The NY Times opinion piece should be used as an opinion piece and attributed inline. Siawase (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The first link is to an opinion piece written by The Economist editorial staff, so it can be cited as the opinion of the periodical. The second link is an opinion piece easily cited to Paul Krugman. The NYT link is clearly op-ed material. The Economist blog is also of that nature, not of a lesser form than traditional op-ed columns. It's a new world in news, and such blogging often replaces or augments op-ed activities. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm encountering a lot of sources from major news outlets, which would be very useful if they didn't have "blog" in the URL. I'm not sure how Misplaced Pages is going to adapt to this. And thanks for the help, someone was saying that the Economist piece wasn't of any value (: B——C_ritical 21:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me about this source? As far as I can tell, it is in the name of Forbes, by a staff writer, but not really designated as an opinion piece. Can factual information for WP be drawn from the following quote?

Since 2008, national unemployment rates have remained above 9% with much higher rates for African Americans and youth—16% and 24.6% respectively. An estimated 10.4 million mortgages could default this year. Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s. The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%. In financial wealth, the figures are even more startling: 42.7%, 50.3%, and 7.0% respectively. And these statistics from UC-Santa Barbara Sociology Professor G. William Domhoff are from 2007, the most recent complete data available for analysis. Domhoff cites economist Edward Wolff, who concludes that the Great Recession has meant a whopping drop of 36.1% in median household wealth as compared to 11.1% for the top one percent, further widening the gulf between the obscenely rich and the rest of us—the 99%.

(more source links in original) B——C_ritical 22:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

All the pieces you have mentioned are at the top end of opinion writing. We can assume that they have been fact-checked. They reflect expert opinion, though not necessarily all of expert opinion. Krugmann is citable wherever he writes. Just one more angle on it though. Krugmann, Domhoff and other experts can easily pull out the stats that support their arguments. Those stats have already been published in official compiliations or academic sources. We ought to seek out those government or academic sources if we can. But sources of this kind can still be used. Attribute. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah that would be easy. Unfortunately, while really I think it would be justified, I'm trying to source a section of the Occupy Wall Street article on We are the 99%. I'm not having trouble finding the numbers, I'm having trouble finding specific references to the 99% (or 1%) that give the numbers. If I could take the sources like above, and go to their sources, it would be easy. Any justification for that? See, the trouble here is that it's too obvious and they don't bother writing much about it. I'm not having trouble writing a good encyclopedic section, but with legalistic Misplaced Pages rules. For example, if I could use sources like this it would be easier. B——C_ritical 01:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you can cite the primary source for the data, and the secondary source with attribution (Krugman, whatever) for the intrepretation. You aren't synthesizing from primary sources; Krugman is. Tom Harrison 14:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pravda an RS...

In this edit another contributor excised a reference to an article from Pravda, and replacing each instance with a {{cn}} tag. Their edit summary was simply "Pravda is not a RS".

So, I came here, and I have looked in the noticeboard's archives.

I see Pravda opinion pieces have been questioned. (here for instance...) The reference in question however is a fact article -- not an opinion piece.

And, frankly, I don't see a clear-cut consensus that Pravda is not reliable.

Has there ever been a consensus that Pravda is not a reliable source? Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is Pravda and there is Pravda Online (although we have the latter redirecting to the former, they are not the same thing). A blanket claim that either is not an RS is totally wrong and the use of Pravda Online here seems to be appropriate in the absence of any reason for supposing that the facts are wrong, particularly since they do not seem to be the subject of dispute. --FormerIP (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be lingering Cold War animosity: Pravda in, say, 1950, was as unreliable on facts and figures as the Soviet Government. But even then, this sort of claim (the dates of the subject's travels), unless connected somehow with a Trotskyite plot, was generally reliable - no motive to create a new reality. But things have changed; and, in any case, is the date differently represented elsewhere? If not, use it as the best source we have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Maghoh

I've just edited a page in passing called Maghoh is the Reference section acceptable? Apart from the very old EB1911 entry the only other link does not work and there are no translations on the the talk page. I also looked at the first entry in the See also section it too has what I would consider to be similar problems. -- PBS (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? You'd have to find someone who reads Arabic and knows those sources. Misplaced Pages probably gives such obscure sourcing a free pass. B——C_ritical 18:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Misplaced Pages has a policy in place: WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. A translation should be provided in a footnote, if required - the citation templates offer a parameter to hold a translation. It's always worth also checking the talk page and its archives as previous guidance suggested that a translation should be made on the talk page if it was too large for a footnote. If no translation can be provided then you may treat the statements as if they were unable to be verified. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a request for translation list that somebody can put the article on? I hate to see possibly useful content thrown out because an Arabic speaker hasn't noticed footnote format problems. Elinruby (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian data blog

Is the Guardian datablog a reliable source for statements of fact in Misplaced Pages, if posted by a Guardian news editor? I'm talking about data points, not opinions. B——C_ritical 06:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this legitimate news content, just presented in another format? The paper takes care to distinguish between what its staffers write and the readers' responses, which are only visible after a click-through. Looks OK to me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The stats are presented with a specific slant of opinion and not presented as "dry facts" by the source. Amazingly enough, choice of facts can, indeed, be done in a POV manner and should be so noted as being "opinion" in that sense. This is not just a problem in one article, however, but endemic in all cases of newspaper usage of statistics. See Mark Twain. And the readers' responses to a news blog are never usable on Misplaced Pages in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue may be oversight. It seems to be written as an opinion piece, but do such pieces have the oversight given an article in a newspaper; the writer's expertise has weight, but is that enough?

Statistics would be a primary source, so this use of statistics is secondary , although again the statistics have been interpreted, so we're not looking at raw, neutral data. If it were raw data could we use it? No, probably not, as use would be OR.

While clearly there may be some concern with this article , because of oversight, because the author is writing in an newspaper where he often writes as a reporter and because the author has expertise as a reporter, I'd say you could use the source with careful inline attribution.

As an aside: While called a blog the piece looks like standard newspaper journalism, with added room for comments and may very well have oversight, so may not be a blog in the traditional sense. (olive (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)).

My own thought is that it does have the oversight of the Guardian. I think they'd keep a pretty tight focus on their reputation, and although it's a "blog," it's actually part of their main operation. I'm beginning to think that Littleolive oil is a sourcing fanatic, so if he would accept it as an article source I'm comforted. Thanks for the replies (: B——C_ritical 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable secondary source for intrepreted statistics. The default choice would be to attribute the statement, but in particular cases as a matter of judgement, some things could simply be stated with the Guardian datablog as citation. It seems to me that the answer to "is this a reliable source" is always "it depends what you want to say." If it's to be the source for something about Occupy Wall Street (just guessing) I'd say it needs to be attributed. Tom Harrison 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's my problem in a nutshell: there are lots of sources discussing the economic statistics, and there are lots of sources on "We are the 99%" which is what I'm writing a section about. But few sources go into much detail on what "We are the 99%" means, because they discuss those statistics in other articles, and anyway they think it's obvious. So for WP, it's a sourcing problem because just going and getting the statistics about the gap between the 1% and the 99% is OR. I need this source for statistics explicitely connected to the "99%" meme (not for opinion). Thanks, and the greater number of replies does help. B——C_ritical 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is any controversy about this then it might be wise to use the language of attribution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Marlborough News

Is Marlborough News considered to be reliable? They abide by the editors code of practice and The Press Complaints Commission so would appear to be perfectly acceptable, though an IP editor on the Rachel Reeves article claims the site is a blog. Their site is here: http://www.marlboroughnewsonline.co.uk/about-us

It's a properly constituted business—Dun and Bradstreet lists it as a LLP—set up by four professional journalists with CVs in conventional local journalism. This seems to provide the necessary "professional structure" required in WP:SOURCES. Material from here would seem, AFAICS, to comply with WP:V. Whatever else, it seems more than just a blog.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your expertise. I would appreciate it if people could keep an eye on the Rachel Reeves article as editors breaching NPOV or other polices pop up there on a regular basis dating right back to the creation of the article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You should state the edits it is supposed to support. Not everything in good news sources is rs and some editors will find obscure publications to support their POV. TFD (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is simply to support the name of the subject's spouse.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with that, unless there is some sort of controversy about this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

forgetomori

I asked this 2 months ago, and didn't get any response then so will try rewording it in order to improve the article in question I would appreciate knowing if forgetomori.com would be a reliable source for the following statements in Modern man at 1941 bridge opening.

Further research suggests that the modern appearance of the man may not have been so modern. The style of sunglasses first appeared in the 1920s, and in fact Barbara Stanwyck can be seen wearing a similar pair in the film Double Indemnity three years later. On first glance the man is taken by many to be wearing a modern printed T-shirt, but on closer inspection it seems to be a sweater with a sewn-on emblem, the kind of clothing often worn by sports teams of the period. The remainder of his clothing would appear to have been available at the time, though his clothes are far more casual than those worn by the other individuals in the photograph.

and

Debate centers on whether the image genuinely shows a time traveler, has been photomanipulated, or is simply being mistaken as anachronistic.

Forgetomori does appear to be self published, but has been cited as reliable by magazines and journals on both sides of the Pseudo Science debate. More importantly Knowyourmeme cites it as an important source in both debunking the myth and bringing it to wider public attention, and Fortean Times (normally regarded as an RS, but used with care) not only cites forgetomori but repeats the conclusions that forgetomori draws (issue 263, May 2010, "Future Imperfect", Bob Rickard). Finally a published research paper into the myth (Harkness, D., et al., The Mystery of the "1940s Time Traveller": The Changing Face of Online Brand Monitoring. In J. Trant and D. Bearman . Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2011. Consulted March 31, 2011.) specifically cites Forgetomori as authoritative about the subject in question. From this I would consider that the site is considered expert per the allowances of the self published sources section of Verifiability. The source is only being used to reference the fact that the items regarded as anachronistic in the my dthid actually exist at the time, it does this by citing primary sources from the period which we cannot directly use without engaging in original research and we repeat no hard (fringe or otherwise) conclusions about the case from forgetomori. So can it be considered reliable for this purpose? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK for debunking fringe claims per WP:PARITY. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be rs but you would need to find out who publishes the site, their credentials and the degree of acceptance the site has. Compare with Snopes. I could not find anything about them. TFD (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources have been reinserted under WP:PARITY but aside from that the site is published by Kentaro Mori who has a number of similar roles - generally working with Portuguese magazines but at least one American rational sceptic organisations as well: Creator of the "Ceticismo Aberto(Open Skepticism)",project, Consultant for the "Detetive Virtual( Virtual Detective)" , Columnist for the " Committee for Skeptical Inquiry "(CSICOP). Employee of "“ Sedentário&Hiperativo(Sedentary & Hyperactive)" site. Editor of " Revista Terra Redonda (Round Earth Magazine)" so on and so forth. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this reliable

http://hamraaz.org/ as a source for accurate research on Indian music? Shahid • 10:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

TravelsInParadise.com

Is this a reliable source for claiming that Mount Hermon is in Israel? nableezy - 19:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Travelogues are nowhere adequate for issues of technical, legal and historical 'controversy' on wikipedia.

It's pretty odd anyone would claim that Mt Hermon is in Israel, when it's in the Golan, esp. since Shimon Peres is on record that 'The Golan Heights was never historically considered a part of the State of Israel,' and 'Neither Herzl nor any other of Israel's founders of any stripe ever dreamt the Golan Heights would be part of the state of Israel' and that Israel has repeatedly affirmed Syria has sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and Israel is sitting on Syrian territory there, as sources from 'left' to right, like Moshe Ma'oz and Daniel Pipes remind us.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Travel guides are notoriously bad at history and politics. They are rarely written by experts in those subjects. Actually they are commercial publications that should be treated about the same as company websites, i.e. only reliable for very limited things. Zero 07:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Hooded Utilitarian

Are the reviews on this website reliable/notable enough to be added to articles on artistic works like Habibi? Of the 17 contributors listed under "Contributors" on that site, two have their own Misplaced Pages articles, Marguerite Van Cook and James Romberger. But Nadim Damluji, the author of the review of Habibi that one editor added to the Habibi article, is not. Is it acceptable? Nightscream (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

American Executive

Just came across this publication being used as a source in George McConnell Davison. It's the first source and is supporting a highly flattering quote in the lead. Reading the article, and browsing some of the rest of the publication, it looks like a PR piece which doesn't necessarily make it "unreliable" per se, just not "independent of the subject of the article". Anyone got any info on this publication? GDallimore (Talk) 17:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

TIME magazine

Another one of those "I seriously can't believe I'm making this thread, but the opinions of others compel me to..." threads...

Is Time magazine a reliable source? Users at Talk:Catholicism and abortion claim that it cannot be used in a paragraph on comments made by the Pope in 2007 because it is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, describing opinions other than the official RCC hierarchy opinion as those of "random other people," and that instead of including its interpretation of events (that this statement applies to pro-choice Catholic politicians generally) as we are specifically asked to do by WP:PRIMARY, we should instead include only the pope's quote (which these users wish to interpret to suggest that it only refers to a few specific politicians). Incidentally, the AP source that they left in also discusses the statement's broader relevance (as do the NYT, etc.), which however appears nowhere in the version to which these users reverted.

It's also worth mentioning that one of these users removed the source to make a point about my removing an anti-abortion advocacy website, but I thought I'd assume good faith and bring it here as though it were a real dispute.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a very good explanation of the issue. Simplified, a person makes a quote. Some people (in this case the Time article writer) misinterprets that statement and infers things from the statement that wasn't said in the first place. It becomes apparent that some people are misunderstanding the original quote and interpreting it different from how it was intended so the organization comes out with a clarification that contradicts the understanding that people like the Time article writer had. Should a misinterpretation of a quote, actually make it into an article? Marauder40 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

TIME is generally considered a reliable source. If they've made an error, then they'll typically correct it. If other independent, reliable sources think they've misinterpreted something, then we should be able to cite those additional sources. If a bunch of Misplaced Pages editors think TIME got a story wrong, then they're entitled to that opinion but not permitted to let it drive encyclopedic coverage. But to answer the question more fully, could you describe the specific text that the source would be used to support? MastCell  20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's the paragraph beginning "In May 2007" in this revision. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me in this case that Time has not made a misinterpretation of any quote. I has made what appears to be a fairly straightforward interpretation of the words "they are excommunicated". The article does also include the view of a Vatican spokesperson that the words should not be taken to mean that anyone was excommunicated. It seem clear to me that the Pope mis-spoke on this occasion. It probably doesn't reflect the official position of Roman Catholicism, but the fact that it was said by the Pope is probably noteworthy for inclusion in the article, with clarification if and as appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is he didn't say "they are excommunicated". The actual quotes go like this

"Do you agree with the excommunications given to legislators in Mexico City on the question?" a reporter asked. "Yes. The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the (canon law) code. It is based simply on the principle that the killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going in Communion with the body of Christ. Thus, they (the bishops) didn't do anything new or anything surprising. Or arbitrary."

How can that be directly sourced to "In May 2007, in response to a liberalization of Mexico's abortion laws, Pope Benedict XVI stated that pro-choice Catholic politicians were excommunicated and should be denied communion." He did not excommunicate them. He is stating that he agrees with it, there is a big difference. The Time article itself even mentions the clarification. The Pope didn't misspeak, people misunderstood what he meant. It happens all the time. The quote from the Time article says "Benedict left little room for interpretation: pro-choice politicians not only should be denied communion, but face outright excommunication from the Church for supporting "the killing of a human child." This is not a direct quote and even it says he leaves little room for interpretation. Problem is later in the article is says that the interpretation was stated as wrong by the Vatican itself and even the Time article interpretation doesn't reflect the sentence that is being added to the article at all. Marauder40 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What you're doing is exactly what WP:PRIMARY (part of WP:NOR) enjoins us not to do. You're taking primary-source quotes and trying to substitute your own interpretation of them for the interpretation provided by reliable sources. Time discusses in not insignificant detail the relevance of this comment for pro-choice Catholic politicians everywhere. To a lesser degree, so do the AP and the NYT. Your own personal belief that the statements of Federico Lombardi are more important than the statements of reliable sources is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Without any shadow of a doubt, the source is reliable in this context and would appear to be noteworthy. It may be appropriate to mention the view of Vatican disputing the TIME source, but the views of editors on the accuracy of a reliable source are worth nothing in establishing its reliability. We do not substitute anonymous amateurs' opinions for the processes of professional peer-review or editorial oversight that we find in quality sources. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Maruader40's point is well-taken, though. It might be more correct to say that Benedict voiced support for the excommunication of pro-choice politicians. He didn't actually excommunicate them himself, and the article text gives the impression that he did. MastCell  20:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think that the text implied this at all, but I have no objection to changing the phrasing. My problem is that these users are trying to suppress entirely the interpretation provided by (unsurprisingly determined to be) reliable sources and substitute their own interpretation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this even important enough to include in the article? It sounds like the Pope mispoke, a correction was issued, and nothing of signficance happened. Is this correct? If so, I'd remove it from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually have already mentioned the weight issues concerning this on the article talk page. In your interpretation it is a little cleaner to say "the Pope spoke, several people misunderstood his statements, a correction was issued, and nothing of signficance happened."Marauder40 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

And as I said on the talkpage, we can't allow subsequent events or comments to color our views on the notability of an incident - otherwise, we'd have no articles on failed candidacies or on criminal cases where the suspect was found to be innocent. This was widely covered at the time in the news, and coverage in scholarly books continues. It's not our responsibility to shove all incidents where Benedict "misspoke" under the rug. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard has the purpose of deciding whether a source is reliable in a given context and I see virtually no dissent from the view that Time is reliable here. The question of WEIGHT is not best discussed on this board, but anyone who reads the article can be left in little doubt that the stance expressed by the Pope is a significant statement in the context of topics we would expect to be covered in Catholicism and abortion#Recent events. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, including the last part. --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As I stated at the beginning of the thread, I agree that there's no question that Time is a reliable source. Now we just have to hope that editors at that article will abide by this snow-yes as to its reliability, even though it isn't affiliated with the RCC... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the snow yes, I think that words spoken by the pontiff almost always need clarification and context applied by secondary sources, in this case Time magazine. People have often attributed strong meanings to mild-seeming statements by popes. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely nobody denies that Time magazine, like the Associated Press agency, is a reliable (wiki-citable) source. At the same time, the opinions and interpretations advanced by its correspondents and editors are not wiki-infallible. Misplaced Pages should report them as opinions and interpretations of that publication, not as unquestionable objective facts. Surely we all agree on that? As Binksternet says, "people have often attributed strong meanings to mild-seeming statements by popes". Esoglou (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Esoglou. TIME Magazine is certainly a reliable source. However, being a reliable source doesn't mean that everything printed in that source is true. It just means that it's reasonable to consider the source as providing information worth evaluating and weighing for inclusion. By comparison, we don't even consider unreliable sources such as weblogs, forums, etc.

In this particular case, the assertion that the Pope's statement was misinterpreted is substantiated by providing a very reliable source who (may have) misinterpreted it.

My personal understanding (admittedly based only on what I've read here and in the particular revision provided by Roscelese) is that the Pope made a statement (possibly based on a misunderstanding on his part) which was widely misinterpreted and later clarified. However, (IMHO) the key point here is that the Pope did not excommunicate anyone but left those decisions to individual bishops. He did not repudiate excommunication when related to abortion and support for abortion (rather he implicitly endorsed such actions) nor did he preempt individual bishops from making those decisions (as some may have thought he was doing) but rather endorsed what he thought they had done (but hadn't). The net effect of all this was to endorse the actions of local bishops without personally intervening in affairs under their jurisdiction. IMO, the text of the paragraph should be focused on making those points. If written that way, the TIME magazine article is left not supporting anything of much importance to the article text. Also note that TIME magazine is probably only one source that made this misinterpretation which suggests that it would be better to step away from that article and look for a different source that describes the whole sequence of events and provides all significant interpretations (and misinterpretations).

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

www.pwpamplona.com

This a Spanish-language site. While I was searching for an album (Bachata Rosa), I've come across forums that claim that the album was certified 7x in Spain, but since forums are user-generated content, I've searched through Google to look for a reliable source that can verify the claim. The above site was the only one I could find and it sources Los 40 Principales as the source of the certifications for those albums, but I do not know it is legitimate to use it. Erick (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries and Sunlight Foundation Blog

is an edit with the summary

sunlight foundation blog is not a personal or group blog. blogs from reiable sources are permitted

Alas - I can not deem "sunlight foundation" to be an RS nor its blog to be valid for contentious claims (Koch Industries is closely linked to two specific BLPs). "Sunlight Foundation" is not a news organization, Paul Blumenthal, the author of the blog post, is not listed as a staff member or associate of the foundation in any way. The foundation lacks even a "project editor" so cannot be assumed to do any factchecking at all. So is this blog a "reliable source" for the claims made? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not RS, not a notable source of opinion, not controlled editorially. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Another use of the Sunlight Foundation blog may be found at the BLP of George Kaiser, where it is used to make contentions about what "many experts, including the IRS, believe" about the legality of Kaiser's tax avoidance strategies. Do the readers of this board have the same, or a different, reaction to the use at George Kaiser as they do at Koch Industries?--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They're not editorially controlled: the blog isn't reliable to make summary claims of expert and government belief in relation to tax law. Try newspaper's opinion pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, the Sunlight Foundation pages are not RS for anything - and especially for nothing contentious at all. My opinion is the same no matter what article tries using a non-RS source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They are a hacktivist group and usually their facts are correct. They run a website that is essentially a better interface to federal records. Whether the blogs are RS or not is a deeper question I don't have time to explore right now, but -- just making sure it gets its due or at least some of it. Elinruby (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So use them to locate the relevant federal records and cite those. Though you'll have problems finding the opinion and colour. We don't cite the Irish Worker's Solidarity Movement on the complexion of the Irish State; we don't cite the Australian Labor Party on the character of Tony Abbot. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be the way to go for the person that wants to use the information. I am hesitating over RS because it's my understanding that preferred sources are news blogs attached to publications (could be wrong about that) and while I think this keeps us from using good niche sources at times I understand the caution. It's hard to formulate a rule allows good blogs that does not also allow bad blogs. I'd say that according to my understanding, the group is fairly new and questionable as RS; editorial comment could be quoted as opinion but the editor should go to the federal records to support statements of fact. Note: I have encountered a similar issue in an article I am working on so while I am uninvolved with this one, I am not totally an outside opinion. For the record here is what they say about themselves: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/about/. Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The sunlight foundation and opensecrets (primary source?) are now being used to state that the corporation donated money to Congressional candidates.

The Center also reports Koch Industries contributed $1.35 million to winning congressional campaigns in the 2010 cycle

Using the second source as from opensecrets.org . That source, however, does not attribute the contributions to Koch Industries (which would violate Federal law and state laws) but to the two principal owners of Koch Industries. So is this source valid for making the claim as stated in Koch Industries? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Open Secrets is the interface I mentioned above. I am inclined to believe what it says. I am not totally certain how RS policy applies to it. I believe that excluding it would remove information that is very likely accurate, though, which would seem to be a violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages. But in any case, if the source says the owners made the contribution, then the article should say that the owners made the contribution. It's usual to look at contributions from the principals and employees of a corporation, but the article should not falsely claim that contributions were made that would violate laws if the statement was true. Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight, as observed above, is not a reliable source due to its lack of an editorial policy. Secondly that sentence misrepresents the source: 1) the figure is wrong; 2) it misrepresents donations from the controllers of Koch Industries as donations from Koch Industries. Thirdly I share your primary source concerns: opensecrets is pitched at media, with a mission to communicate to media, and don't present meaningful political analyses themselves. I don't think that their data is corrupt, but, neither do I think their data is straight forward to analyse. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked your assertion that the statement is wrong, but if it is, that needs to be fixed. I also don't think that real facts should be excluded, and the federal records are not that easy to find or cite, which is the problem that Open Secrets tries to address. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the author of the edit that provoked this question. A few things:

opensecrets.org . ... does not attribute the contributions to Koch Industries (which would violate Federal law and state laws). Not so. see for yourself. It specifically labels its page on the contributions "Koch Industries". What opensecrets does say is the top contributors to Koch Industries contributions were Charles and David Koch. In any case, it's not just Sunlight and Open Secret that talk about "Koch Industries" political contributions, the head of Koch Industries does. Do they know something about Federal law and state laws that Collect doesn't?

AFAICT the "relevant federal records", i.e the Federal Election Commission online data is pretty raw and not particularly easy to use. For example here it provides names of recipients of campaign contributions from a source (Koch Industries PAC) but there are hundreds of contributions in alphabetical order, with no breakdown by party not even totaled for each candidate. This is what makes opensecrets and Sunlight very helpful.

On the Koch Industries talk age Collect has proclaimed that the result of the above discussion is: opensecrets.org is considered a "primary source" at the same noticeboard, and the claim that Koch Industries made the donations was roundly condemned there as not representing what the source says in any way.

There are a lot of "contentious claims" made about Koch Industries and its two principle owners, but I have never heard it/them deny that they contribute millions of dollars to a lot of mostly Republican political candidates. So, Collect, why all this time and energy on such a non-controversial issue? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The donations are by individuals who happen to own a company ... not by the company (which would violate federal and state laws) , which is what your edit stated directly. Do you see that distinction? BTW, the adjective is "principal". Collect (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, Boogalouie, those numbers may be accurate (I suspect) but that doesn't mean that David Koch sat down and wrote a check for 2.2 million dollars. Look at the limits on campaign contributions. What the have done is analyze some large companies to see if their employees (through sheer co-incidence of course) just so happened to contribute to the same candidate as the boss. This will be clearer if you compare the Comcast page for example, then look at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

The main problem with using federal contribution records is not actually how hard they are to use; that would be original research, which is a nono at Misplaced Pages. I do not know if there has already been a discussion about the reliability of Open Secrets. To my eye (not all that tutored in wikipolicies) it's a website, and websites are treated with caution but can be used. With caution. Hopefully if I am wrong about that someone will tell us. Meanwhile, violating election laws is a serious charge. Tom Delay went to jail for sloppiness with corporate contributions, didn't he? so fix the sentence to say that the owners gave the money, then you two can work out whether Open Secrets is a RS or not. Let me know, I may want to use it. Elinruby (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is reading this I emailed Sunlight foundation and got a reply to some of our questions:
How can you say Koch Industries or News Corp or whoever gave money when it's really employees of the company?
When sunlight says contributions from Koch industries , it means "contributions coming from the Koch Industries' political action committee and employees and their family members of Koch Industries and its subsidiaries." Here's a sample look up of "recipient: pompeo (i.e. Rep. Mike Pomeo (KS-R))" from "Organization: Koch Industries." from the "transparency data" with a list of employees and spouses (high level employees). Here's a reply from somebody from sunlight (Bill Allison) explaining "why campaign finance data is categorized and reported on the way it is."
where does sunlight get its money numbers from (aside from the Federal Election Commission)?
Explained here. "Our campaign finance data comes from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which in turn gets its data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)." With it, it creates a database called transparency data. With that data it creates influence explorer database.
Who is Paul Blumenthal and why is he not on the Sunlight Found list of staff?
"he was Sunlight's lead writer for five years and expert in Campaign Finance issues. He left us a few months back for an opportunity with a different organization." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading this. Thanks for sending the email. I think it's a useful source and that we should not exclude valid information. I also think that precise definitions are important in legal matters, so if the article in fact said that the corporation gave yea much when this is a compiled number, then the article needs to say that this is a number compiled from adding together the contributions of employees, esp. if omitting the qualifier makes it seem that a law was broken. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks. This is Tom Lee, director of Sunlight Labs, which is the technical wing of the Sunlight Foundation. Let me issue a few points of clarification. First, Sunlight considers itself bound to high editorial standards. Our reporting group is headed by Bill Alison, an experienced journalist and nine-year veteran of the Center for Public Integrity. He oversaw Paul's work during the latter's time at Sunlight. Although I'm not sure if we have a posted editorial policy in the formal sense that I take it Misplaced Pages requires (I'm unclear on what the reqs are -- link?), we a) issue updates and corrections to posts when we become aware of errors b) are a nonpartisan organization and c) do our best to adhere to journalistic norms (as per the SPJ Code of Ethics) in our reported work.

Links: reliable source and I predict the next question will be original research if you would not mind addressing that also...speaking as one that would like to use this data. Elinruby (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! Unfortunately I don't see any text matching "editorial policy" on that first page. I may need a more specific pointer. Having read the page, I do believe that Sunlight would qualify as a RS, though I understand that there may be nuances I'm missing. I think I understand the proscription on original research, but it seems as though it only pertains to Misplaced Pages articles. I'm not sure what it means for Sunlight's content. For what it's worth, we do generate original research, both quantitative (e.g. regressions) and qualitative (e.g. reporting on phone calls to sources).Sbma44 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight gets its federal campaign finance data from and helps to support the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs OpenSecrets.org. CRP's data originates from the Federal Election Commission. Unfortunately, the FEC's data does not come with usable identifiers. Because of this, to get any kind of an aggregate picture of the donor side of our political system, a large amount of additional work is necessary -- some automated, some manual. When it comes to this work, CRP is the only game in town. If you have read a US political fundraising total associated with a business or individual, it has almost certainly come from CRP's work and data. They have honed their methodology over their long history, and it is a standard that is respected and used by journalists, researchers and campaign finance professionals. This includes the decision to include employees' giving in aggregate company figures -- please see the post linked to by Ryan for more. Although I realize it may at first strike some as an unusual methodological technique, it is in fact an established approach that was developed both to reflect employee giving "encouraged" by company leadership, and to reflect the reality that political influence is not limited to quid-pro-quo transactions coordinated at the executive level. Legislators are very aware of who employs their constituents and donors. The resulting legislative biases are real and the public deserves to know about them.

I would respectfully submit that the RS discussion underway here reflects a lack of a familiarity with campaign finance reporting norms as are commonly used by the US journalist and NGO communities. Naturally, I'm happy to answer any more questions or to respond to formal requirements surrounding our editorial policy.

I'm comfortable with the idea that employee contributions are part of an employer's influence, but don't we need to make it clear that these are not donations from the corporation itself? And by the way, for my own information, is this bundling or is that something else? I am hazy on the fine print of the law, esp since Citizens United. Thanks for your thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That distinction is a valid one to make, and I don't have a strong opinion about what choice Misplaced Pages editors should make. I will say that within campaign finance reporting norms, it is normal and acceptable to refer to giving from an employer that includes the contributions of its employees. The analogy I would offer is this: sports journalists might refer to a quarterback "throwing three touchdowns" in a game. In fact, it might be the case that two of those touchdowns were thrown to receivers who weren't yet in the end zone, but then ran into it to score. The norm within sports reporting is to attribute such a touchdown to the quarterback (and the receiver, too). This might strike some as odd, and you could legitimately make the decision not to count such touchdowns if the analytic point you were making required an appraisal of touchdown-scoring outside the normal style in which it's reported. But the most common (and, I think, useful) way to report the quarterback's total for that game is to say "three touchdowns" rather than one. It's the same with grouping contributions.

Per your other question: in some cases this behavior might qualify as bundling, but not all. And whether it's reported as bundling is, unfortunately, a separate question. Election law is murky, and the enforcement of the rules governing contributions is outrageously lax. Sbma44 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) To anyone else reading: looks like editorial review to me, no? @Tom Lee -- does Bill Allison review all blog submissions? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@ElinRuby: Bill or a deputized senior editor reviews all content published by our reporting group. A senior staff member (usually from the writer's department) reviews all blog posts (and similar content -- ephemera like tweets are not formally reviewed) we produce, although depending on the time-sensitivity of the subject and the personnel involved that review can sometimes occur as much as a few hours after publication. If errors are detected we of course add updates or other notices of correction to the original post.

• Frankly, no, it doesn't look reliable and personal correspondence doesn't look like an editorial policy. Personal correspondence from politicised opinion works doesn't really influence me because it isn't in the public domain and irrefutably attached to the organisation's profile. This political body doesn't meet the standards of RS. And no, Tom, we don't have a policy that you could rapidly reduce to an analysis to make yourself reliable—policy doesn't work that way on wikipedia, and in the area of reliable sourcing something much closer to a "common law" exists. But consider, for comparative purposes, at the moment your organisation represents itself and its editorial control in the manner that religious sects, microscopic political parties (wsws.org is a useful comparator here, as are some of the US anarcho-capitalist thinktank "journals"), self-published sources, and aggregators). Compare the self-representation online of those "sources" with even the most half-arsed peer reviewed journal, or a community newspaper. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo I hope I haven't given offense in some way. To be honest, some of the parts of your message are unclear to me; also, it seems like there's a sense of animus behind your remarks that I'm anxious to understand and defuse. I hope you'll expand on what you consider to be the problem. Until then I'll say just a few things:

• I don't believe I made any reference to personal correspondence. As I mentioned, when editorial review reveals a problem with something we published -- which is infrequent but not unheard of -- we publish corrections or updates in a way that's attached to the original post. I assume you aren't asking that that review process itself be public -- no newspaper or journal publishes that process that I'm aware of.
• I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "politicised opinion works" -- again, we are a nonpartisan organization. Our money-in-politics reporting frequently prompts angry opinions to the contrary, but it's just not true. I would invite anyone upset about our coverage of the Koch brothers to have a look at how much we've written about Charlie Rangel, to name just one example.
• I certainly respect that Misplaced Pages's RS standards must remain flexible and are not a checklist. But I'm afraid I'm still not clear on what about our policies is unacceptable. Our reporting is produced by journalists -- some went to journalism school, others have worked at newspapers, many are members of IRE/NICAR/APME/etc, and all of them pride themselves on their status as journalists. They implement an editorial workflow and set of standards that's are in keeping with those of their profession. I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse! I just really don't understand the objection. 12.154.244.225 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Chav

Are either of these reliable for the article on the UK social stereotype?

• Jardine, Crombie; Bok, Lee (11 May 2006). The Chav Guide to Life. Crombie Jardine Publishing.
• Wallace, Mia; Spanner, Clint (12 July 2005). Chav! A User's Guide to Britain's New Ruling Class. Transworld Publishers. ISBN 978-0-553-81713-3.

I'm saying not, given that there are many sources in the mainstream press and also some academic sources, but someone disagrees suggested it be raised here. Many thanks for further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not reliable and not reliable. No signs of the standard features of sociological or anthropological texts. No citations, inline references, references to methodology, data collection, question construction, literatures. The introductions don't discuss the scope or span of the work. The publishers are in the sub-coffee table grade in the layout design and market segment. We should not be using these books on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

John of Damascus

Could people share their opinions on whether the following sources are to be considered RS for information on the family background of John of Damascus? More information on the crux of the dispute can be found in the discussion on the talk page at Talk:John of Damascus#sources on his origins.

• Ross Burns. Damascus: A History (2007). Rouledge; pp. 99, 105:.
• Hugh N. Kennedy. The great Arab conquests: how the spread of Islam changed the world we live in (2007). Da Capo Press; p. 28.
• Ruth A. Tucker. Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church (2011). Zondervan.
• Peter Robert Lamont Brown. The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity (2003). Wiley-Blackwell; p. 307.
• David Vila in Richard Valantasis. Religions of late antiquity in practice (2000). Princeton University Press; p. 454.
• Kallistos Ware in William CLoughlin et al. Mary for earth and heaven: papers on Mary and ecumenism given at international congresses of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Leeds (1998) and Oxford (2000) and conferences at Woldingham (1997) and Maynooth (2001). Gracewing Publishing; p. 355. Tiamut 17:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All these are scholarly and reliable, but of course you will also bear in mind sources that give a different description or even leave the whole issue out because the subject's ethnic origin may not be very important anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look reliable enuff. Seems like Arab identity is well enough represented in the sources to merit its inclusion. Even if you add a "According to some scholars.." (that usually fixes the problem.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The ethnicity and origin of John of Damascus is minor concern to all these books as they don't cover but less than two sentences. Most specialised sources, on the other hand, seem to promote the fact that he wasn't an Arab as A_ntv showed. So the question is whether to cite a general book about Christianity or a dedicated book covering the saint's life.--Rafy talk 14:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

History books prior to Leopold von Ranke

I remember seeing in this noticeboard, people talking about pre-Ranke history books (who do not meet his standard definition) as primary source and not secondary. I wonder if this classification is just an inside-wiki thing or there are actually scholarly sources supporting it. Your consideration is appreciated.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Modern historical scholarship begins with Ranke's methodology—history done in the style of Ranke, and subsequently, is modern in the full sense. This relates to the concept of reliability being a spectrum, and in the case of history, we prefer the highest quality works. WP:HISTRS is a beta document describing best practice for wikipedians writing historical articles on the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. Gibbon is a secondary source; so is Prescott; so is (Barthold) Niebuhr. The problem with them is that they are dated; too much work, too many discoveries, too much discussion, has gone on since. But the same applies to Ranke himself, to Mommsen, to Trevelyan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To get somewhat snide, Gibbon's self-perception of method is inferior to Ranke's. The emphasis at RS/N has always been on method, practice and peering with historians. It is harder to give a hard and fast rule about how fast a certain sub-discipline moves in terms of theoretical currency. Ranke's self conscious method stands out much clearer as a statement of "this is what they have to look like to be considered credible." Gibbon's method seems significantly analogous to Ranke's. I can't myself think of an article where we'd use either as a secondary source due to new availabilities of sources, and new theoretical methods. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And Ranke's self-perception is not quite matched by his practice. Since we agree on other grounds that more modern historians are the desirable sources, can we call this settled? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is a Moor - Ivan Van Sertima reference R.S?

A edit war has been going on for sometime at Moor see (not involving this editor - for once). The area of principle disagreement is with this statement. " Moors" are not a distinct or self-defined people. Medieval and early modern Europeans applied the name primarily to Berbers, but also at various times to Arabs, Muslim Iberians and West Africans from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty (section in bold) is the area of dispute the reference being given is Ivan Van Sertima and the book also Amazon Book. Some have noted that Van Sertima is not an expert on Moorish history (due to other non-related historical mistakes he made) but I think the real question is can that particular opinion from him be trusted for inclusion? Is it so radical that merits a Fringe notice or is it acceptable? I will wait for feedback b4 i give my opinion.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that what Ivan Van Sertima says -even if I disagree with him being used as a RS at all for reasons I've explained at Talk:Moors- does not support the bolded section. He simply makes some vague reference about the Almoravids (Who BTW were Berbers) migrating in Saharan Northwest Africa, no mention of Niger or Mali let alone calling the Moors Black African. --Tachfin (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sertima's books are fringe and not reliable for Misplaced Pages. I am sure there are better references that say that the term Moor was vaguely applied through the ages. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So your issue is only with Van Sertima and not the content in bold? Because I think as per Itsmejudith we can find reference which say Moor was applied broadly through-out the ages. In other words Moor, does not exclude so-called black people. I am on Kindle so i will download a few books. The Story of the Moors in Spain (Paperback)] Might be a better reference.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay Got it As critics have established, the term "Moor" was used interchangeably with such similarly ambiguous terms as "African," "Ethiopian," "Negro," and even "Indian" to designate a figure from different parts or the whole of Africa (or beyond) who was either black or Moslem, neither, or both. will move this to the talk page as i think this is a R.S feedback on the source and the sentiment.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Compass Direct

Does this website qualify RS?

• http://www.compassdirect.org/

Joyson Noel 14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That depends. "Reliable source" is not boolean; which statement is it supporting?

It's not looking good. The byline is "News from the Frontlines of Persecution" ... and they promise "As Christian persecution continues to intensify worldwide, you need a source that can provide the most accurate, up-to-date information available..." so there could be serious neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the bylines. All news agencies make tall claims. However, what bothers me is as follows. Compass Direct professes to be a news service dedicated to 'providing exclusive news, penetrating reports, moving interviews and insightful analyses of situations and events facing Christians persecuted for their faith.' So this in essence makes them a Christian media agency. They also apparently maintain an extensive network of news bureaus and correspondents around the world. I have read many articles and these read more like regular news articles. So i was just wondering, because of of the nature of the media agency. Could their articles be used as references in Christian persecution articles? Joyson Noel 16:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, i have also come across articles in which they have documented atrocities committed by Christians on each other. See this. Joyson Noel 18:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What kind of statement do you want to use this source to support? bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a real incident. For example, in a village in Upper Egypt after Friday prayers, a Muslim mob attacked and torched dozens of Christian homes. An elderly man was killed, and five seriously injured. Joyson Noel 12:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What kind of statement do you want to use this source to support? bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I just provided an example! I am not working on any Christian persecution articles as of now, but i intend to do so. As such, i would appreciate any views as to whether it satisifes WP:RS. Joyson Noel 17:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New Humanist

Adnan Oktar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New Humanist

An IP requested the deletion of certain material in the Oktar article cited to the above source (). I looked at the article material and the source and tended to agree with the IP that the source is not a reliable source for the assertion, but I also felt it wasn't a reliable source period. Then, I noticed that the article cites the source 16 times! So, I could remove the material the IP objects to, but it wouldn't solve the continuous sourcing to something that describes itself as "the London based magazine of the Rationalist Association" that "has distinguished itself as a world leader in supporting and promoting humanism and rational inquiry and opposing religious dogma, irrationalism and bunkum wherever it is found."

Does anyone have any comments on whether the source can be used for anything, or is it necessary to analyze each assertion in the WP article? By the way, the WP article cites to just one article at the source's website, which is essentially an attack piece.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it can be used as a source for the opinion of someone who writes there. That is, if the magazine publishes an article by A that says XYZ, you can write "According to A, XYZ". For claims about third parties, especially about opponents of the magazine position, I'd say it generally shouldn't be used as a source. Zero 07:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article in question is clearly an attack piece, for example, He is a deluded megalomaniac who has artfully exploited the global resurgence of religious sentiment to cheat us all. A ludicrous man for ludicrous times. I glanced through it, and it appears that most if not all of the assertions made are unsupported by references. They may or may not be true, but given that the apparent purpose of the article is to discredit the subject, I wouldn't consider it worth using--any we took from there would need to be supported by other, better sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the magazine occasionally. It's a mixture of some humanist/atheist polemic and some less vituperative stuff than the description of Mr Oktar quoted above. The printed magazine used to get quite wide distribution in branches of Border's Books in the UK (until they sadly closed), and it can be read in some university library reading rooms (the University of London stocks it in Senate House Library, for instance). The writers for New Humanist tend to be a mixture of humanist/secularist ideologues and sympathetic journalists, writers and academics. It is particularly useful as a source of book reviews for a variety of books on all sorts of topics. Just to give an idea of the diversity, from the May/June 2005 edition, the reviews section consisted of a review of seven books, including two on philosophy, two non-fiction books (one on politics, another on religion), and two novels. The same edition also includes an article on Ken Loach and an article on Irish immigration, both of which could potentially be useful sources on those topics. There are many similar articles in other editions I have read. I'd say that putting it narrowly into either the "reliable" or "not reliable" box is rather difficult. There are bits which are polemic, there are bits which are feature/reportage, there are bits which are reviews. One must also pay attention to the fact that there is a distinction between material from the magazine and the accompanying blog. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A while back I added a New Humanist article as a source in Barbara Wootton, Baroness Wootton of Abinger. Seems reliable enough there. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Images of display boards

A number of facts at KAI T-50 Golden Eagle have been referenced using images of display boards taken at an exhibition. These images have been hosted on blogs and image hosts then used as a source for the information. Are images of display material a reliable source, and if they are can we link to blogs and image hosts as references? I presume they cant be uploaded to wikipedia as they would probably be copyrighted material, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be duly noted that these display boards pertaining to T-50 have been set up by the manufacturers of T-50 itself (or its components) in some of the largest aerospace exhibitions and air shows in the country, such as the ADEX. I'll provide some example images here:

F-50 proposed next-generation fighter: http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/07/f-50_1.jpg

Flightglobal news on KAI's proposal of an F-50 variant: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-gets-t-50-work-as-kai-studies-fighter-variant-169416/

Weapons fit for armed T-50 variants:

http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL105/upload/2005/10/A-50%20%B9%AB%C0%E5%20%281%29_1.jpg
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL105/upload/2005/10/A-50%20%B9%AB%C0%E5%20%284%29_1.jpg
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/data/10040/upfile/201009/20100925140812_2.jpg

Supplementary DefenseIndustryDaily news on FA-50's weapons fit: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-t-50-spreads-its-wings-04004/

Avionics components for T-50, and their manufacturers: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=cutysio&logNo=40127916907&viewDate=&currentPage=1&listtype=0

Website of the event's host: http://www.rndkorea.or.kr/

I've already known for a long time that 'blogs' are deemed unreliable sources in Misplaced Pages if they are used as direct references. But I'm not directly referring to blogs to verify some important information regarding T-50, such as proposed variants, armaments, and component producers; I only want to refer to the legitimate exhibition materials made and presented by manufacturers regarding T-50 design proposals, armament specifications, components content, etc., and I'd totally do I way with blogs whenever I could; it's just that there are no convenient way I can see of showing these materials in Misplaced Pages unless by using image hosting sites, which could sometimes be blogs. I'm of the opinion that we should find a mutually agreed means to rate the credibility of these exhibition materials not by the blog nature of the image hosting site but by who made and presented them (KAI, Lockheed Martin, MDS Technology, etc), and where they were hosted (the biannual ADEX, or other regular technology R&D accomplishment exhibition, etc). The direct attribution should be given to the manufacturers themselves who made and presented the exhibition materials, and to the hosts of such official exhibition events, but as I've said, I myself have found no way of linking Misplaced Pages to these materials unless I use image hosting sites. A small suggestion to the OP: maybe instead of preemptively accusing me of being purposefully disruptive and deleting what I intend to be good faith edits without even discussing the matter with the community first, you can actually help me get the exhibition materials properly attributed to their creators (the manufacturers themselves) and their hosts (Ministry of Knowledge and Economy and other government branches) by suggesting alternatives to blogs and other unrelated commercial sites for image hosting. Desagwan (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the exhibition materials are, basically, best regarded as advertising. It's reasonable to take specific technical details from them but we need to be very careful of qualitative claims, especially comparisons (along the lines of "best in class") since these will have been finessed by the manufacturer. If we can trust any intermediate step in the chain (blog, forum post, whatever) to pass on the images without shopping then I'm happy.

Defense Industry Daily, I feel, meets the criteria for a reliable source as long as they're sticking to military procurement (and generally, they do). In this field, details are sometimes speculative, and sometimes specifications/timelines don't turn out as previously announced - but DiD is generally quite clear about that, rather than taking everything at face value. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think images like the T-50 avionics operating system having the IEEE POSIX certification and who produces what is not really aimed at advertisement; they are merely stating educational facts about T-50 to an audience that's unlikely to ever personally buy T-50's avionics components, kinda like museum exhibitions (are museums going to be considered unreliable sources, then?). Your concern about the potential advertising nature of the display boards in other exhibitions like ADEX has its merit, though I tend to think that if KAI really thought its T-50 couldn't deliver the capabilities that it says it could (like F-50 having next-generational capabilities compared to present T-50, if developed), it wouldn't have exhibited the models and display boards in such a blatant and outright way (which will have severe ethical implications should the claims prove false) to such a large audience in one of the biggest aerospace exhibitions in the world. I think KAI, as the largest and flagship aerospace company in Korea, has plenty of obligations to state facts about their aircraft in such an important PR event where the business-ethical image of the company itself (and perhaps of Korea's entire aerospace industry) may be directly at stake. In any case, the claims made in the images over time were proven by secondary non-manufacturer sources (some even before, like the existence of F-50 by Flightglobal and by others if we search long enough), but this article's editorial progress is so slow due to the small number of editors dedicated to T-50, with only a few select people like me (perhaps only me, at this moment) to process the disproportionately large amount of information and defend the editions made against an outnumbering opposing side, and such slow dissemination of information about T-50 can sometimes sow unnecessary disputes about T-50's capabilities, design, service history, etc that otherwise doesn't need to exist (like how some readers couldn't accept that FA-50, in fact, can be comparable to other fighters like F-16, Saab Gripen; we also have much simpler disputes about the different looks between T-50, T-50B, and TA-50, as well as their ID). Desagwan (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Boing Boing editorial used as attribution for editor's opinion?

The article is Stop Online Piracy Act. As there was a rush to cover a lot of material in a short time (there was a committee hearing on the bill Nov 16) I let this discussion go at the time, but I'd like some feedback, primarily out of curiosity. The quote was rather long and the article now contains many other quotes so it may not go back in even if there's a consensus that Boing Boing is reliable for this purpose.

It does seem to me that it is, though, and if it is not, I'd like some feedback on why it isn't, in furtherance of my wiki-education. So. I have looked at the previous three mentions of Boing Boing on this board. None got a great deal of response.

• One seems to say that Boing Boing's website can be used for attribution in a mention of a Boing Boing staffing issue in the site's Misplaced Pages article, which is substantive and rated B-class by the way, so the publication is notable to the Misplaced Pages community.
• Another mention here, concerning an article on an Australian ISP, discounts it as a blog. The discussion page for that article also shows editors agreeing that the Boing Boing citation was unnecessary since a print newspaper had also written on the policy they wanted to document.
• The third revolves around whether Boing Boing + Wikileaks is more reliable than a literary publication called The Believer for an article about a libel suit over an incest allegation withdrawn by the alleged victim after the story aired on CBS. It seems to have drawn some "maybe" answers without convincing the advocate for The Believer or really reaching consensus, although the literary magazine seemed to have more and firmer responses.

I feel it's one of the online publications that does not fit the RS policy very well, but don't really know a lot about its track record for accuracy. I would not quote it for startling facts, but here is how I did use it -- please comment.

The issue in the SOPA article is changes to copyright law that the the proposed legislation would make. Cory Doctorow, an Boing Boing co-editor, has his own B-class article describing him as a "blogger, journalist, and science fiction author who serves as co-editor of the blog Boing Boing...an activist in favour of liberalising copyright laws and a proponent of the Creative Commons organization." He has published a book on the topic of copyright for which Tim O'Reilly wrote a forward (see footnote 36 of the wikipedia article). He has been a Fulbright scholar at the University of Southern California and director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. There's more, but I think that qualifies him to speak on matters of copyright, doesn't it? He does not have a mention on this noticeboard.

The material that got removed went: Canadian journalist and blogger Cory Doctorow, who co-founded the popular social media site Boing Boing, explains his objection to that process: "When small sites, and it's the small sites that get turned off in the night and no one for the most part notices, say my friend's political blog or news site gets blocked by the US government and she has no way to get it back up even though everything she did was legal according to current law, and no one can help her except she can choose to file suit to defend herself, I feel like I die inside a little," cited to http://boingboing.net/2011/11/11/stop-sopa-save-the-internet.html.

This is an opinion, and the citation was used for attribution. I believe that Boing Boing would be RS for this purpose but if I am mistaken I'd appreciate it someone could explain why.

A second, slightly different question also, if I may: The same edit removed a citation to the same article that was meant to support "The US Attorney-General could force US-based ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as Paypal or Visa to stop doing business with, and search engines to stop displaying results for, sites found to infringe on copyright." I rather would have thought this was a surprising statement and actually meant to go get a quote for the Washington Post or something, but I saw this:

"If a copyrights holder disliked links you have on your site, they could simply file a complaint with a payment processor (Visa, PayPal), who would then have 5 days to respond to their request or risk legal ramifications. If bills like this are allowed to pass, we'll be spending another $47 million dollars every year to help corporations fill out and enforce Internet blacklists.

"Sites that would be legal under the DMCA and its safe harbor provisions would now risk losing everything for allowing user generated content."

which did seem to support the statement in the meanwhile. The statement itself apparently is uncontroversial though, as it was left and only the citation was removed. A somewhat modified version remains in the article today. ("After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General (AG) could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as Paypal or Visa to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws and take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to prevent access to the infringing site." - I dislike this wording, but it's clearly talking about the same set of facts.)

My second question has two parts: Would Doctorow/Boing Boing have been a reliable source for this statement, and two, if so, could it be used for the quote that was in place when it was removed? Thank you kindly for reading this and for any thoughts that you may have. Elinruby (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page and rephrase your request for RS/N editors to comment, as I find your exposition confusing in the extreme. For each claim, follow the process at the top of the article, in a clearly separate group of text. In particular dot points may help you. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Was wondering why nobody answered. It's that far out of format? My apologies. I don't have time for structural edits just this second, but I'll come back and fix this, probably later today. Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is just so confusingly written it is impossible to tell what the source is, what the link to the source is, where you're describing the source, what you're describing the source's use in the article as, what the article is, and what's ancillary discussion. It doesn't help that you're asking for three sources to be evaluated at once (easy!) but you weave them into each other so I can't make head nor tail. I'm not even confident to give my opinion on Doctorow here because I don't know who is using him where for what and what source of his they're using! Fifelfoo (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not complaining. If you are genuinely confused then I did not explain well. Trying again below.

restating the questions as requested

The editorial that is questioned is Doctorow, Cory, Stop SOPA, Save the Internet, Boing Boing, Nov 11 2011. The link is here. The article is Stop_Online_Piracy_Act.

The article at one point cited this editorial in two places. Both were removed, one without explanation I believe, and the other with an edit summary about "misattribution."

The first footnote was purely for attribution, ie Cory Doctorow, a co-editor of Boing Boing, said this. It seems to me that this is surely RS for that at least? However, as overkill, I discussed the three prior mentions here of Boing Boing, which seem mixed.

I then say that I think that Doctorow qualifies as an expert on copyright, based on the qualifications I mention above, because the other footnote was for a statement of fact:

"The US Attorney-General could force US-based ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as Paypal or Visa to stop doing business with, and search engines to stop displaying results for, sites found to infringe on copyright."

The Boing Boing article says:

"If a copyrights holder disliked links you have on your site, they could simply file a complaint with a payment processor (Visa, PayPal), who would then have 5 days to respond to their request or risk legal ramifications. If bills like this are allowed to pass, we'll be spending another $47 million dollars every year to help corporations fill out and enforce Internet blacklists.

"Sites that would be legal under the DMCA and its safe harbor provisions would now risk losing everything for allowing user generated content."

Hopefully that makes it clearer what I am asking and why? If not, let me know and I will try again. Thanks, and sorry this took so long -- been a bit unwell. Elinruby (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Mesopotamian scorpion mythology in Scorpio (astrology)

Are either of these RS for the connection between the myth of "scorpion men" in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the constellation and star sign Scorpio?

• Lewis Spence, Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, 1916, pp.182-183.
• Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore: An Illustrated Guide to the Star-lore and Constellations of Ancient Babylonia.

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Spence is a famous fringe author, an early version of Velikovsky or von Daniken. He obviously cannot be considered a reliable source on a scholarly topic like mythology.

The White book is self-published by a fake publishing house. No evidence that the author has any qualifications to write on the topic. Obviously not a reliable source for anything. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DV and glad I asked, because I was thinking Spence looked scholarly for his period. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Spence reference could be used to support the references already given, but since that point is already adequately supported, it seems unnecessary to add another. Gavin White's book is not an academic publication, but it is well known, and White's opinions, as expressed in his work, can be seen to be reported by other authors (check this on Google books and Google scholar, in addition to a a wide exposure of his ideas via web-references). His opinion is worthy of reference where he neatly summarises non-controversial points that have been made by many others. This is not a problem where the text is clear in attributing the views to him personally - as is the case here, where it reads: "Gavin White, author of Babylonian Star Lore, writes ..." -- Zac Δ 19:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong, it is a problem - As a SPS, we need further evidence that he can be considered an expert. What reliable mainstream sources indicate that he is an expert in this area? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And there's also the problem that, as an SPS, he can only speak for himself, and can't be used as an representative example of the "astrological community" at large, or even a part of it. Pretty much makes it useless as a source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cameron (and others), if the point were reliant on White’s text then I agree more support of his position would be necessary. But the point is widely reported and already referenced to a number of other texts that make the same point. At the end of the day the Gavin White reference is not a big deal - it can easily be replaced, but the bigger problem is that nothing is deemed acceptable to Itsmejudith or Dominus Vobisdu. Be aware of the situation on the discussion page of the article. Dominus Vobisdu and Itsmejudith habitually support each others' arguments but are directly involved in content disputes in this and other astrology-related articles. Dominus Vobisdu recently self-imposed a topic ban on himself when his edit warring on the Scorpio page and his blatant hostily to the subject and all of its sources was called into question. You can see from the diffs in my latest post why Itsmejudith has a motive of prohibiting referenced information, whilst happily proposing the inclusion of her own unreliable and unreferenced content. After a 'dubious' tag was placed next to one of her unreferenced remarks, she stated that her future contributions "will only revert and remove, not try and be positive and find encyclopedic sources or add anything".

This reliable sources noticeboard is a place that should bring balance and helpful resolutions to situations that have become impossible because they are too heavily affected by bias and anti-fringe agenda. I would ask for a fair consideration of the content below, which she has just blanked with the edit summary suggestion that it has no reliable sources and a talk page condemnation that my addition of a reference to Mindsteps to the Cosmos by Gerald Hawkins is "wasting everyone's time". Gerald Hawkins was professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University and a highly reputable author; famous for his work in the field of archaeoastronomy. Here is a Google scholar search on his title. But we are not exploding the borders of science here - just attempting to include some basic information on what is reported of the zodiac signs' mythological associations. Unfortunately all sections of the article get subjected to this treatment on a regular basis, and not so long ago a mainly unreferenced report of the myth was about all Itsmejudith considered to be acceptable information on the page (see here).

I and other editors are willing to improve the content and add whatever further references are deemed necessary. But we need the impartial assistance of this board's experienced contributors because all definitions of what constitutes a reliable source for this subject have been squashed. There appears to be lots of double standards exhibited by the other two contributors to this thread so more independent eyes are necessary. The argument - explicitly stated by Dominus Vobisdu - is that there are no reliable sources for this subject. References to well known traditional astrology texts and the works of its most influential historical authorities are rejected with the suggestion that WP does not approve of references to primary sources; more recent older works are deemed out of date, recent works are either in-universe or "feature fringe", and any academic work that covers this subject cannot be treated seriously. So can those with good experience of dealing with sources for controversial topics please help to define some sensible guidelines, so that if the passage below is not seen as suitably referenced, editors who are trying to develop the content can have a better idea of what a suitable reference might be?

Ancient Babylonian boundary stones show the figure of the scorpion was used an emblem of autumn, symbolic of the decline of the Sun's power after the autumnal equinox, which was then located within its stars.(1) Scorpio's ancient zodiac myth is most clearly revealed in the Epic of Gilgamesh where the gate of the sun is guarded by a pair of scorpion-men.(2) Gavin White, author of Babylonian Star Lore, writes:

The gate marks the start of an underground tunnel that was travelled by the sun during the course of each night and was traversed by Gilgamesh on his way to the visit the immortals who lived beyond the confines of this world. In terms of the sun’s annual circuit of the stars this tunnel can naturally be thought of as symbolising the sun’s autumnal descent into the darkness of the underworld.(3)

Scorpion men are featured in several Akkadian myths, including the Enûma Elish. They are the mythological spawn of Tiamat, created to revenge the betrayal of her mate Apsu. They are described as guarding the gates of the sun-god Shamash at the mountains of Mashu, where they warn travellers of the danger that lies beyond their post. The Gilgamesh myth declares that their heads touch the sky, their "terror is awesome" and their "glance is death".(4)

1) William John Hinke, A new boundary stone of Nebuchadrezzar I. from Nippur, p.106. Vol. 4 of Researches and treatises, University of Pennsylvania Babylonian Expedition, 1907.

2) For the relevant passage in the Gilgamesh myth see Maureen Gallery Kovacs, The epic of Gilgamesh p.76 (Stanford University Press, 1989; ISBN 9780804717113). For reference to the zodiac analogy see Gerald S. Hawkins, Mindsteps to the cosmos p.42 (World Scientific, 2002; ISBN 9789812381231).

3) Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore: An Illustrated Guide to the Star-lore and Constellations of Ancient Babylonia p.34. London: Solaria Publications, 2008. ISBN: 9780955903700.

4) A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, p.493. Oxford University Press, 2003.This meeting of Gilgamesh, on his way to Ūta-napišti, with the Scorpion-folk guarding the entrance to the tunnel is described in Iškār Gilgāmeš, tablet IX, lines 47-81.

So we can say that her name is "Yui Yoshioka", but we have no real source to say that is written in Japanese as 吉岡唯 outside of the vague mention of a "Yui Yoshioka" on the band website?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution