Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

< Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:43, 24 March 2012 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:43, 24 March 2012 by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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.

List of archives , 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

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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.

Start a new discussion

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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bhau Kalchuri - Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher)

This book (Bhau Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu: Lord Meher, The Biography of the Avatar of the Age, Manifestation, 1986) is a major source for Meher Baba and also for many of the articles related to him. It is also a minor source for many others, and has even found its way into articles on general religious topics. See the following list, which is not exhaustive:

Kalchuri became a devotee of Meher Baba in 1952, and he remains the Chairman of Avatar Meher Baba Trust (see also here). The entire book is available online here. According to the first page, on his deathbed in 1969 Meher Baba asked Kalchuri to write the book. Since he only met Meher Baba in 1952, for the early years Kalchuri had to rely largely on the diaries of devotees. He compiled and edited in Hindi, using sources that were written in Gujarati, including Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Lawrence Reiter. In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning".

The publisher, Manifestation, appears to be one of the imprints of organisations related to Meher Baba (see here). I have heard that Meher Prabhu was initially funded by donations from devotees. The book is known to contain factual errors, as well as devotional interpretations (see Volume 5, Page 1609 as an example of the latter: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind.") One example of a factual error is at Volume 5, page 1612 where Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents.

The book is clearly not academic or critical, but a hagiography by a devotee, written largely for devotees, allegedly at the request of the biographical subject, and almost certainly published by a devotee press. In his recent conclusion to another RS query, Fifelfoo said that such devotional works "do not even approach" the Misplaced Pages threshold for reliable sources. Since each case should be treated on its own merits, I submit this particular source for community discussion. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Fifelfoo. Books about NRMs and their leaders by devotees published by "in-house" imprints affiliated with the NRM and which have not established a reputation for reliability and editorial control are really just SPS. They can be used solely for the purpose of describing themselves, not third parties, so long as they are not overly self-serving, but that's about it. Some very limited use of this source is probably OK in the Meher Baba article, but this source would appear to be used far beyond the narrow limits of WP:ABOUTSELF Fladrif (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While the press, work and author provide a very strong indication against the reliability of this work for historical articles, historical biography, sociology of religion or elements of Sufi, Hindu or Islamic theology; I would suggest attempting to see if this work has been the object of independent scholarly book reviews, for example, in scholarly journals, before finally dismissing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, have you found any scholarly references to Kalchuri? I had a look at Google Scholar and there didn't appear to be anything substantial there. If neither you nor anyone else can find such references, then isn't it time to close this discussion and do something about the articles that use Kalchuri as a source? Simon Kidd (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly my scholarly time is taken up elsewhere right now. If you have thoroughly searched scholar, I would suggest this is a sufficient step to act on contingently. If someone in future discovers appropriate reviews, bring it back to RS/N for discussion. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't what stuff is actually expected. I checked some references on the internet and here are the results:

www.bahaistudies.net/asma/sufism_reoriented2.pdf
ambppct.org/meherbaba/Book_Files/AMBBibRevExt.pdf

I wonder if these links are of some use to your discussion. Thanks, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. That second one is a particularly useful resource. In the context of the present discussion, however, I think it only underlines the fact that Meher Prabhu (and most other sources on Meher Baba) are written and published by devotees. I don't see anything to indicate that they are reliable sources in the Misplaced Pages sense. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. I will report more sources, if I find them. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

I don’t know how many articles on NRMs and religious figures are currently held on Misplaced Pages, but there are surely serious consequences for many of those articles following the ruling recently posted by Fifelfoo elsewhere on this RS/N:

“… self-published texts regarding the history, biography and sociology of a new religious movement, and devotionally-published texts regarding devotion to a new religious movement reliable for the history of new religious movements or the biography of new religious movement figures as both sequences of literature fail the self-published sources criteria: they are published by presses that are immediately involved and do not display the review required for the establishment of a secondary source.”

I do not personally agree with the above inflexible ruling. If articles are well-written, referenced, and can be cross-checked as factually correct, then a deficiency of reviews for the published sources should not be an obstacle. The important factors when editing/writing an article on NRMs are that it is not devotee-oriented or biased (nor intended to promote the subject), that it is open to correction and improvement, and that it is a serious attempt to be objective using all available published sources, including critical. But then, I have “unfamiliarity with wikipedia culture.” Though I did have the opportunity to observe what “wikipedia culture” can actually amount to elsewhere on this RS/N—hence the comment I was obliged to make on personal agendas, fanaticism, and pedantry gone mad.

Due to the large number of articles whose notability hinges on the association with the subject of Meher Baba and the devotionally-published texts used, this is an important test case. With numerous Misplaced Pages articles on NRMs and religious figures, we all know that there are double-standards and inconsistencies in the administration and interpretation of policy. Can the ruling posted by Fifelfoo be effectively applied in this instance, and are the editors of those articles willing to comply and assist?

Simon Kidd, if you require assistance please state what is required. I will try to help. --Stephen Castro (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Stephen Castro's position, which is basically the common sense one originally formulated by DGG when considering a self-published source. This position has, however, already been rejected by Fifelfoo and others, although I am not sure if they are aware of the consequences for NRM articles, many of which may have to be deleted if their interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy is taken to its logical conclusion. For comparison, by the way, have a look at the online Britannica article on Meher Baba:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/373157/Meher-Baba

Thanks for the offer of assistance, Stephen Castro. Whether I need it or not may depend on the outcome of this further discussion! Simon Kidd (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I’ve just read the Britannica Online concise biography of Meher Baba. No mention of anything critical! Yes, the article is neutral, to the point, and informative. I note that there are around 50 or so references to Bhau Kalchuri’s Meher Prabhu in the current Misplaced Pages article on Meher Baba. There are also other texts used in that article which could come under the description of devotionally-published. I would have thought that the constructive way forward would be for the editors of that article to first locate alternative published sources for the Kalchuri references. Certainly, Charles Purdom and Tom Hopkinson were originally not devotionally-published. Both were prominent devotees, but first editions of their books are from recognised publishers. Then there is Marvin Harper’s Gurus, Swamis, & Avataras. I think flexibility should be the keynote here. I believe alternative, and reliable sources (in the Misplaced Pages sense), can be found. Kalchuri’s multi-volume work Meher Prabhu has had an increasing tendency to be used as the authorized version. I can see why—though hagiographic and devotee-oriented in content the multi-volume work is a useful resource which can also be found online with a search feature. I made use of Kalchuri in two articles on Misplaced Pages, and I will certainly refer to Meher Prabhu outside of Misplaced Pages. I will leave the next step to you, Simon Kidd. The Meher Baba article currently has GA status (surely, now in question) and there is no template on the article to indicate that editorial attention is required. --Stephen Castro (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the Primary Sources template. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that LM has been independently called into question on the Help Desk. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Fifelfoo here. And that Britannica.com article? That's a terrible article and raises issues (well more issues) about using Britannica.com as a reliable source. It reads as though it was written by a devotee, and who knows, maybe it was? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is this: If a Misplaced Pages policy is precise then differing interpretations should not exist. One should merely need to draw attention to that policy in order to settle any dispute. Why, then, are there instances of double-standards and inconsistencies in the administration of policy on Misplaced Pages? It is surely due to the continuing interpretation, and not the establishment and recognition, of policy. If the ruling by Fifelfoo is applied globally across Misplaced Pages as accepted policy, then I for one would have no objection. There would be a clear-cut policy that every editor would need to adhere to. That is why I believe that this RS/N re Kalchuri’s Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher) is an important test case. Given the ruling by Fifelfoo elsewhere on this RS/N, Kalchuri’s Meher Prabhu is currently not a reliable source. It may well be in the future, but not for now. There is no stigma applied to either an author or a book for not being a reliable source—it just means not a reliable source in the Misplaced Pages sense of that term. Misplaced Pages is no authority, but rather a novelty, and innovative, online encyclopaedia that gives the opportunity for accepted articles to gain high search engine rankings—hence its appeal, and perhaps its problem. Having read through the Meher Baba article it is quite clear that alternative references could be effortlessly used to replace those of Kalchuri, and without affecting the integrity of the article or its GA status. There are a number of devotionally-published texts currently used as reliable sources for Misplaced Pages articles; it would make it easier to edit those articles if a precedent was clearly established. To have an article awarded GA status whilst based largely on devotionally-published texts that are not currently reliable sources (again, it must be stated in the Misplaced Pages sense) surely sends out the wrong signal. --Stephen Castro (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What is a devotee? How broad a brush do you apply? Is it a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something: "a devotee of Chinese calligraphy". Or a strong believer in a particular religion or god: "devotees thronged the temple". (General Sporting Terms) (Non-sporting Hobbies / Other Non-sporting Hobbies) a person ardently enthusiastic about or devoted to something, such as a sport or pastime (Christianity. Ecclesiastical Terms) a zealous follower of a religion. I just googled these in a few minutes. My point is are you limiting a person to just one hat? Can Kalchuri be also the university educated man as well, writing a book, that is chock full of dates and times and quotes, factoids if you like. Are any of you " very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something". We all are. We are all devoted to something. Is that a bad thing? If you did apply a harder line across Misplaced Pages, would Misplaced Pages be a lesser thing? I think so. I think by limiting a person(s) with a rigid label,Devotee, you lessen him and us. Also LM is used for factoids, not any POV that may exist. I'm not involved on the Meher Baba site anymore, except a few comments. But I have used LM for factoids --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Something to consider re the above discussion. 1/ Hagiography is the study of saints. Meher Baba was not and is not a saint. To be a saint you need a religious organization to make it so. It does not apply. 2/ To be considered a devotee of a religion you have to have a religion. Religions have clerical hierarchies. Meher Baba has none. Meher Baba went to great lengths to NOT found a religion. There are no organized behaviours , rituals, no Churchs. Anything done is buy personal choice, and may or not be done by anyone, without any pressure. Without a religion the devotee issue loses a lot of emphasis. It becomes like many other very interested in and enthusiastic about someone or something writing. Meher Baba has no religion. Therefore Kalchuri as a Devotee in the religious sense is void --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

HTC, this is not the place to discuss semantics. The purpose of RS/N is for non-involved editors to determine the reliability or otherwise of sources, in the Misplaced Pages sense of "reliable", and there is a policy governing this. I have addressed your semantic points on the Meher Baba Talk Page, and also clarified the issue concerning reliability. Simon Kidd (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Transferring a case from Misplaced Pages:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_March_10

In the article Ahmadiyya, there is a section on India. The present discussion focuses on the following aspects:

Geographic dispersion of the community.
Judicial verdict of the community as Muslims
Absence of restrictions on the community in India
Ostracizing of this community by mainstream Muslims.

However there are two additional aspects which I would like be included here:
1. There seems to be a general acceptance of this community as a distinct religious group (Cf: my upload of the nonfree image File:Shadi.com AhmediSeparate.JPG from one of the leading matrimonial site Shadi.com listing Ahmedis (this community) as separate group altogether. The aim of this image, now tagged for deletion, is to be used in the article to highlight this).

I request the deletion tag be removed as the image is properly referenced and has a specific purpose to be used in the article just as in this edit in the earlier version of this article. I would like to reuse this image for the article.

2. One of the states in India has recently (unfortunately) declared this community as "not Muslim". This is the first sign that the secular government of India is towing a hardline attitude for the community just as in Pakistan. (Cf: my edit. Although this edit is properly referenced, as can be seen from the history, user:Altetendekrabbe is threatening a possible ban on me if my re-edit the article with this input. I request the admins to please decide on this and the above issue.
Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

These seem to be unrelated issues. For the first, I agree that the image should be removed. A screenshot of a matrimonial site is not a reliable source for a controversial statement about religion. For the second, though, I don't understand why Altetendekrabbe is so against using Siasat as a source. Our article on it is short, but seems to indicate it's established and popular newspaper, and its website claims it's India's largest Urdu newspaper. I see you haven't discussed it much with him. Want to try that? Not just in edit comments, on talk pages. On the article talk page, or here. --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the two issues have only one thing in common - they are related to the article. My idea behind using the matrimonial site image is to highlight the general people's view in India about the community. I will reuse it, if there is a consensus or at least a substantial support of admins / Misplaced Pages editors for it. As regards to discussing the issue with this Altetendekrabbe, I had already posted the following text on his/her talkpage:
Hi. I've seen your edit summary of 14:20, 10 March 2012‎ on the Article "Ahmadiyya". It says and I quote "provide a neutral and reliable source or get banned". Let me also quote my edit:

The Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board took a series of unprecedented decisions on February 18,2012. Probably first time in its history, the State Wakf Board has asked the Qazis in the state not to perform Nikah (marriage)of those belonging to Ahmadiyya community because they are “not Muslims.” While the Indian state has always hesitated in declaring its stand as far as the distinction between Muslims and Ahmadiyyas is concerned, the decision marks the first ever such official approval of the popular boycott of Ahmadiyyas by the Muslim community in India.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.siasat.com/english/news/don%E2%80%99t-perform-nikaah-qadiyanis-ap-wakf-board-qazis | title=Don’t perform nikaah of Qadiyanis: AP Wakf board to Qazis |publisher=Siasat Urdu Daily, Hyderabad | author=Courtesy: Two Circles | date=February 20, 2012 | accessdate=March 10,2012}}</ref>

Is this edit not referenced? Siasat is one of the most respectable newspaper of India. Where is the reference a flaw? I guess your role as a fellow editor is not to just to crave for banning/ blocking other users but more importantly to explain the fallacy and improve the quality of Misplaced Pages. If so, please explain your point of view. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Altetendekrabbe simply termed my message as nonsense and deleted it. (S)He, though being just another user, is threatening a ban / block on me. Is he justified? Can a Misplaced Pages editor threaten another user like that? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC).

Oh my. This is not good. Your comment on his talk page was a personal attack. That's not going to get the edit you want in the article, and may well get you blocked instead. Asking for a better source is not a sign of religious prejudice, and making accusations like that is not a way to get someone to discuss things with you constructively. This latest one is only slightly better - you're no longer accusing him of religious prejudice, just of being threatening. Still not ideal. Being polite to other editors is the only way we can build this encyclopedia. Let me try. Let's also split off the Siasat issue from the "possibly unfree files" section. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

hindustani is disengenious. i warned hindustani about a block primarily due to this edit summary . it's a clear example of a nonsensical personal attack. "inhuman and illiberal", my foot. hindustani owes me an apology.-- altetendekrabbe 16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So I see that this discussion board has provided a chance for you to use the expression my foot against me. fine. Thank you for the comment. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

"My foot" is a phrase meaning "no way" or "not possible". It is not a personal attack. This file is not a reliable source for anything but the website itself, and obviously the article is not about the website. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Referring somebody by region and calling me disingenuous is also no personal attack. Thank you, Dougweller. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

As the above was copied to my talk page, I'll reply here. You weren't referred to by region, but by a shortening of your username. And calling someone 'disingenuous' could just barely be a personal attack if it was blatantly wrong, but even then it's hardly comparable to your comments. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In many countries of the world, denial or understating the incidents related with the holocaust is a crime and viewed as illiberal and inhuman. So, when we see incidents of growing trend of ostracizing a group of people and if someone says these incidents should not be reported, what should I presume? You are wonderful, Dougweller. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 7:18 am, Today (UTC+0)

As I see, I fully appreciate the understanding between Dougweller and Altetendekrabbe. But one thing, my previously posted comment was in an open forum where everybody could see and discuss.Altetendekrabbe concealed it by removing my previous posting. Probably, this message will also be "concealed" the similar way. And thank you,Altetendekrabbe, for all your efforts. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

I've reinstated the comment by you that was deleted by Altetendekrabbe. The point is that you need to find reliable sources discussing this trend, and a marital website that doesn't mention a 'growing trend' is not what you need for that as I've tried to explain to you. And if you've looked at my edits at Ahmadiyya you will see that I am one of those trying to keep the article NPOV, which includes reverting those editors, presumably Muslim, who want the article to reflect some sort of 'official' Islamic position on Ahmadiyya. Do we have an "understanding" about that and if so is that a bad thing? Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how this funny thing is taking place: perhaps all three of us have a similar view about NPOV. Yet we strongly differ on the contents. Also, because I personally witnessed discrimination against this community - stopping their stalls in the book fairs, stalling their meetings, confiscating a mosque in their control, snapping ties when come to know somebody is Ahmedi, disallowing the burial of a member of this community in the Muslim graveyard, hurling abuses, etc, I would like to highlight all major developments. But many cannot be posted on WP because of lack of verifiable sources. Anyway, the moral is - you and Altetendekrabbe can carry on with anything you consider as good and inline with WP NPOV - as editors and/or admin - if you are one. And I will probably try to do the same in my own way. Best of luck to both of you. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Siasat on Ahmadiyya

(Restarting, hopefully without any personal attacks.) This is about these edits on the article Ahmadiyya, backed by this article from Siasat. From what I read about Siasat, it seems to be an established and popular mainstream newspaper, so should be a reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

this newspaper uses the extremely derogatory and offending "qadiyani"-term about the ahmadiyya-community. hence, this newspaper is *not* a neutral source, and i doubt its reliability.-- altetendekrabbe 16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see that in our article Qadiani. So I can accept that the newspaper may not be a neutral source. However, the fact seems to have clearly occurred, as I can see in these articles from Ahmadiyya Times, The Indian Herald, The Muslim Times, and TwoCircles.net. At least some of these are Ahmadiyya sources. Unfortunately, they're not as established as Siasat, since they're apparently online only news sources. So the situation we have is that we have a fact, a fairly important fact, that clearly took place, but the most established source writing about it uses a term the Ahmadiyya consider derogatory. So out of the choices of not writing it at all, or using Siasat as our source, I think our best choice is to use Siasat as the source. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

not acceptable. a neutral source is better even when it's online only. suggest to use another or leave the issue until a better source is available.-- altetendekrabbe 18:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

But the statements we would put in our article would be the same, whatever source we used as the reference. Our article text wouldn't be affected. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is yet another source, The Hindu. It's even more respectable than Siasat. Unfortunately, it also uses the word "Qadiani". It looks more and more like we're going to have to use these sources, however insulting Ahmadiyya people find them, much as we still use old South African and American Southern sources that used derogatory terms for american blacks. Bias doesn't make a source unreliable. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Keeping aside my own observation about one or two messages posted posted here and also in another forum on the English Misplaced Pages, I fully endorse GRuban's observation on the article edit as stated above. But one thing - let us not use the word "Qadiani" for this community and merely state the rest as reported in the newspapers. Will that be okay? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

A major issue here is how these people (ahmedis) are illtreated. If you check the website of the Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board, you will find the name of Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani as its Chairperson. Check this person's Facebook posting (http://www.facebook.com/Gulamafzalbiabani) of Feb 19,2012:

In a major decision, the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board has unanimously resolved to remove four religious places belonging to Qadayani sect from its list.Making the announcement, Wakf Board chairman Syed Shah Ghulam Afzal Biyabani said that the four properties belonging to Ahmediyas sect were registered with the Wakf Board. Since Qadyanis (Ahmediyas) are not Muslims, the Wakf Board has decided to remove them from the list. The properties include Ahmedi Jubilee Hall at Afzalgunj, Anwar Manzil and Baitul Irshad at Barkatpura and Masjid Chinna Kunta in Mahabubnagar.The State Government has been asked to take control of religious properties belonging to Qadayanis under its direct management or hand them over to Endowments Department.Similarly, the Wakf Board has decided to take one mosque at Falaknuma Railway Station under its direct management. The mosque belonging to Sunni Muslims is presently under the control of Qadayanis.The Wakf Board chairman said that a comprehensive State-wide survey has been ordered to identify the properties belonging to Muslims which are presently under the control of Qadayanis.Rajya Sabha MP and Wakf Board member MA Khan said that the State Government would be pressurised to accept the Wakf Board resolution. Another member and IAS officer Omar Jaleel said that the Muslim community should maintain restrain over the issue as the Wakf Board.Former Wakf Board chairman Ilyas Seth said that all Qazis have been asked not to perform the Nikah of Qadyanis. He also demanded that the State Government provide adequate security to Wakf Board chairman who has been facing threats from the Qadayanis.The Wakf Board has also identified about 45 places of worship of Qadayanis in the State which are not registered with the board. They include Masjid Alhamd at Madannapet in the Old City.The Wakf Board's decision evoked celebrations by Sunni Muslims at several places across the city. Congress MLC and Jamiyatul Ulema-e-Hind State president Hafiz Peer Shabbir Ahmed, Shaik-ul-Islam Academy chairman Moulana Yehya Ansari Ashrafi, Anjuman-e-Qadaria president Syed Ifteqar Hussaini, Sunni United Federation of India convenor Hafiz Mohammad Muzaffar Hussain, Idara-e-Tehqiqaat Ilmiya director Syed Khaja Moizuddin Ashrafi and other religious leaders welcome the decision.

I don't advocate quoting this Facebook posting into the article but surely this is a major development and has to be included on Misplaced Pages. So I await a decision on which source to choose. Regards,Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

From the above discussion, I conclude that Siasat is a reliable source for editing the article on the Ahmadiyya sect. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC).

Quoting Facebook as a Source

In the above discussion, I quoted what Mr Syed Shah Gulam Afzal Biyabani, Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board had to say about Qadyanis / Ahmadiyas. Can this source be cited in the article on Ahmadiyas? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Reliable sources - Christian Today, The Milli Gazette

Hello,

Are there any references that state reliability of sources Christian Today, The Milli Gazette to be considered as a reliable source.

My understanding is that these are not at all reliable. Per discussion here, I had pointed out why. Here it is:

Christian Today - describes itself as "trans-denominational Christian newspaper"; part of christiantoday.com. More info - which states "Christian Today upholds the dictum found in Matthew 5:37, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes', and your 'No', 'No'". In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ." and so on.
The Milli Gazette - describes itself as "Indian Muslims' Leading English Newspaper"; more info . On this link, it states that "We will, insha Allah, add more pages as we progress to a weekly, in due course of time, speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community which is a very important member of the world Muslim community" and so on.

I would like to know how these sources are considered reliable, if at all.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 10:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all sources can be used for something. So you should explain what these are being used for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic under consideration is Ekal Vidyalaya, a charity considered the largest for country India. The above mentioned sources are neither connected to it even remotely, nor could be considered neutral outside own topic, just as Ekal Vidyalaya can not be considered reliable source for the above two. In fact the sources themselves say "In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ" or "speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community" which in other words points to rather limited context as explained therein.

Therefore, such sources could hardly be called as reliable in general, in particular for the topic Ekal Vidyalaya.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article; that said, it seems to me that some of that color is imparted by leaning over too far towards qualifying its statements, because I found this article in the Times of India in which the intent alleged in the CTI article is stated outright by those affiliated with EV. The CTI article would at least be an acceptable source for the existence of Christian objections. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that the topic is neither about Christian objections not about Hindu objections. It is neither about intent alleged in the CTI article outright by those affiliated with EV, nor it is about intent alleged against missionaries.

After the first statement viz. "There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article", there is hardly justification given for the sources under consideration at all. In fact this article apparently is more reliable, but it says nothing about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette. The query is about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette.

Per the first line, viz. "There is a tone of advocacy to the Christian Today India article", it can be taken that the sources Christian Today & The Milli Gazette can be considered unreliable for this topic. Please let me know if there is anything to add about the sources.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Both sources may be considered reliable for the information cited in the Ekal Vidyalaya article:

The Christian Today article titled AICU president suspects Hindu charitable trust of forming anti–Christian schools for Indian tribals says that John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority.
The Milli Gazette article titled Another Blow to VHP describes in some detail the (Indian) Union Human Resources Development Ministry's decision to stop grants to 'Ekal Vidyalayas' run by the FTS.

There is no reason to suppose that this information is inaccurate. These are both mainstream publications and may be assumed to have checked their facts, which are backed up by other sources. Is there any doubt about the facts cited? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am again sorry to say that this is not about 'facts' as cited by John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union, or 'facts' as concerted campaign against the Ekal Vidyalayas by a combination of media and academic networks, or doubts about these 'facts'. Any reliable sources can be used in the Criticism section, per norms; the section itself not limited to these 'facts' alone.

The concern here is about reliable sources. The query is about Christian Today & The Milli Gazette each of which say that "In the midst of immensely secularised teachings of the gospel, Christian Today partakes in delivering only the veracity of the words of Jesus Christ" or "speaking for the whole Ummah and not just for the Indian Muslim community". Being mainstream or not offers no concession to their own claimed POV which is expressed very clearly.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Humour you did not yet really explain what the sources are being used for. Please do not try to cut the discussion off too quickly. Maybe this already helps:

WP policy does not forbid the use of "POV" or non-neutral sources, and indeed some people would say that such things do not exist. What matters is how they are used. For example a Christian might be a good source for what Christians think, but not a good source for what Hindus think.
What might be another issue is whether the opinion of Christians is relevant or notable. See WP:NOTE. However, if you are editing something about a religious controversy I suppose it would be notable. Is the controversy something that was reported in the media?
A simple solution to a surprising number of questions on this noticeboard is attribution of anything questionable and controversial. Instead of saying "Mr Smith hates dogs" we should often write "The New York Times has reported that Mr Smith hates dogs". This immediately gives readers a context so they can understand the potential weak point of the claim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

John Dayal is one of the more prominent spokespeople for Indian Christians. His views are relevant in the section on "Criticism" in the Ekal Vidyalaya article. Christian Today is the source for the statement that Dayal criticized the Ekal Vidyalayas. The article does not assert that the criticism was justified, just that Dayal expressed it. Dayal has often criticized the Ekal Vidalayas: A FORKED TONGUE AGAINST CHURCH on the website of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India Office For Education And Culture, Code Shreds India’s Secular Thread in Tehelka, Hindu Group Plans 100,000 ‘Anti-Christian’ Schools in Tribal India by 2012 in BosNewsLife and so on. These sources may be biased, and Dayal may be biased, but clearly Dayal has expressed criticism. The Christian Today example is as good as any to illustrate his views. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The Milli Gazette article is used as a source for information about a government decision to stop funding the schools, and the reasons for the decision. It covers much the same ground as the short article Public funds for saffron agenda and the longer Centre stops grants to 'one-teacher schools', both in The Hindu, but the Milli Gazette article gives rather more detail. A short summary of the decision and reasons appears in the Indian affairs annual for 2006. Excerpts from the report are given in Training to Hate: The Ekal Vidyalaya Way. None of these sources are "unbiased" but there is no doubt that the information cited from the Milli Gazette article is accurate: the government did indeed cut off funding for the reasons given. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources here are used in criticism section of a charity organization Ekal Vidyalaya, & not about some Christian/Hindu civil/terrorist/right-wing/conversion organization etc.

Therefore the POV here is not about, as said earlier, 'facts'. The substance can easily be supported by sources that has no POV here, as the example from your side as a simple solution to it ie "The New York Times has reported that Mr Smith loves/hates dogs" and so on. None of this is forthcoming, even from other editors.

I disagree with Aymatth2's view that "The Christian Today example is as good as any to illustrate his views." which he stated immediately after "These sources may be biased, and Dayal may be biased". This itself means that neutral sources should be present, especially in criticism section. Also note, the discussion is not on whether Dayal may be biased if at all.

About "controversy", the POV or non-neutral source could be either Christian/Hindu POV sources, although from reliable sources any relevant matter could be included any way. As such, the controversy is not limited by this views alone, rather limited by available information from reliable sources.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Dayal's opinion notable? For example is it something that the media talks about? And secondly is Dayan considered a controversial person? Being controversial does not mean we should mention a person, but it guides us about how to refer to their opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The article on John Dayal, which is frequently vandalized, shows he is a prominent and vocal representative of the Christian community. As stated in the Ekal Vidyalaya article, he is a past president of the All India Catholic Union and a member of the National Integration Council (NIC) of India. The NIC is chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and membership shows Dayal is recognized by the government as an opinion leader. Dayal is outspokenly hostile to "communalism" - attempts to promote the interests of specific Indian communities - which means he has plenty of critics. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If he is a notable and controversial figure then his opinions may well need to be mentioned in order to be WP:NEUTRAL, but of course if he is controversial we should attribute his opinions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dayal's opinions are I think correctly attributed in the article, which reads:
In 2005 John Dayal, then president of the All India Catholic Union (AICU) and a member of the National Integration Council expressed concern that the schools were spreading hatred towards members of the Christian minority, in order to "prevent conversions of tribals to Christianity by missionaries."
Aymatth2 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a bias problem here in that the Times article shows that this is essentially and quite openly a project of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, one of the major Hindutva organizations. It is hardly surprising that Christian groups oppose this (since it is explicitly targeted agianst them), and there's no reason to doubt that Dayal is reported accurately; and as he can be taken as a spokesman, he ought to appear in the article as such. I have less familiarity with Islamic material and therefore have not dared to speak concerning The Milli Gazette. The contrary view, however, is presented in the mouth of François Gautier, and he is notorious and controversial as a defender of Hindutva, to the point where a novel attacking British correspondent Mark Tully was widely assumed to have been penned by him . As it stands the article tends to play down the Hindutva aspect of the project, and to the degree it can't, tends to mark it as a sidelight instead of as a core aspect of the program. Mangoe (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not about POV of John Dayal, which could be included as said earlier. This is about the sources. This is not against views of John Dayal, against conversion, against Hindu/Christian terrorism, against Hindutva/Christianity, and so on. Please avoid this and avoid derailing the discussion.

This discussion is about Christian Today and The Milli Gazette sources. Please go through the above discussion. Is there a reason to avoid reliable sources to support the same substance in the article? The POV of these sources are mentioned very clearly.

Also let me know if Reliable Sources - Religeous Sources is applicable here, which states that "can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." It says nothing about unrelated topic.

About Mangoe, he is creating a lot of straw-men. François Gautier is called notorious, who was accused of 'attacking Mark Tully' where there is no proof and he denied so, etc. - seems the user lacks understanding that such mischief could not be used as an accusation against someone without any evidence or as a reliable source. This is not a place to attack François Gautier or John Dayal.

It is surprising how editors avoid simple questions about how to replace sources with more reliable sources for the same content, which can be seen as a simple solution.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What Mangoe said does not appear true. The article does not play down Hindutva aspect, it is clearly stated the organization is affiliated to RSS, so is VHP. If Mangoe had their way, the article would begin and end with controversy and that would have been the only section, LOL. And don't get us started on the notoriety thing, Gautier is much less notorious than Dayal, who has been criticized for his Hindu-bashing hobby in the guise of Dalit activism by even Indian Christians like P N Benjamin, see here. On the sources I have to say that IMHO Christian Today is fine for quoting Dayal, but Milli Gazette may be removed as we have another source for it already - The Hindu newspaper which though leftist in its views is widely considered reliable. Nmisra (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is, on the other hand, not surprising that some editors, when they don't get the answer they want at RSN, take the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. The sources are reliable for the purposes for which they are currently used in the article, which is what your original question was. Fladrif (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the context of the sources' use in the article. There seems to be consensus here that CTI can be used as a reliable source for reporting Dayal's objection. I'm less assured of it as a source of reportage about the program itself. You raised this issue, however, in the midst of a struggle between you and other editors over the article's content and in particular the lede. Removing these two sources from the article would justify, at least temporarily, minimizing mention that Christians and Muslims oppose the program and in particular that it was funded by the government. In that light Gautier is important now as a seemingly neutral counterbalance, which he most assuredly is not. I don't think the sources are being questioned because the information they present is inaccurate; it seems to me that the attack on their credibility is intended to limit the presentation of the negative reaction to the program. The rest of us hold that they are reliable in reporting that reaction, so I don't think that part of the article can be removed on this basis. Mangoe (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarity. That funding stopped is mentioned by the other sources too ie etc. as also any other neutral article with the same content would do the same.

If you would give pointers to WP policies etc would be great.

Also I am taking it from here that even if sources are biased, if the information is accurate then the sources can be considered as reliable however biased the sources may be, per your statement "I don't think the sources are being questioned because the information they present is inaccurate; it seems to me that the attack on their credibility is intended to limit the presentation of the negative reaction to the program." Is my understanding correct here?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

User:thisthat2011 has a point that in recent versions of the article the content from The Milli Gazette added little to content from The Hindu. Somehow the discussion of the simplified alphabet that Milli mentions but the Hindu article skims over was accidentally dropped. I have restored it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Humour, the 3 key policies about what to include in WP are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. You should also consider WP:NOTE. But in the context of this discussion it might be neater to just say that what WP aims to do is to summarise what notable and relevant people have properly published about subjects, even if we disagree with them. If a person or publication is controversial, the trick is to make sure we mention who they are, to help readers see it, and also that we put in balancing views. So if this charity is controversial then WP should report the controversy. If it's critics and defenders are controversial, we should help readers to be able to see this, and study it further if they so choose.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarity. Appreciate it.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 09:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Random break

See the recent changes to this article which again removed (or rather commented out) the content from The Milli Gazette. There seems to be a lot of hostility to including anything from this source. Is this the right place to resolve the issue or is there a more appropriate forum? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the argument being made is that this observation is not notable enough to be given this attention. If this organization is being accused of indoctrinating people to hate etc, then it should be reported, and that was the initial discussion here. But how important is it to have a paragraph about one example of such indoctrination? I am not saying there is anything wrong with the proposal myself, but if other editors of the article find this a case of going into too much detail then this is not really a sourcing question, but more a question of getting the right balance. Sometimes trying to come to a WP:consensus can be a bit painful. It means you should put your big efforts into the most important things, and not every particular point. So ask yourself whether this is something that would really ruin the article. If it is then you'll need to put together a clear argument about why and try to convince more people. But the present disagreement does not appear to be one for this noticeboard anymore?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This particular changes are not about reliability of source. Aymatth2 has a history of POV contributions to this article in the past, which can be seen in the history and talk page. The user does not reply to points raised on talk page but keeps on indulging in POV, synthesis, original research, and giving undue weight to examples. This section is a case in point where the user first added irrelevant facts to and then removed sourced material from response to criticism subsection. Nmisra (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

O.k. The consensus here seems to be that Christian Today and Milli Gazette can be considered reliable for the content used by the article. I suppose that is really all this discussion is about. The question of how much detail the article should give on specific aspects can be discussed on the article talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not the consensus. The consensus is that reliability depends on what a thing is cited for. The same report may be reliable for one thing cited from it, and unreliable for the other one. As pointed out on Talk Page here, this particular citation from MG is unreliable since it has factual inaccuracies. Nmisra (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the document mentioned as a source refers to which in turn refers to as source. The last link is dead link and is unavailable. Therefore WP:V & WP:NOR comes into question.

It is fairly common for websites, PDF documents etc. to include dead links. Usually the content that was at the end of that link is still available in one of the internet archives. Containing a dead link does not make a source unreliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the sources are definitely biased here, which is pointed out earlier. Therefore WP:NPOV is questionable. Neither Christian Today nor The Milli Gazette can be considered WP:NPOV.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The question of bias has been discussed at length above. Some would say that all sources are biased one way or another. What matters is whether the source may be considered accurate for the information used in the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would extremely reluctant to accept the publications of any particular religious movement for derogatory information about another very different religious movement. In such cases, it's almost like sourcing for BLP--the information must be supported by neutral sources. Even were it trying as hard a possible to avoid bias, a publication from a conservative Christian organisation with missionary affiliations, is not reliable with respect to a traditional Hindu religious group in such circumstances for anything other than a statement of its own opinion, and it must be so qualified in the article, and used only if necessary for balance. (I would assume this is true for the Moslem organisation also, at least with respect to India where the two religions are notoriously not on good terms generally.) Even when one organisation is quoting from a source, it may be doing so selectively; in particular, as with all publications, the headlines and other summaries cannot be trusted to be neutral to the same extent as the reporting. Frankly, I think it would be highly advisable to use other sources instead for controversial material, especially controversial negative material. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The way the sources are used is correct, I think. The Christian source is used for a statement that a prominent Christian is hostile to the schools. The Muslim source is used for a simple statement of fact from a government report, very carefully worded. Both sources are named and their affiliation is given before the article says what they say. In this area there are no neutral sources. The Ekal Vidyalayas are part of the BJP-Congress struggle. BJP supporters passionately defend them and Congress strongly criticizes. The BJP gave funding and Congress withdrew it when they came into power. There is also a Hindu-Secular debate. Sources almost always take one side or another, are often sparing with the truth and sometimes make venomous attacks on their opponents. I think with this topic we just have to present what was said and by whom, mostly concentrating on what seem to be plausible facts but allowing some clearly identified opinions, and let readers decide for themselves. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what user DGG says, including

"Even when one organisation is quoting from a source, it may be doing so selectively; in particular, as with all publications, the headlines and other summaries cannot be trusted to be neutral to the same extent as the reporting."

This also in disagreement with views per user Fladrif. He could respond to this instead of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 IGN Review/Jessica Chobot

The source in question is a review from the gaming website IGN for a game called Mass Effect 3:

Moriarty, Colin. "The Last Effect". 12 March 2012. .

and in regards to its use on the Mass Effect 3 WP page . Jessica Chobot, an IGN employee , worked on this game and IGN subsequently published a glowing review. Neither on the current WP page or in IGN's review is there any mention of her involvement as an IGN employee. When reading the Mass Effect 3 WP page under the Reception heading, the first review mentioned is that of IGN's. I find her role in the game as a conflict of interest (see WP:QS) that brings into question the validity of IGN as a source used for the reception of this game. Is this a valid reason to remove the IGN review as a reliable source on the Mass Effect 3 WP page? Here is a link to the current Talk page on this issue. Redredryder (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems simple enough. The talk page is asking for a reliable source that says as much. Here. The Escapist (magazine)'s article http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/firstperson/9390-Jessica-Chobot-and-Mass-Effect-3 focuses on the issue. Is that good enough as a reliable source about a controversy about a living person? I'm not sure, but I'd tend to say so, since it has won plenty of awards, and this is firmly inside the site's focus, and it's not that controversial an issue. So I'd add a sentence to the footnote about the review. Not more than a sentence, since it's not that big a controversy. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

All that said, are we now saying that IGN is no longer an RS for its review of this game (which, BTW, is not unlike the other reviews as far as content and such). On the talk page this is what was proposed, that IGN be removed as an RS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that at all. It's still a major review from a major gaming review site, the fact that it is associated with controversy isn't a reason to not link to the review, it's a reason to mention the controversy. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Images taken by a CWO4 Vinas

In looking to continue to improve the article regarding CPT Jose Calugas, I found images taken by a retired United States Navy Chief Warrant Officer of exhibits at a museum in Iloilo City. They reportedly are of artifacts of CPT Calugas, mainly being two images of his uniform (1, 2), an image of a certificate, and an image of the subject meeting President Kennedy. Are these images useful as reliable sources, or would they be considered original research? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notice I have used the Please See template at relevant wikiproject talk pages and a notice at the talk page regarding the subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Displays in reputable museums are reliable sources, though difficult for others to verify. The key questions here seem to be whether the museum's galleries have a reputation for historical accuracy and whether that photographer and website have a track record of posting images with accurate captions. Unless you're sure that the answer to both questions is 'yes', it's not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Museo Iloilo (the actual name of the Museum), is a public museum and subsidized by the Philippine Government. Yes it is reliable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

THE ORIGINS OF THE RUMANIANS, BY ANDRÉ DU NAY

André du Nay looks like an unreliable author. His name is, according to his own account, a pseudonym: so we don't know his real identity to be able to to assess his competence on historical issues.

Gábor Vékony, an accredited historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information": .

I want a confirmation that I am acting correctly eliminating this sourceRomorinian (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Romorinian is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Iaaasi.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an important point, and another important point is that we don't know what specific article we're talking about and why this book is being cited. However, as a preliminary thought towards an answer, the book "The origins of the Rumanians" looks like self-publication by an author whose expertise is unproven. The preface by Robert A. Hall Jr. is not enough to validate the book -- it's merely a polite letter. Andrew Dalby 10:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Andre Du Nay is "entrance requirement" at the ELTE (MA level).

Scholars as (cited):"Hasdeu, Densusuşianu, Philippide, Puşcariu, Rosetti, Tamás Lajos, Gáldi László, André du Nay " Fakirbakir (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the Talk:Origin of the Romanians#André Du Nay, we need to clearly establish who this Dunay András/André Du nay is and how reliable he is. Fakirbakir, you seem to know more about him. Can you list here what you know about his education, credentials and work? If he is indeed a qualified linguist, than we should only quote him for linguistics and not history or archaeology. But if he is not even a linguist with the right credentials, the references to his work have to be removed, as it was done with Grumeza at Roman Dacia and other articles. Gábor Vékony seems to have very valid observations on his competence. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

B./d. dates refrncd to prim. source of grave stone pic hosted @ FindAGrave.com?

I'd like some advice, from those conversant with Misplaced Pages's consensuses on the topic, of whether, for example, the primary source of a photo of the 1926 gravestone of Geo. Romney's mother, hosted at the self-published source Find a Grave, might be acceptable on Wikikpedia as a supplementary source.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Findagrave.com is a wiki, and has been repeatedly ruled out as a source at RS/N on that basis. Anyone can add material, photos etc. without any factchecking organization to make sure it is all correct. Collect (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would you be aware of a guideline to quote in granularity on the point you aver? To be specific, I inquire in particular about the photo of a gravemarker hosted at the self-published website.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  - If a source is not an RS it is not an RS for any claim at all. That is what RS means. Findagrave is a WIKI. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  - WP:SPS: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources" (my emphasis). Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  - Sorry to have to state the obvious here, but even if the photo is genuine, a gravestone isn't a reliable source. Stonemasons don't employ fact-checkers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  - From Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, "The word "source" as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability." Findagrave.com publisher is not reliable. "Mark," who provided the text below and above that photo at Findagrave.com as a creator/author, is not regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. The piece of work itself, the photo, is reliable for what it conveys (the stonemason, the creastor/author of the grave marker, is gonna triple check what he carves into the stone before doing it and presenting it to a grieving family). Besides the two out of three strikes, the problem comes in trying to use the information on the gravestone in the Romney family (U.S.) article. There's nothing in the gravestone that connects its information to the Romney family (U.S.). Even if you get passed that, which you cannot -- even Findagrave.com "Mark" failed to provide a connection between the gravestone and the prominent Romney family --, the photo information only would support issues such as dispute over the spelling of her name, and only the year of birth and year of death and then have value only as an inline citation. As used in the article,( or ) the Findagrave.com reference does not directly support the information as it is presented in the Romney family article. Answer to your question: On balance, the photo of the Anna Pratt Romney grave marker is not a reliable source for the text information in the Romney family (U.S.) article. Not that you asked, but ..." Even if you could get passed the reliaible source issue, no one is disputing her birth/death year or the spelling of her name. As such, you probably don't need a reference to support the information. That makes using the reference as a supplemental source even more useless (a different issue from reliability). If the topic of the article were about someone who was barely notable, some might not complain. However, the Romney family is prominent and there no doubt other sources of information on Romney's mother that can be used to directly support the information as it is presented in the Romney family article. In that regard, using the Findagrave.com as a reference in the Romney family brings the validity of the article in question since the topic is so notable. In sum, there doesn't seem to be a valid way to keep the reference to the photo of the Anna Pratt Romney grave marker in the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    Related to Uzma's reply: Source means three things, but you only need to have one of those for the source to be reliable. You may certainly {{Cite sign}}... but you would be WP:USINGPRIMARY sources, and one of the major (probably insurmountable) problems with this particular primary source is making sure that it's relevant, i.e., that the person whose vital statistics are recorded there is actually the person you're seeking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not at all agree with the view that "*If a source is not an RS it is not an RS for any claim at all. No source is absolutely wholly reliable for all purposes; no sources is so unreliable it cannot be used at all. Historians routinely use evidence for gravestones and monuments: they are part of the record. They are however primary sources, and need to be evaluated in context, and we can do only a limited amount of evaluation. It's the same as using any other documentary source for a birthdate or death date--unless there is controversy, we can accept it at face value. It may not be true, but this is true of anything. (A statement of how pious the person was, that's of course another matter; I think that indicates the difference.) DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Anchor baby / Double-Tongued Dictionary

There is a dispute going on at Anchor baby over the acceptablility of an online source called the Double-Tongued Dictionary ("DTD"). In addition to whether the DTD itself is fundamentally a self-published source (and thus unusable per WP:SPS), there is controversy over whether a response by the DTD's author to a reader comment is or is not an unusable blog post. See Talk:Anchor_baby#Double_Tongued_Dictionary and Talk:Anchor_baby#.5Bcitation_needed.5D. The dispute here is primarily between the users Factchecker atyourservice and Cuchullain, though some other people (including myself and one or more IP's) have chimed in. The content implications of this dispute may include whether the term "anchor baby" is significantly used to refer to US-born children of any immigrant, or just to children of illegal immigrants; whether users of "anchor baby" tend to be opposed to all US immigration (not just illegal immigration); and possibly also whether "anchor baby" should be definitively and unquestionably tagged as an offensive, pejorative expression. Although the argument has remained mostly a content dispute, there have been some suggestions of possible ulterior motives and/or violations of AGF. To me, it doesn't appear likely that Factchecker and Cuchullain are going to be able to come to any fundamental agreement on their own, so more people need to get involved in order to have any hope of establishing or maintaining a credible consensus. — Rich wales 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rich. I think the only part of this that's relevant for discussion here is whether the Double-Tongued Dictionary is a reliable source. I have always argued that it is. This same issue was discussed at length at this noticeboard here as well as on the talk page. The consensus that emerged was that Grant Barrett, the editor of the DTD, is a reliable source, particularly in the study of emerging terms and slang, such as this. To recap a bit, he edited the Official Dictionary of Unofficial English, published by McGraw-Hill, and the Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang, published, obviously, by Oxford. He is vice president of the American Dialect Society and is on the editorial board of, and has been published in, the society's university-published academic journal, American Speech. He also belongs to the Dictionary Society of North America and the Linguistic Society of America. The Double-Tongued Dictionary has received a Laurence Urdang Award from the Dictionary Society of North America for its work on new words. It is regularly described and cited in other sources, for instance these books. I believe that both Grant and the Double-Tongued Dictionary are reliable sources. I further believe that the comment from Barrett on the Dictionary website falls into the realm of self-published sources we can use, as it was written by an establish authority in this field, and only clarifies the entry itself; it doesnt contradict anything in other reliable sources.Cúchullain /c 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the reliability per se of the DTD since March 11, at which time I acknowledged the consensus Cuchulainn describes, although I'd point out that it is clearly self-published and shouldn't be held out to other editors as having "editorial oversight" when in fact a single person is responsible for compiling, editing, and writing the site. Barrett's forum comments especially should not be represented to others in this way.

But, it should be clear, that was not my main issue with the prior state of the article; rather, it was the manner in which the material was attributed and weighted with respect to the AHD definition. The version of the article that existed before I started editing stated the DTD definition, and only the DTD definition, was listed. Immediately after it was the textual reference to the blog comment post, which reference, itself, was OR as it involved a WP editor scooping primary source materials, the two blog comments, and synthesizing them into original secondary source analysis. The reference footnote contained a quote of the DTD definition, with the rather sensational forum-comment by the blog author appended to the definition using an ellipsis—as if the author had himself decided to include his response in the definition. (The response itself also wasn't really identified as a forum comment.)

The AHD definition... the actual established dictionary with the large institutional infrastructure and staff, meanwhile, was mentioned in passing, only as substantiation for the fact that it was revised after an immigration advocacy group and website spoke out against the failure to identify the term as offensive. The AHD definition said nothing about the term being a mask, or opposition to illegal immigration, being a "mask" to hide the "racism and xenophobia" of the person who uses that term or opposes immigration. Only Barrett said that, and only in his self-published website's forum space. Even Barrett didn't say it in his definition. He could have, but he didn't. This is telling.

So we had what any will agree is a rather contentious claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This means you want the best source available. This means you don't bury the best source — the one with an institutional presence and history and likely a substantial number of staff with credentials similar to Barrett's — in a side note about a press release or op-ed by an advocacy org exec, while also going out of your way to quote the most extreme forum-space opinion of someone whom I somehow doubt is even the second-best source on the subject.

That's multiple sourcing and attribution problems combined to make very significant wp:v and weight problems in the core of the article. So I changed it. Anyone care to try and defend the prior version against any of the above complaints? I somewhat doubt it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to continue the rehash the content dispute. In terms of the reliable source issue, I guess I'll repeat, again, what I said in that comment you quote from me and elsewhere: no one has argued that the AHD is unreliable or that the DTD should be given more weight than it. The point here is that Barrett is an established authority in this field and the DTD is a reliable source, and should not be removed or downplayed. Cúchullain /c 04:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Has somebody argued that DTD should be removed or downplayed? Was there a reason to post about the baseline reliability of DTD in the first place? What is your point? (If it's to waste my time with frivolous and off-point argumentation, you're succeeding handily.)

And why — after I went to the trouble of dispelling your apparent confusion and painstakingly detailing the actual reliable source dispute that's at play here — do you not even devote one word to discussing it? Is this an exercise in propping up straw men and then knocking them down?

It's one thing to say, this guy is an expert and thus when he publishes topical material in the relevant field that can be cited to with a bit of caution. It's another thing entirely to say that we can liberally mine the interwebs for any haymaking, politically partisan comments he makes in connection with his work in that field, and dress that up with our own personal professional Misplaced Pages-editor secondary-source prose, OR style, and present it as authoritative in an article that isn't about the person being cited. If this guy Tweets or posts to his Facebook page that anyone who's ever said the words "anchor baby" is a mouth-breathing redneck and a virulent racist, shall we include that too and paste it into the definition, for the benefit of our dear readers, who might not know that they need to look beyond Barrett's actual, stated definition, in order to get the real story?

Simply saying something on the internet is not "publishing", expert-in-the-field or not. For a highly contentious claim you're supposed to look for the highest-quality sourcing available—not to look outside the mainstream and bend the rules on self-published sources, which are already to be used with caution, for the purpose of representing the most contentious and extreme viewpoint that's out there (and one that can only be attributed to a single person). As an administrator you should not need me to explain this basic policy to you. General-topic articles are not supposed to be coatracks for the marginal political rhetoric of the most outspoken guy-in-the-field one can find. That can be cited ad nauseam in an article about the person propounding the extreme view. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

oh, calm down. My initial comment wasn't directed at you, but at the underlying dispute regarding Barrett's reliability which was evidently the reason this was brought up here. Yes, someone has argued that the DTD should be removed and/or downplayed. For the last several months, if not longer, the article has been beset by an one or more anonymous editors trying to discredit or downplay that source, evidently as an effort to push their point of view into the article. I didn't respond to your statements regarding the use of the AHD or making it clear that the reader comment is a reader comment because I don't disagree with you. Several editors were in fact in the middle of discussion about how to better integrate the AHD entry into the article when you started making your swath of edits.

I believe the issue about clarifying Barrett's reader comment as such has already been resolved. I do think that, considering Barrett's background in this field, the comment can at least be used to clarify his own entry. That is, that he really meant immigrants when he said immigrants, not only illegal immigrants. This doesn't contradict what appears in this or other sources; in fact the AHD offers an even broader stance, saying it's used for any noncitizen, not even just immigrants. I don't believe this can be construed as contentious.Cúchullain /c 15:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. And do you also think it's not contentious to say that opposition to illegal immigration, like use of the pejorative term in question, is merely a sign of racism and xenophobia? Speak into the microphone, please; this is the third time I've invite you to address that point on this talkpage alone, and somehow you've managed to stay utterly silent on it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Factchecker, it would be best if this topic focused on analyzing the source.--MarshalN20 | 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am analyzing the source. Explain your comment further? Otherwise it just looks like you're not paying attention. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, no, I don't think opposition to illegal immigration equates to racism and xenophobia. But it doesn't matter what I think anyway. In terms of the actual source itself, I believe the comment should be fine for quoting Barrett's opinion on use of the term (And he doesn't say that, either, for what it's worth). Beyond that, as I say, in the very least it should be fine for clarifying that Barrett really meant immigrant when he said immigrant.Cúchullain /c 00:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please give a straight answer. I didn't ask you whether YOU think it equates to racism and xenophobia. I asked whether you admit that it's a contentious claim to make. That having been admitted (and I don't see how you could deny it), the next question is, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, why would it be acceptable to bend the rules on SPS in order to use questionable, low-quality source material (again, a non-published BLOG COMMENT) to express a highly contentious viewpoint that you can't seem to find good, mainstream sourcing for? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with directly quoting an expert, even from his blog, as long as the statement is attributed specifically to that expert.--MarshalN20 | 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine,* except that the claim is not within his ambit of expertise. Being a lexicographer doesn't make him qualified to judge who is (or is not) "racis" or "xenophob", and one strains to imagine how his lexicographical expertise could possibly allow him to perform some kind of Vulcan mind-meld and identify people who are secretly racist and xenophobic and only oppose illegal immigration for that reason. Clearly, we're talking about his axe-grinding political opinion, which is not rooted in his professional expertise.

(This is all leaving aside the question of whether WP:SPS actually allows that we can take any forum comment, line of IRC chat, tweet, RSS feed, email message, etc., from someone, call it "self-published" even though it isn't really published at all, and cite to it.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as the text is written, can be accessed, and is verifiably the person writing it, then no problem exists with citing it. The source would be primary, which Misplaced Pages does not restrict from using (Misplaced Pages does, however, restrict users from interpreting it). A professional lexicographer's opinion on the use of a term is reliable and is certainly within his "ambit of expertise".

Again, claiming that the source has an "axe-griding political opinion" is your personal conclusion and not appropriate (unless you can reliably cite it). Given the circumstance, the correct step to take would be to directly quote the professional. Example:

According to , "The term anchor baby] is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia."

In any case, this professional lexicographer's claim is logical because these kind of terms are indeed generally used by racists and xenophobes. Your subtle accusations of political agendas and your actions towards removing this information indicates to me that you may have some sort of conflict of interest over this subject (please read WP:COI). That being said, I will not edit the article or respond to your questions in the talk page as I am simply providing a comment (which is what the person posting this topic asked). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, that is not logical at all. Do not make such interpretations because doing so would be original research. It is not up to you to make connections between the two sentences. It is also funny how you accuse others of making accusations when you yourself make accusations. 71.255.83.250 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Marshall. Barrett's comment isn't an "axe-grinding political opinion", it's his opinion on how the term in question is used. Barrett is certainly qualified to comment on this – political terms are in fact one of his areas of expertise. So long as we properly cite the comment and note where it came from, make it clear that it's Barrett's statement and not Misplaced Pages's, and indicate what he said correctly, there's no problem with using this. Ironically, the passage was much clearer on all those accounts before Factchecker started fiddling with it. The revised version made it sound more impertinent and political than the quote itself.--Cúchullain /c 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I note that the part of the comment indicating that the term doesn't apply only to illegal immigrants has been left in. I think that's the most relevant part.--Cúchullain /c 14:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Before I decide how much time (if any) I should spend refuting the semi-competent policy arguments advanced by you and Marshall above, could you please clarify whether you insist that the article reflect Barrett's comments about what he purports to be the racism and/or xenophobia of people who oppose illegal immigration and/or use the delightful term at issue? Somehow it seems you still have not answered this question. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should Barrett's quote be given any weight at all? I cannot find it in any other reliable sources. Also, the second part of the Barrett quote is not directly connected. It does not use a conjunction such as "because". He is just saying a stereotype. Can we really interpret such relations without committing original research? 198.151.130.88 (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to : Once again, noncitizen is not broader than immigrant. One does not fully encompass the other. Not all immigrants are noncitizens and not all noncitizens are immigrants. I already explained this to you. For example, an immigrant who becomes a naturalized citizen is not a noncitizen and a citizen who is not an immigrant and loses his citizenship is a noncitizen that is not an immigrant. 198.151.130.88 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Centrify, whatever the case may be, the tone of your message conveys a really negative atmosphere and I suggest you read what you write prior to posting it (unless your objective is indeed to be rude).

Again, the question here is about the source. The source is indeed reliable if (and only if) it is used to cite direct comments from an expert and attributed directly to that expert. Cuchullain does not have to answer your tendentious question about the article itself in this noticeboard (I wouldn't even answer it in the article's talk page, which would be the appropriate place to discuss such a matter).

In response to the IP, it has been established that Barret is an expert. An expert opinion is nothing more than that. I still don't quite understand what the big problem seems to be over including the information; but this is not the place to discuss this matter. PRegards.--MarshalN20 | 05:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Barrett is not an expert on whether people who oppose illegal immigration do so for good reasons, or, instead, simply to "mask" their "racism and xenophobia" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Thus, per SPS, his opinion can't be used for that highly contentious, non-lexicographical claim. Anyone who wishes to include such a claim in the article will need to find a source that meets the normal requirements of WP:RS. You won't find any such source... and that should tell you something. Before going out on a limb and, e.g., accusing me of a COI, lecturing me on TE, etc., you (or Cuchulainn) might consider reviewing WP:TRUTH and stopping to ask yourselves why the claim you wish a WP article to reflect can't be found anywhere in mainstream publication space. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. If you really want a list of various reliable commentators connecting the use of the term to racism and xenophobia, it will be pretty easy to do. This has no bearing on the Barrett comment itself, however. The fact remains that Barrett is an established lexicographer uniquely qualified to speak about emerging, political terms such as this. For this reason, I feel his comment is valuable to the article. Quoting him directly is not making a contentious claim; it's, well, quoting.--Cúchullain /c 12:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And I, an uninvolved editor, agree with Cuchullain's reasoning. Unless anyone else from this noticeboard would like to express their opinion on the subject, I believe the original question has already been answered (several times). It keeps surprising me that you think racists and xenophobes wouldn't use the term "anchor-baby". It's almost as naive as those who claim "nigger" is not a racist word. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again, why is the quote from the comments section being used rather than from other reliable sources? If you can find Barrett's quote reported in reliable sources, it should be used over the comments section source. It also needs to be in enough reliable sources to be given any weight in the article. 198.151.130.89 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Barack Obama and African American empowerment" (Manning Marable and Kristen Clarke) source is quite reliable. The quote from the comments section of Barret's website () is attributable to Barret (there is no doubt that the person making the comment is Barret), and therefore it can be cited directly to him. To determine the reliability of a source requires analysis. It's not a simple "yes/no" response. For example, the person "Campbell" from the same website cannot be reliably quoted. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 23:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you both persist in arguing against positions I'm not taking—while going off on silly non-sequiturs (e.g. "It keeps surprising that you think..."), misrepresenting sources, and otherwise ignoring the question I'm clearly, in plain English, asking you to address—but since it seems neither of you disagrees with me, I can safely conclude my involvement in this verbal exchange with confidence that this issue won't resurface. It will be very disappointing, however, if the passage of time reveals that one or both of you was planning to make edits based on policy rationales you made no attempt to explain or defend here. Cheers and kind regards. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, where do you see the Barrett quote in that source? 198.151.130.89 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"No, you’re wrong, Campbell. As one can plainly see in the citations above, such as in the third one, it is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia. by Grant Barrett 09 Nov 07, 0123 GMT". Regards.--MarshalN20 | 02:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the "Barack Obama and African American empowerment" source. 198.151.130.90 (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(Page 77): "Further, the racialized language that casts Latinas as having 'anchor babies' in order to stave off deportation and attempt to guarantee their own ability to remain in the United States bears a striking resemblance to the racist rethoric that characterizes African American women as having children to obtain welfare benefits. This racialized and racist language should be shocking to those concerned about America's racial history." Regards.--MarshalN20 | 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not the actual Barrett quote. Using that source is a separate idea. This discussion is about the Barrett quote and the Double-Toungued dictionary. 198.151.130.90 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You were disputing the credibility of Barret's statement, and this second source demonstrates support for Barret's claim. Given its relation to the Barret quote, it is therefore relevant to this discussion (not "a separate idea"). Regards.--MarshalN20 | 18:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of the two sources is not mutually inclusive. Using the information from that source without quoting Barrett has nothing to do with the Barrett comment. Therefore, that source is not relevant to this discussion. 198.151.130.90 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your claim was that Barret's statement was unfounded, and this other source demonstrates otherwise. That's all there is to it. Dragging out this discussion won't make you correct. The original question (regarding Barret's reliability and source) has already been answered. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not claim that Barrett's statement was unfounded. I did not say anything about conflicting sources. If you want to discuss another source, you can do that on the article talk page. I was discussing the weight of the quotation. If there is not enough weight for the quotation, then the reliability would no longer matter. Also, the reliability of one source does not affect the reliability of another source. For example, if source A and source B say the same thing, but source A is reliable, while B is not, then source A could be used, but not source B. 198.151.130.91 (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am done discussing this thing with you. The question has already been answered. Unless anyone else from the board would like to comment on this matter, then the matter is settled.--MarshalN20 | 02:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to address questions regarding the source. 198.151.130.91 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ex-Jehovah's Witness Barbara Grizzuti Harrison in JW article

There is a dispute at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Grizzuti over the acceptability of late US author and journalist Barbara Grizzuti Harrison as an additional source for a statement that Jehovah’s Witnesses commonly exhibit a dread of demon activity. The statement is contained in her 1978 book, Visions of Glory, which combined a history of Jehovah's Witnesses with a memoir of her time as a member of the religion's headquarters staff and subsequent defection.

User:AuthorityTam has objected to inclusion on the following grounds:

(a) Under the guideline WP:NOTRELIABLE Grizzuti Harrison is a “questionable source”. Her book is a memoir and she was not an objective academic because she was an “unabashedly anti-JW activist”. As a questionable source, she is making a “contentious claim” that disparages “every last adherent” of the religion;
(b) her statement about fear of demons was based on observations made more than 50 years ago;
(c) Her statement about demons is polemic and unencyclopedic because of a metaphorical reference to exorcising personal demons.

I contend:

(a) Grizzuti Harrison was a highly respected author, essayist and journalist whose work has been used by publications including The New York Times, The New Republic, Harper's, The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, Ladies' Home Journal and Mother Jones magazine. She has interviewed Mario Cuomo, Alessandra Mussolini and Barbara Bush among others. She gained wholly complimentary obituaries in the New York Times (which described Visions of Glory as a mix of autobiography and "detailed historical research") and LA Times. Misplaced Pages notes that her background as a JW informed her insights, and she was consequently "often asked to write about movements that were perceived to be cults; she described families affected by the Unification Church and the Northeast Kingdom Community Church, and reported on the U.S. government's deadly standoff with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas." Her book certainly contains criticism of her former religion, but there is no evidence that she was an “anti-JW activist”.
(b) The WP:NOTRELIABLE guideline defines a questionable source as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest." Grizzuti Harrison’s book was published by Simon & Schuster and Robert Hale Ltd. It was praised by the NYT for its depth of her research on Jehovah's Witnesses. Her work was used by newspapers and periodicals that do clearly have a concern for both editorial oversight and fact checking and evidently saw no COI in her status as an ex-JW.
(c) Visions of Glory is cited by sociologist Andrew Holden (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, Routledge, 2002) professor of history and religious studies M. James Penton (Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses, University of Toronto Press, 1985), Methodist minister Robert Crompton (Counting the Days to Armageddon: Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Second Presence of Christ, James Clarke & Co, 1996), professor James A. Beverley (Crisis of Allegiance: A Study of Dissent Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, Welch, 1986) and Robert Jewett & John Shelton Lawrence (Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil, Wm Eerdmans, 2004) .

Objections about the currency and accuracy of her observations are invalid. The WP article already cites three RS on the point, and as I point out on the article talk page, a Google search shows widespread discussion online and in print about the continuing JW fixation with demon attacks and harassment. The widespread publication of Grizzuti Harrison’s work in mainstream publications weighs against claims that she was a polemicist.

Her statement on demons is a brief one, but in the face of strident objections by one editor that the claim re JWs and demons is a fiction, her inclusion is helpful, particularly as it also addresses the apparent conflict between what JW publications say about demons and what commentators observe about the actual behaviour of adherents. BlackCab (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me, from reading the paragraph in question, that the statement points to the authors'opinion, not to a fact. As such, expert or not, Grizzuti is reliable enough. In addition, her inclusion or exclusion would not change the text much since two other authors expressed the same opinion.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an adequate source for the statement actually being made in the article, which is not "all JW have this dread of demons" but "These three people, named WP:INTEXT, say something about JW and demons". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont necessarily have an issue with the author having a personal opinion, I dont necessarily think it is notable however, especially considering that the statement is more than questionable and in contradiction with official JW's beliefs. I think the entire paragraph is POV pushing and needs to be removed, but at the very least rebuttal material from WT should be added to balance the POV pushing so that Misplaced Pages doesn't appear to "take sides" on a very questionable statement. Willietell (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the paragraph is beyond the scope of this page. Briefly though, as stated at the article's Talk page, there is no contradiction between what JWs officially believe, and observations of their actual behaviour. The official JW view is now also presented.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel National News and Yeshiva World News

http://en.wikipedia.org/Yeshiva_World_News http://en.wikipedia.org/Israel_National_News

Are these two news sites considered reliable sources?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel National News is described by RS on its Wiki page as "regarded as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement" It is based in an Israeli West Bank Settlement. On topics relating to Israeli settlements and settlement activity it is clearly not third party(WP:3PARTY).

Yeshiva world news appears to be mainly a news aggregation site catering to the Jewish orthodox community. Perhaps it would be helpful if you indicated the context under consideration. WP:RS states "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Dlv999 (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

YWN is not RS. Forget an editorial board, YWN does not even have any contact address. It does not mention the names of the writers in the articles. I don't see any difference between YWN and an anomynous blog. --SupernovaExplosion 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, their street address is right here. Publishing a street address isn't on the list of what makes a source reliable. Even publishing the authors' names isn't necessary. For example, there are hundreds of government websites that do not name any authors, and almost no corporate websites name the individual writers. These can still be reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. I didn't notice the street address. But a news website has different criteria for being regarded as reliable than an established corporation or government. If any fact-checking mechanism is not found, a news website cannot be reliable. --SupernovaExplosion 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the rules are the same for all sources. In fact, merely deciding whether a given website is truly a "news" website or not is sometimes impossible. That's one reason why we don't have special rules for different websites.

"A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (NB that's "a reputation for", not "an easily found link to a page listing the names of people who supposedly do this") is one of the criteria that we consider. It is not strictly necessary for a source to meet this (or any other) criterion, because any given criterion might not be relevant (e.g., if the source is being used to support a claim that Example.com contained a particular bit of material on a given date). A good sign that a periodical will have such a reputation is the ability to find published corrections, like this.

Finally, being reliable isn't like being pregnant: it's not an all-or-nothing condition. YWN is perfectly reliable for certain purposes. One might not choose to use it in the same way that one would use a regional newspaper, but that doesn't mean that it is "not RS" under any circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

IsraelNationalNews is a partisan source, but reliable source. It has a professionally organized editorial board. In sensitive topics, it should be used with attribution due to its biased nature. --SupernovaExplosion 14:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it could be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

IsraelNationalNews is one of the most unreliable news sources in the Middle East. It exists for the purpose of promoting the politics of the Israeli settlers. That's why it was founded and that's why it exists today. Many times information taken from that source has proved to be wrong. These quotations are from five different serious academic studies (sources on request): "considered the mouthpiece of the Gush Emunim Movement--supports the concept of the Greater Land of Israel"; "identified with the religious right"; "a group of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories who were opposed to making peace with Palestinians in those territories launched an ideological competitor called Arutz Sheva" (note that INN is the internet arm of Arutz Sheva); "associated with the right wing of the religious Zionist movement"; "voicing the ideology and interests of the settlers in the occupied territories"; "the settlers' radio station"; "settlers' radio station". The evidence suggests that it can be used as a valid source of the settlers' opinion. Trusting it for general news is not an option. Putting this into perspective, there is no reason to believe INN is more reliable than, say, the official newspaper of the PLO. Nobody even tries to cite the latter; we should apply the same standard to the former. Zero 04:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Its reliable it have editorial board though it present certain POV it should be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeshiva World News is an outlet internal to a particular community of orthodox Jews and is concerned with that community. I think it can be trusted for uncontroversial news about that community (for example, if it tells us some famous rabbi died, we can cite it). I don't see any reason to treat it as reliable on wider issues. Zero 04:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Would this be considered reliable?

Would this source be considered notable? I'm not familiar with Russian sites and while the site appears to be bigger than your standard and obvious Blogger account, I know that appearances can be misleading. Is anyone familiar with this site at all?

I'm leaning towards not reliable, but I wanted to drop a note just in case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The site name "KinoKritik" (film critic) certainly is a nice domain name, one valuable enough that you'd expect a more notable critic or organization to pick it up. That doesn't seem to be the case.

The question is, is the author of that particular article notable in any way (as in, having his reviews covered in multiple independent reliable sources)? The page you referenced doesn't even seem to mention who authored that review.

The site's "About" page says: Absolutely any reader can become a film critic and take part in the development of the site. That means the site consists of mostly, or totally, user-generated content. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the general feeling that I got off the site, that it wasn't considered a RS.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

www.honestreporting.com

Described as "pro-Israel" by bone fide RS , , it would seem to fail the third party requirement for Reliable Sources ("A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered").

Barbara Matusow writing in the American Journalism review called the organisation a "pro-Israeli pressure group". She went on to say, "Frequently, these so-called media monitors, who say they are only interested in fairness and balance, will seize on a word or a phrase and leave out the context. Take the case of a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial that called both PLO leader Yassir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "pigheaded and destructive." In a communiqué urging readers to complain to the Inquirer, HonestReporting.com omitted the reference to Arafat to make the editorial sound like a one-sided attack on Sharon." .

The source is currently being used on a number of highly contentious articles to justify statements of fact in the wikipedia voice without attribution. E.g Rachel Corrie(citation 1 and 45); Saeb Erekat, a living person; and even on its own page HonestReporting to justify unattributed factual statements in the Wiki voice about a journalist who had criticized the organisation. Dlv999 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

HonestReporting is an activist source and is analogous to WorldNetDaily, MoveOn.org, and the likes. It should not be used in BLPs. --SupernovaExplosion 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the input, do you have an opinion on its wider use as an RS in non BLP articles? Dlv999 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See my post below. --SupernovaExplosion 17:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It can be used a source for its opinions, properly attributed. The specif examples you called out are not problematic- the Saeb Erekat reference is corroborated by 3 additional sources, who say the exact same thing, the Rachael Corrie one has similar claims attributed to the Guardian, etc... The claim that being describes as pro-Israel makes it non independent is a wholly incorrect reading or WP:RS Iric2012 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the site allows articles by anonymous individuals, which put the credibility of the site in grave concern. --SupernovaExplosion 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not more so than newspapers that publish stories with a by-line the reads "by staff reporter" or similar. Which is to say, just about any newspaper.Iric2012 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a valid comparison. "Staff" means employed by the newspaper: the article is thus the newspaper's responsibility and to be evaluated on that basis. Who takes responsibility for the articles on this blog (or group of blogs?), the expertise, the fact-checking, isn't clear (to me). Andrew Dalby 11:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I called it a blog because that's what it looks like to me. If it doesn't meet the definition, for "blog" read "site" in my sentence above.) Andrew Dalby 12:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Its apparently have editorial board so I think it meets WP:RS.In anyway it should be used with attribution--Shrike (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is "Mind Body Spirit" magazine a reliable source for establishing notability within an esoteric movement?

In Bernie Siegel, an author has added a reference to a table Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012 (published by Mind Body Spirit magazine), presumably to emphasize the importance of this author within the new-age/esoteric community. I have contended that this source is self-evidently not reliable since it ranks relatively unknown figures as being more important than very notable global figures such as The Pope and the former Archbishop of Canterbury. Furthermore I do not think a publisher known for it's WP:FRINGE topics can be considered a reliable source for anything other than their own opinion, and this certainly is not sufficient to establish notability. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting is

Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked Siegel #25 on their 2012 "List of the 100 Most Spiritually Influential Living People".

The source supports the Misplaced Pages article statement. The source is reliable to claim that Siegel ranks #25 on the Watkins’ Spiritual 100 List for 2012. That is what the editor posting the info would like to focus on. However, the problem is the opinion it implies - the list's ranking gives an opinion about the importance of Siegel. For that, you need to figure out whether the source is a questionable source (wp:QS. Questionable sources are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties which seems to be the issue. As for questionable sources, questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Questionable sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Do you have an issue along any of these lines? The external link you provided reads: ""Watkins’ Mind Body Spirit magazine (previously Watkins Review) is a quarterly publication by Watkins Books, London’s oldest and largest independent esoteric bookshop, established in 1893." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You have correctly summarized my concen: Use of this particular quotation gives a misleading impression of the importance of this figure. By the standards you have described I belive that MBS Magazine is indeed a questionable source. There is much to question on this single page! My previous attempt to remove this reference was reverted on the basis that the editor believed that MBS was a reliable source for what this particular esoteric movement believes. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Salim, you missed the point. You have suggested that it is a questionable source, apparently on the grounds that too few mainstream Christian officials are mentioned, but if you look at the words Uzma underlined, what you think is irrelevant.

To answer your question: yes, it's reliable for the statement given. No, being mentioned in such a magazine's list is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. For one thing, there's no depth of information there, which means that we'd be unable to write a decent article based on that list. (See WP:WHYN for why we require substantial coverage for notability.) Personally, I'd say that inclusion on a "top 100" list for a specialty magazine like this gets you, oh, two to five percent of the way to notability. But that's really a question for the AFD folks, not for RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination)

For those interested. Concerns with lack of Reliable Sources.(olive (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

No, the concerns raised were over significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e notability. The sourcing in the article is also poor at present relying on mostly primary sources or undue mentions (inserting sources that give a one line mention). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable blog?

This is concerning an AfD where a representative for the company is trying to insist that they're notable. In the spirit of "don't bite the newbie", I'm asking here to see if it'd be considered to be notable. The only problem is that it was launched in 2010 and doesn't seem to have reached that "absolute authority" level yet. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's curious about the AfD and wants to help with the RS argument, it's here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reid Jackson (entrepreneur). I'm really trying to assume good will, but two of the sources in the article happen to be one press release posted on two different sites...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Google Scholar a reliable source?

An editor at Crime Classification Manual wishes to cite a Google Scholar citation search for the assertion The volume has been cited over 300 times in the scholarly literature. I doubt that Google Scholar is a reliable source, but the editor in question has further claimed that Google Scholar is a reliable WP:SECONDARY source with an active editorial staff and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy . I thought it was a search engine, but apparently they have had dinner with a member of Google Scholar's editorial staff . I do not think this is enough to make GS a reliable source. In passing, I note that the assertion would consitute original research, but my question is about the source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That does smack of original research, although I don't think that it crosses the line. Google Scholar is primarily compiled by automated processes regardless of the size of the staff and their expertise. The numbers are computer generated. Although you will get multiple hits for the same citation, the numbers are a good clue as to relative number of citations made to a given work. As such, in discussions about articles, I would say that it is appropriate to use the Google Scholar numbers for evidence. As to using them in an article for specific counts, I would say that that was inappropriate. However, if Google Scholar shows a high citation rate, a relative statement in an article could appropriately be supported, having nothing to do with editorial staff or fact-checking, but having to do with controlled input procedures and well constructed algorithms. Thus "heavily cited" in the text with Google Scholar as a primary source, since they complied the numbers and that is what is being cited, would, I think, be acceptable in a footnote. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's reliable, if no other source chooses to mention anything like this, then it's probably not WP:DUE and thus should probably be omitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation counts are not everyday bread and butter. I don't see how WP:DUE comes into this. A single source can be objective. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of objectivity. It's a question of whether it's important enough to bother mentioning. If it's not important enough for our sources to mention, then it's not important enough for us to mention, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Using Google Scholar to draw the conclusion of the citation count for a work in "the scholarly literature" is original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't think it can be used in that fashion. My experience with Google Scholar shows the search results often includes decidedly non-scholarly results such as popular books and fringe websites, so that the statement is not necessarily true. I also agree with WhatamIdoing that regardless of whether or not it is "reliable", if no secondary source has mentioned the number of Google Scholar citations, it probably is undue to mention it. Yobol (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Search engines, of which Google Scholar is but one, are not reliable sources. Yobol is absolutely correct - it frequently returns sources which are not scholarly, and also frequently returns false positives. Fladrif (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The major problem is a subtle one of undue weight and a sort of implicit synthesis. By making a declaration about the number of times a particular work has been cited, we are implicitly suggesting that the number of citations is somehow particularly noteworthy in the given instance. It's a contextless number—we don't know whether 300 cites in Google Scholar is a lot or a little for a textbook, compared to other similar works. We don't know anything about the quality of the articles or skill of the researchers that cite this work. We don't know, for that matter, if the citations are favorable; in principle a large number of citations could be generated by extensive criticism of a work. Without appropriate secondary sources, we don't know how to interpret the number of citations in any meaningful way, and it's not reasonable to expect our general, non-expert audience to be able to make that interpretation (correctly and meaningfully) themselves. By itself, the number of Google Scholar hits is a bit of useless puffery. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

Just to agree that Google Scholar turns up some really whacky stuff, the antithesis of scholarship. And of course TenOfAllTrades is is absolutely right. There's no context to the number that makes usable. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question most directly, Google Scholar is not even a source, much less a reliable one. It's a search engine. It can lead you to reliable sources. A high number of results using Google Scholar is a good indication that the subject is well covered in reliable sources. But then you have to take the next step of digging in to those sources to see how the subject is treated in them, and to be sure that those sources are truly reliable. It's clear that not all Google Scholar results are reliable academic sources. First Light (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Google Scholar like Google Books is a search engine, searching a pool of "sources", which are potentially or on average more reliable than a random web search. Hence when looking for sources it might make sense to use Goggle scholar rather than a general web search. However you need to take a look at the results and judge each on its own based on the general criteria for sources (correctness of content, consistence with domian knowledge, reputation of author and publisher, peer and/or edorial review processes, published reviews, etc.).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education

I believe that the Chronicle Review, specifically this article is a reliable source. I believe it is particularly reliable, because not only is it an award winning news organization, it is academic. Per WP:MAINSTREAM I consider this somewhat significant. At the very least, I consider it a very good source. On the other hand, it is not straight reporting, but it is in their opinion section as are nearly all the sources for Occupy Wall Street. What do you think of this source?

Background: an editor says using a quote for a generalization is undue WEIGHT to the source. The text is "Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as "envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility." I contend that because the overall gist of the quote is backed up by numerous other reliable sources and is not contradicted, using this quote to get the generalization is acceptable and not UNDUE. The question being answered in the paragraph is "how have conservatives portrayed Occupy Wall Street?" B——C_ritical 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a perfectly reliable source. And the author is an academic expert. The article can certainly be used as RS. But this is an opinion piece, so the quote should be properly attributed. --SupernovaExplosion 01:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's reliable is going to depend significantly on the exact sentence(s) that you're trying to support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case, answering the question "how have conservatives portrayed Occupy Wall Street?" Is it a good source for that? It's not "supporting" anything else, but as I said it gets general support from other sources although they don't make as good introductory quotes. And, point taken about attribution. B——C_ritical 02:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, after a second review, it is revealed Andrew Hartman is a historian and his specialization is education in the US. He is not a political scientist, so quoting a historian of education (whose opinion is published in an education magazine, not political magazine) for a topic on political science may be challenged. Could you provide the diffs showing disagreement over the use of this source? --SupernovaExplosion 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Diffs would take a while to find, but the only objection was that it was given undue weight. "by making this blanket statement and attributing it to this single source. --Somedifferentstuff" Here B——C_ritical 04:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I will say critical and analytical opinions like this should come from authoritative sources, not from some random academic who has no expertise on this topic. --SupernovaExplosion 04:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SupernovaExplosion, what kind of authoritative sources would exist for such a new movement? Do you have any suggestions on actual sources, or on sources which might be there so they can be looked up? B——C_ritical 08:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I said what is considered the best practice in Misplaced Pages. Even a professional historian is dismissed as unreliable in a particular topic if his specialization area is not that topic. For example a historian specializing in ancient Rome may be unreliable for history of USSR. --SupernovaExplosion 08:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, okay I get it. I think he would rightfully be deemed less reliable if there were a specialty on OWS, but his profession and the book he's writing seem pretty close to expertise- at least as close as political science in my personal book. Anyway, thanks! B——C_ritical 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not classify the Chronicle as "academic;" their focus is academia but that does not mean that they write in an academic style about academic issues with the same rigor as established academic presses. It's a bit more complex because many of their guest writers are academics but as they are often writing outside of their home disciplines their academic credentials do not carry much weight.

The Chronicle Review is a bit different because it's composed entirely of opinion pieces. It has a solid reputation and it's more academic than the main Chronicle publication but it's still not "academic" in the sense of being peer-reviewed. But it often has academic experts writing on topics within their field so it's different compared to the main Chronicle which is almost entirely news written by Chronicle reporters with some op eds by others. ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An historian specializing in education in the US seems to me more appropriate for analyzing OWS than a political scientist, who focuses on politics not the general context. Andrew Hartman is currently writing a book entitled "A War for the Soul Of America: A History of the Culture Wars, From the 1960s to the Present" and my guess is that at least the Chronicle Review thought him an expert appropriate to the subject. B——C_ritical 08:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!. How I used this discussion B——C_ritical 20:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Published letter to the editor of the New York Times

A published letter (second letter on the page) to the editor of the New York Times by the director of a non-profit organisation, the Central Fund of Israel is being used to justify factual statements about the organisation's activities in the Wiki voice, without attribution. The claims made in the letter have not been corroborated by other RS, which actually give a rather different account of the organisation (I have summarized on the talk page of the article)

Is this a reliable source? Is it being used appropriately in this context? Dlv999 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source only for the views of the organization, i.e., attribution required, respect WP:Undue weight, etc. First Light (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Count / Word Count of Literary Texts from Sources such as Amazon, Publishers, Project Gutenberg.. etc

This is complex matter so I am going to make the first of several inquiries. List of longest novels has been decimated and probably will go up for AfD unless certain sources are deemed reliable. Most of my arguments will be in succession; noting cross references and their publishers of what should be considered non-controversial statements.

Question #1: Specific to Amazon.com

I was under the impression that page counts from Amazon listings (which come from the publisher) are typically allowable sources. In a previous discussion, David Eppstein wrote: "...I think in general corporate material about their own products counts as WP:SELFPUB: useful for non-controversial factual information (how many pages the book has, what year it was published)..." during a discussion about Amazon's product description being a source. The length of certain books on said list have used this and other sources to back their claim. Currently the page does not use 'word count', but assuming a favorable result on page count I'll continue appropriately.

Observation: Les Misérables

A public domain work. Has several different publications. One from Signet Classics has 1488 pages according to Amazon. Can this product description be used to cite its page count on an article? The same material comes from the publisher which is actually no different in its claim on the Penguin Books Signet webpage at 1488 pages. I was told that sources are unreliable despite making no more claim then the length of their publication. Last I checked Penguin is a reputable book publisher and it serves no purpose to give false information about page count. The instance of the product description is devoid of advertising and states other key information about the product such as its publication date as noted by the ISBN and publisher independently as: Signet Classics; Unabridged Version edition (March 3, 1987). This is independently verifiable and touted by other third parties; mostly sellers of such works. Page count is not the same as an advertising claim; its a statement of fact to the physical description of the book; much like the ISBN number is registered to the work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Les Misérables was written in French. The word count of a translation might differ considerably and surely wouldn't be relevant, would it?

Aside from that, the use of amazon.com paginations to extract an estimated word count would be original research and unreliable, while using the raw page numbers to compare lengths of books would often give very misleading results. There are too many variables.

Dates on amazon.com are extremely unreliable for older books. Never, never trust them.

ISBNs are assigned by publishers: they are not independent sources of anything. If other sellers give the same data as amazon.com, that data is probably not independent either but drawn from the same ultimate source. Essentially, no one in the publishing and bookselling business has a strong interest in getting these details right. They often are right, of course, but also often wrong.

I'm really sorry to be so negative. Andrew Dalby 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me just clarify. I do not care about word count. Or arriving at a word count and Amazon has nothing to do with word counts. I am specifically asking about Page Count. I am not sure if with fake product descriptions and matters of law; but I would be hard pressed to find a book with fake page counts. All I want to confirm is that the product description; specifically page count; can be cited. Even directly coming from the publisher on something that doesn't make a claim, but is a reflection of a physical matter shouldn't be so difficult to cite. Anyone who owns a copy of the book can flip through and verify such a simple matter. Might as well dispute that a meter stick measures a meter without having a third party verify and cite a source stating that said meter stick is a meter. Its like stating the file size of an ebook which is measure in Kilobytes needs a third party to confirm its file size when acquiring it has the memory allocation required listed as well, kilobytes. I don't see how page counts are a contentious material requiring an independent third party to make specific reference to 'Yep, the Signet Classic edition is 1488 pages.' Its just silly to me to require a report on a books page count and specifically the books page count and saying how they arrived at said page count independent of the publisher. I doubt I'd find a single source which relates to that matter specifically; and such an unreasonable burden of proof on any date or event (even self-evident ones) on Misplaced Pages would be ludicrous. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, look, I agree that the question this list raises is interesting (which are the longest novels?) but unless it has been surveyed by some publication before us, we can hardly answer it without original research, including research on the definition. Page counts are not reliable for this purpose: you would be answering the question "Which editions of novels have the most pages?" and I doubt whether the answer to that is useful or notable. But I'd be really happy for others to give a view here, and I won't insist further. Andrew Dalby 09:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The list has existed since 2004; it used to list both page counts and word counts of estimations from various sources. Word counts can come later; publishers often list those as well, but not all of them do. All have page counts and if we can't trust the publisher's page count then I doubt this list will ever survive. Page counts are all I am interested in for now, pure and simple. The rest can come later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Andrew Dalby. Page counts do not reliably show the precise length of a novel for this purpose. Only word (or character) count would. But you would need third-party sources even for that, not the Original Research that your own original research on amazon qualifies as, in both cases. If page or word count were both reliable and notable as a gauge of "longest novel", then it would be very easy to find third-party reliable sources that have done that research and given the results. Use those sources instead. First Light (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

From an editorial standpoint, I'm inclined to agree with Andrew Dalby's point about the relative value (or lack thereof) of page counts. The page count has only a passing relationship to the word count of a novel (though it could be argued that the largests examples of both are really only of interest to individuals wishing to settle bar bets). The page count is governed by the publisher's choices about paper weight, page size, font, margins, binding method, and so forth. To take one of America's more editor-resistant mass-market writers, Tom Clancy, his novel Executive Orders is variously reported at 874 pages (from our article), 704 pages (hardcover, Amazon), or 1376 pages (mass market paperbound, Amazon). There's nearly a factor of two between the different editions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but mass market paperback is a typical standard while hardcover, large print and abridged/unabridged works vary largely. To manipulate and distort these truths would be wrong. Page count is terrible; but easy enough to source and provided with appropriate disclaimers and obvious issues of said criteria; it would at least be factual to claim that the mass market paper back of say Signet Classics 1488 has a page count in relation to the mass market paperback of Executive Orders. The size of the paper is: 4.33 x 6.85in (Les Miserables) versus 4.31 x 6.89in (Executive Orders) where as the Tom Clancy hard cover is 9.3 x 6.3 inches. Mass market paperback is fairly consistent and Penguin Books both put out these works; so while it is not a perfect measurement a conclusion can be drawn that the Signet Classics which is the unabridged Les Miserables is longer and visibly thicker then Executive Order; specifically 1/3rd of an inch thicker. Now, the difficult part. What is the WORD COUNT of Tom Clancy's Executive Order? 458,453 according to Perma Bound. Les Miserables was 530,982. The figure on the page for this edition had an approximation of 530,000 words from another library and several sources agreed to this value. Though they arrive at the word counts in the same way as anyone with an Ebook copy that hits the 'Word Count' function of the text. Also before anyone calls out the page number discrepancy; pages left intentionally blank, and unrelated information are left out from the text, but still counted by a publisher. The Signet Classic had pages up to xxi for the introduction and 1463 for the text, plus 4 extra for 1488 pages. Tom Clancy's runs for 1358 pages according to the Ebook. Word count of the texts do line up as well. For something so easily verified by machine; it is a shame that the word count function cannot be used; some people wrote it off as Original Research, but then again anything seems to constitute original research or that it is unreliable. Noted properly I doubt any of this is contentious material. It seems like the facts are not being disputed its the perception of equality in regards to the material source. Wouldn't that fall under proper disclosure of said source and its materials; because all things when shown in the same format shouldn't be contentious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

While mass market paperbacks tend to be the same page size, their contents are not reliably the same number of words per page. Different publishers make different choices of typeface, typesize, and margins; one five-hundred-page paperback can be quite different from another five-hundred-page paperback in the length of its prose. Some of Neal Stephenson's paperbacks use aggressively small fonts and margins to try to rein in page count, for instance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

- TLDR: Can I use page counts and page size of the publisher or a seller? If not what can I use to obtain valid sources for word count and/or page count? Why can't the word count function on ebook or plain text count? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

All the discussion above about the suitability of page counts should be moved to the talk page in question, as this page is for discussing source reliability only. To answer the question asked, I believe that Amazon and publishers' listings are reliable for page counts. Things like publishers' blurbs on the content or importance of the book are of course wholly unreliable. There is also another source for page counts that has apparently not been mentioned: library catalogues. If you go to the catalogue of an eminent library, say the Library of Congress, you will find that many listings of books show the number of pages. If that's not a first rate third party source I don't know what is. Zero 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Zero; I had not realized that the Library of Congress listed page counts either and I do agree with Amazon being only marginally useful for specific needs as its main job is to sell rather then educate. If by extension knowing I can dig up word counts as listed by publishers will go a long way to correctly citing and sourcing the list. I think I can take it from here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel - Primary Sources

There is a disagreement of what consitutes a primary source. I contend that the article Bernie_Siegel consists mostly of primary sources since it lists the opinions of different people and sources it to the original persons comment. Two Examples:

1. Literary critic Anatole Broyard, writing in The New York Times, describes him as... is sourced to the statement by Anatole Broyard.

2. In 1988, Siegel's Love, Medicine & Miracles ranked #9 on The New York Times Best Seller list list of hardcover nonfiction books. is sourced to the NYT best seller list.

Both these cases appear to be primary sources as they are in one case an opinion sourced to the individual, and in the other case the creator of the rankings. Is this the correct interpretation? Related: Talk:Bernie_Siegel#New_York_Times_Best-Seller.27s_List Talk:Bernie_Siegel#Primary_and_undue_sources IRWolfie- (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No. 1 is a secondary source about Siegel: an opinion from a reliable newspaper, sourced and attributed in-line. That's best practice.

No. 2 is a primary source, but not in any way controversial.

They are both quite OK. Andrew Dalby 20:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

For your number 1 it's also a primary source since it's the original source of the opinion, no other source contains it. WP:PRIMARY has it as a note that opinion pieces within a source are primary. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To some extent, the issue of whether these are primary sources is a red herring. The issue is whether they are reliable sources. I don't see how #2 can be considered an unreliable source. That would be like saying that we can't cite to the Oscars website for evidence that an award or nomination was made. As for #1, an opinion about a writer from a literary critic is perfectly reliable as long as it's not undue or we are omitting other points of view.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In the situation of an oscars nomination we don't need to. The oscar's website is primary for the claim and we easily can and should augment it with secondary sources. In the linked user talk discussion some have the interpetation that it would only be a primary source if Bernie Siegel published it. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you don't want this stuff and are hunting, here and elsewhere, for a reason to exclude it. Could I possibly be right? Andrew Dalby 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind it staying. I don't plan on removing it. I think the article has an over-reliance on primary sources though, and we should be diversifying from that by including more secondary sources to veryify content as well as keeping the primary sources. I'm also not "hunting" anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, you lost me: if Siegel published what? As for the Oscars analogy, it's apt, and I don't think we have to augment it with a "secondary" source. Not that it's all that important for the purpose of this discussion, but you really need to look at the policy reasons behind using primary sources with caution. In some cases, e.g., court records, the material often requires interpretation of the sources (see "Policy" paragraph on WP:PRIMARY). In other cases, WP:BLPPRIMARY becomes an issue. In still other cases, the source we are citing is not deemed reliable (the example of a witness to an accident). I don't see how any of those considerations applies here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that the article completely consists of these primary sources, so it is hard to know where the due weight is. It's hard to get the others on the talk page to recoqnise the issue as they deny that the sources are primary. They also have commented that the only primary sources that could exist would be those written by Bernie Siegel himself. BLPPRIMARY appears to recommend using primary sources to augment secondary sources. My question at this stage isn't one of due weight though, my question is, are the two examples I mentioned primary or not primary (for future reference). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My adding of a primary sources tag is being reverted by someone who contends that the only primary sources in the article would be those which are written by the individual who is the target of the article itself: Talk:Bernie_Siegel#New_York_Times_Best-Seller.27s_List "There can be no better source for the statement that a particular book was on the NY Times' Best-sellers list than the New York Times itself. This is not a "Primary source"; that would be Siegel's own blog saying this. ". The article is a BLP, so I fail to see why WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply which states: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source.IRWolfie- (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion - nothing wrong with citing to the NYT. The fact that the article is a BLP is irrelevant to this issue. The comment about Siegel's blog actually would relate to WP:BLPSPS. I think you should let this go.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see where mentions from primary sources would be acceptable such as mentioning this list but my question is more broad. My issue is where an article consists entirely of text sourced to primary sources; such as a mention in the lede that the "Mind Body Spirit magazine ranked him #25 on their 2012 list". Have a look at the article, pretty much everything in it is sourced similarly. This seems undesirable to me, and the preference should be for secondary sources to be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a general statement, "the preference should be for secondary sources", especially with BLPs, you are right. But in that case it's probably a matter for BLP discussion, not for this board. Would others agree? Andrew Dalby 09:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the New York Times Bestseller List is a secondary source for bestsellers and not original research. The NY Times does the research:

Rankings reflect sales reported by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles. The sales venues for print books include independent book retailers; national, regional and local chains; online and multimedia entertainment retailers; supermarkets, university, gift and discount department stores; and newsstands.

The fact that they put their name to the list in an official sounding way doesn't change the fact that they are merely listing the bestselling books at bookstores, based on their research. The NY Times is a reliable source for that research. Secondary Source. First Light (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad (3rd Generation) source reliability and original research dispute

This issue is being appeal from this board which was escalated from this article upon the advice of an editor contributing in the the dispute resolution noticeboard.

The source in question are all sources claiming LTE is 4G and Apple itself claiming that LTE is 4G. I have a source directly refuting the idea of LTE being classified as 4G 1 and numerous other sources stating quoting from the International Telecommunications Union stating that LTE must be able to transfer over 1gbit/s to be considered 4G which LTE cannot do. The result of this is a contradiction between the 4G article and articles labelling the LTE protocol as 4G. The telecommunications union decides the fate of whether a protocol is 4G as they are the ones that set forth requirements and standardised protocol classifications. (2g, 3g, 4g). 4G in this case is used as a marketing term by companies that manufacture and market electronic products although this claim can be considered speculative because I don't have a source referencing this. I feel urged to file a case here as I am certain that this issue will be raised again as mobile carriers frequently market their HSDP+ and LTE networks as 4G despite not meeting the requirements so my main goal here is to set a precedent. The case is being appealed to this board because administrators on the other board claim that my references constitute as WP:OR which is true according the that article nonetheless but that does not discredits my argument as references from reputable sources have been provided and a link between these sources can be establish to substantiate my claim in the article.

Sources in question

Disputed article

iPad (3rd generation) is the article that requires examining as it contradicts the 4G article in regards to the classification of LTE.

Previous discussions

Dispute resolution board and iPad (3rd generation) talk page

Disputed text

All references to LTE being 4G in the iPad 3 article, this includes content in the infobox and prose.

YuMa NuMa 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please have a quick look at the top of this page, and follow the instructions, particularly regarding full citations of objects linked or referenced (templates are not required). If you follow the instructions and use bullet points the issue will be easier to follow. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have cleared up my noticeboard request, hope that helps users deciding the reliability of the sources provided and to resolve the contradicting claims. If anyone needs me to clarify anything, please don't hesitate to ask. YuMa NuMa 11:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RS objections at Gabriel Cousens

I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question (Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).

I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.

Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.

I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

disputed date of birth

Hi - Is this considered a reliable source http://www.allmovie.com/artist/p125316 - is a reliable source WP:RS for a disputed date of birth? Youreallycan 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Allmovie is accepted as a reliable source for film information, but it is relatively untested as a source for biographical content. The acid test is if other reliable sources use it this capacity, and the New York Times uses Allmovie as a source for their biography of her: . In view of that, if no-one is actually challenging the source then I'd let it stand; if they are then you probably need an independent source to corroborate Allmovie's date. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems user created to me and its possible to log on and submit changes ... It seems there is a dispute about her dob - Misplaced Pages:BLPN#Laurie_Holden_DOB_discrepancy - so using that as a stand alone when a dispute exists seems weak? Youreallycan 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's user created like IMDB (Holden's biography seems to be authored), but there is a facility to submit corrections: Rovi places a very high value on information from our users. We make every effort to review corrections and additional information submissions ... It can, at times, take a bit of time for your submitted information to appear on our sites as we need to validate the information provided. Please include your information source in your submission. It certianly looks like there is editorial oversight, so I wouldn't rule it out as a RS. That said, if information is correct then it is usually available elsewhere, so if there is a dispute over conflicting information then I think it is reasonable to request a second source to corroborate Allmovie's claim. It's not unusual for actresses to have more than one birthdate, since there is an obvious incentive for them to lie about their age. If there are multiple sources for conflicting dates you can always do what we do on the Audrey Tautou page and simply list them both. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is this article in USA Today that puts her age as 29 on December 18, 2001; that narrows the year down to 1972 more or less. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your investigation. Youreallycan 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Off the Grid News

Actually, I want to use the following as an example of the response to the topic. So, I have two questions: 1] Is this a decent source, and 2] even if this is not considered a reliable source of information, is it acceptable as an example of responses?

http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/03/19/obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cnational-defense-resources-preparedness%E2%80%9D-executive-order-minor-change-or-prelude-to-martial-law/ Kdammers (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

1. It certainly doesn't look like a reliable source, since it's a highly-opinionated piece that some would brand as "crackpot" or "paranoid".

2. As to an acceptable sample response: we prefer responses from sources which, while not reliable, are notable: Little Green Footballs, Stormfront, breitbart.com, and the like, while not reliable sources, are notable nonetheless. Off the Grid News/offthegridnews.com doesn't seem to qualify. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike has it exactly right... the webpage is reliable for an attributed statement as to the opinion of the person or group that owns the website ... but that leaves the open question as to whether Misplaced Pages should mention that person or group's opinion in the first place. This is governed by WP:Undue weight, and not WP:RS. There are likely to be other sources that better fit your needs. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

RS for a DYK article

I have recently created Prisons in Bahrain and nominated it for DYK where Roscelese told me to drop a line here since no results came up when he searched it. So I'd like to get RSN input on these sources:

And since we are at it, I'd also like to get evaluation of Al-Wasat (Bahraini newspaper) as a RS on good article nominate Bloody Thursday (2011). Mohamed CJ 06:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, particular regarding citing the exact source and usage, not just referring to organisations. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The section about "Detention of juveniles" is completely sourced from 3 articles (, and ) from BCHR (cited 4 times).
Parts of the section "Mistreatment" before 2011 is sourced from 3 HRW reports , and (cited 3 times).
The whole article, except "Detention of juveniles" has references from BICI report (cited 12 times). Mohamed CJ 12:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of an odd article -- representing a single point of view. It almost seems like it should be titled "Prison abuses in Bahrain." It gives the impression of advocacy. I'm not sure what to say about sources. In some contexts, they might be fine. But the overall context here raises questions. I'd be curious what others think. TimidGuy (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and I've added a new section about Government denials. Please note that BICI is a government commission (i.e. it was established by the King and fully financed from the government - pages 1 and 9) and has mentioned systematic torture in their 500-pages report (the government acknowledged their mistakes). Of course I'd have added more material about prison conditions, number of prisoners.. etc if there was enough transparency to make them available to public. I'm open to any suggestions/recommendations. Mohamed CJ 08:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Can an article on Quackwatch be considered a WP:RS for criticism of Bernie Siegel an alt-med practicioner? This article appears to be self-published, however the author is a well known critic of bogus medicine and is medically qualified. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if the author of the piece is an acknowledged expert in the field, I wouldn't be in a hurry to list a website by that name as a reference; it rather undercuts credibility. Nor does the relevant passage characterize Siegel quackingly, though it does refute the medical efficacy of his theories--there is a distinction. Footnote 52 of the article links to the specific study description , though I don't see that it names Siegel. And it does concede that 'the program may have beneficial effects on quality of life', despite little or no apparent difference in longevity for cancer patients. For what it's worth, Siegel disassociated himself from the study afterwards , which raises more questions than it answers. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics. It would probably be reliable for a critique of this theory/papers but in-text attribution may be called for. Siegel is named as author of the study (Siegel BS). That he tries to disassociate himself from a paper he was an author of is probably useful information for the reader as well. Yobol (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know it was considered reliable, and I missed Siegel's name as a study author. Time for new glasses, or at least sharper research skills. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a follow up question--bear with me, since I'm clearly not versed in the medical arts--is a study sampling with fewer than 150 participants considered credible? I'm accustomed to news reports referring to findings with thousands of test subjects, and those are sometimes described as inconclusive. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on what claim is being made. The study failed to support Siegel's hypothesis, therefore his claims remain unupported by medical evidence. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@IP 99: Smaller sample sizes for study populations is not unusual at all for psychology/psychiatry populations that do not deal with medications. Most news reporting dealing with very large numbers of subjects are funded by drug companies and can be expensive to conduct, and so not likely to get similar numbers in other situations. Yobol (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch is an opinionated attack site - if you want to cite what such a place has to say then its reliable for that. As a NPOV external its worthless. Youreallycan 14:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If one has the time to root through it, the discussion on QW as a reliable source is fascinating . My take is that even if it's deemed acceptable in some circumstances, it makes no claim to neutrality, and that it represents the findings of an individual specialist, and not a body of experts, be noted if it's used as a source. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used the QW article, plus two additional sources from the Journal of Oncology and the Journal of chronic diseases in the article. Please change as you feel appropriate. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch is an opinionated attack site against alternative medicine - users that oppose alternative medicine like to use Quackwatch presented as if NPOV in the manner of a partisan attack. Youreallycan 15:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If QW is deemed non-neutral, similar content can be found in this publication on page 195 , as well as this article from a medical journal . 99.156.65.73 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It should go without saying, but our sources do not need to comply with WP:NPOV, our treatment of the content from said sources do. We use "biased" sources all the time, and the the consensus from past discussions here on RSN is that despite the biases, QW, while probably not an ideal source, is reliable generally on alt med topics. If we can find similar/duplicate content without outside of QW, it may be alright to not use it, but let's not try to pretend because it is biased it cannot be used. Yobol (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yobol is correct. There is no requirement that sources be neutral. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque

This piece was originally published by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs , and later in the Jerusalem Post clearly marked as "Analysis" and attributed to the JCPA.

It is currently being used extensively as an RS to support unattributed factual statements on the Rachel's Tomb page. My opinion is that as a piece of analysis (essentially a one sided advocacy of the Israeli establishment position) it is not suitable for this purpose. (From WP:RS, " Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.")

The piece does represent a significant published opinion on the topic and information should be included on the basis of attributing to the opinions of the author and the JCPA (as it was presented when published in the Jerusalem Post). Dlv999 (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It does seem like attribution would be good if no corroborating sources are available. TimidGuy (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It obviously needs attribution in the text as the position of one of the sides in a dispute. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we use a Google books snippet as a source when a caveat is visible?

At Kurdish people a snippet is being used to support the statement "the Kurds are an Iranian people". The problem I have with this is that The link is just a snippet and it is clear that there is a caveat that might be relavant and thus we would need to add. Anyone adding something needs to have read more of the source than just a snippet. Unless we can find out what the caveat is and decide if it needs to be added, I don't think this source belongs here. I added a 'verify source' template and posted the above to the article talk page. The template was removed with the talk page comment "He says: "ethnically the Kurds are an Iranian people" so it really doesn't matter what he said after that. We have a clear sentence and quoted his exact words." My view is that this isn't acceptable - snippets can be used out of context and in this case I'm being told that although there is a context we don't have to consider it. That's not how I understand our verification policy. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If the situation is as you describe it, then I think your concern is an obvious and correct one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Even with the full text, I would be wary about citing an ethno-anthropological claim to an Art History text. I'm not sure it's reliable for the given text. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The reference is doubly problematic. First, there's clearly a huge qualifier sitting right of the edge of the excerpt, notwithstanding the piece of it that's already visible. Second, we're working from a book on rugs, not ethnography. I'd also note with all of the sources for this statement (and I think the qualifier that was omitted was likely to to have gone into exactly this point) the matter of exactly what the source meant by "Iranian people" is important, since "Iranian" categorizes people by language, ethnic identity, and nationality if not other properties not immediately obvious. Since none of the sources is entirely visible (one of the others is behind a paywall and the last has no URL) I'm dubious about synthesizing them into agreement. Mangoe (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that we almost never cite Google Books (snippets or otherwise) as a source. We should always cite the book itself as a source. This is an important distinction, because the question is whether we can have confidence that the cited source says what we think it says. It is analogous to using a web reprint of a document from a dubious website: can we have confidence that it is an authentic copy of the original (reliable) source? I think this is an excellent case for using the {{verify source}} template. Jakew (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is true but naming a source is better than not naming one. Let's not discourage people from saying where they really got things. People who use extracts should mention it, and I do not think we help Misplaced Pages by pushing this underground. Misplaced Pages is full of unsourced things which no one even brings to RSN. Once someone actually tries to get an imperfect source, they are most times making a marginal improvement that can be built upon. Very occasionally, a snippet view or some other partial extract might even be relatively uncontroversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm been caught by Google snippets. They are very very dangerous. You certainly cannot use it without more of the source. There is something simple you can do, though. Place a query at WP:REX and there is a very good chance someone will come up the rest of the relevant text. The reliability of the source is a separate issue. Zero 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mangoe's point is interesting. The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development, By Wadie Jwaideh says "they are by no means a purely Iranian people." Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia, By John A. Shoup says "an Iranian people by language, the Kurdish people are ethnically diverse due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups..." And Historical dictionary of Iraq By Edmund Ghareeb, Beth Dougherty discusses other possible origins concluding they are of mixed origins. Which just reinforces the importance of not using this snipped. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Having one of these days, where I've written this post twice only for it to get deleted. While this snippet is particularly dangerous, I wouldn't say the same for all snippets and they need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Particularly if all the context is within the snippet or if it's a simple statement of fact then it should be enough. If part of the context is missing then there are ways around that; with a correctly targeted search term, Google Books Search will return more of the page than snippet view does - but it does making some educated guesses at what words are likely to appear in the bits you can't see. I don't have much to go on in this case but I guessed that "one" would appear somewhere further down the page and it turned out to be the next word after "lingustic" - I could probably make some more guesses and get the full paragraph but it may substantial time that I don't think is worth it in this case as it's not that reliable a source for the claim being made. In a recent BLP case however I was able to draw facts about their life out in context and it was proven to be accurate a couple of days later when another editor was able to examine a physical copy of the source. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. When I wrote that I've been caught by snippets, I meant that I have quoted a snippet that any reasonable person would consider to be a plain statement of fact whose context was clear, only to discover that the full source contained a severe caveat that was not visible in the snippet. In one case the overall meaning of the full text was the precise opposite of what the snippet appeared to say. Zero 13:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree there. In the general case, while you might get lucky and find that the source actually supports the claim that you want to make, you can't rely on it. If you can't access the source to a significantly greater degree than is possible using Google Books Snippet view, you shouldn't be using it. Kahastok talk 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced by that. And this probably is a reliable source, Robert D. Biggs is an academioc in a relevant field. As a side note, we've suddenly had two more editors warring over this, one of them having also decided to start our article on the Median Empire with the sentence "it was a kurdish dynasty" - which of course is nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it may be a relevant claim about the Kurdish claim and I have no doubt the the source is a reliable one for some claims about the Kurdish people. So I'll have to concede that my wording wasn't ideal, the intent was that anything further likely to be discovered would only work against the claim that they were purely an Iranian people. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we trying to say something that isn't worth saying anyway? Has anybody found any peoples yet that are "purely" anything? What's the definition of an Iranian people, and how would the claim that a people is Iranian be proved? On the other hand, we know and can show that the Kurdish language is an Iranian language.

OK, well, I've just looked at Iranian peoples and the definition given is linguistic anyway. So all those who speak Kurdish form an Iranian people by our reliable definition. Andrew Dalby 10:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that the article in question isn't looking at things from a linguistic perspective, and the controversial abbreviated passage gives hints that it intends be understood as saying "they speak an Iranian language but in other respects they aren't Iranian", so it probably would be best to qualify the bald statement in the same manner. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the ref link is a search result with the search terms embedded in the URL. Googling the phrase you want to use in an article is the worst kind of research. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Age

The article on polonium cites this article from the Australian newspaper The Age to support a statistic that polonium from tobacco causes 11,700 lung cancer deaths worldwide. The newspaper article cites "internal tobacco company documents" as a source for this, but does not give any statistics. The basis for that figure seems very shaky, even the article. The composition of the article also displays a clear anti-tobacco bias. How reliable should this source be considered? TV4Fun (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the source is reliable. It might be appropriate to attribute the assertion. But I think the best course would be to get the study published in the American Journal of Public Health. All of the info in the article seems to be based on this study. Let me know on my Talk page if you'd like me to get it for you. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Age is a broadsheet Australian newspaper, and that's an article published over a journalist's byline in the context of Australian libel law—so it is pretty good as a source. Monique Muggli etal American Journal of Public Health is a superior source, and available. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting Conservapedia as a Self Source in an article about Conservapedia

Conservapedia is generally regarded as an unreliable source. WP:SELFSOURCE says that Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. It goes on to give five requirements.

I'm arguing that quoting/citing Conservapedia as a self source in an article about Conservapedia should be allowed. As a particular example of what I'm getting at, I'd like to directly cite their Counterexamples to Relativity article to textually back a claim in the Conservapedia article on their criticism of the Theory of Relativity.

Conservapedia is a text. I think that quoting and referring to Conservapedia in an article about Conservapedia falls under information about themselves clause in WP:SELFSOURCE. An unreliable source as a text can either be used or it cannot be used. Of course, Conservapedia articles can't be used in an article about the Theory of Relativity. But I think they should be allowed as quotes/citations/evidence to back claims in an article about Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article already cites Conservapedia and I think rightly so. The alternative is to strip these citations from the article and rely entirely on secondary RSs. I think that makes for a weaker less verifiable rather than a stronger article.

For example, the Ted Kaczynski article cites the Unabomber Manifesto and both must be considered unreliable sources. But quoting/citing from an unreliable source as a text in an article about the author/text is different than citing it as an RS in another article.

Yes, Conservapedia is fluid but Misplaced Pages has mechanisms in its citations to handle that; that's a separate issue. It is always possible to quote/date rather than cite. Citations can include access dates.

This is pretty fundamental but at the same time it is not particularly radical. Still, if this interpretation is the consensus, I think the WP:SELFSOURCE should be clarified.--Olsonist (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It already seems clear to me. We surely can use Conservapedia as a source in the article about Conservapedia itself. The page you would be quoting is part of Conservapedia, and the text you are quoting will remain accessible anyway in Conservapedia's history. Isn't that OK? Andrew Dalby 09:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just some links for background. The article is Conservapedia. My discussion with Olsonist is on Talk:Conservapedia in the sections 'Noted the first paragraph need something' and 'Moral relativism' and at User talk:Dmcq#Moral relativism in Conservapedia. The site is Conservapedia main page and the articles on the site are Counterexamples to relativity and Moral relativism. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dmcq. Context is important. While Andrew Dalby is right in a general way, not all self-sourcing is OK. The most obvious problem is in cases where such sourcing uses material which is self-serving, in a context in which readers might not be able to get a neutral impression out of it. But there can be other issues. From looking at that talk, I am also not really sure Dmcq and Olsonist are discussing something to do with WP:RS?

There seems to be discussion about whether certain examples are WP:DUE, and especially in a WP:LEAD.
There is also a concern about WP:SYNTH being expressed because the listing of examples is apparently being done in such a way to lead readers to a conclusion.

Neither of these potentially valid concerns are what we theoretically discuss here on RSN.

I also see a more relevant concern about WP:PRIMARY, but I do not see Dmcq saying that this is a decisive concern. But to make it clear, primary sources can be used when it makes sense to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I (we) think that WP:RSN is the closest forum to the problem.

I think that Dmcq's reservation is that Conservapedia is an unreliable source (agree) and therefore it can't be used at all, even as a self source (disagree). I think that is going too far and that it's possible to use quotes and cites from Conservapedia to illustrate their position. Care must be taken and WP:SELFSOURCE provides requirements. A good illustrating example would go a long way towards clarity.

As for self-serving, the quotes aren't being used to convince the reader of their point but rather to inform the reader that they said that. The balancing act is to do that and still maintain an NPOV but that's a separate issue from using an unreliable source.--Olsonist (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the WP:OR and WP:UNDUE potential here, but the quotations should properly be cited to Conservapedia itself and not to secondary sources. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought yes my main concern in the particular case was more about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because of citing and arguing from the Conservapedia Moral relativism page that isn't referenced in the secondary source in the New Scientist article, only the counterexamples page is. However I do wonder about SELFSOURCE too. I would prefer only pages explicitly referenced at most be referenced. My concern about article references within Conservapedia in general is that it is a wiki but I am happy to consider the Counterexamples to Relativity and Moral relativism articles as expressing something that comes under SELFSOURCE because of the very great interest the founder shows in the idea and the way anyone disagreeing with his main views gets quickly banned. So I am interested in exactly what is WP:SELFSOURCE saying. I interpret 'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves' as just meaning we may cite them for straightforward information about them like who set it up, what they say their aims are, their policies, that sort of stuff and sourcing anything extra from them would need good justification. Whilst their article is about moral relativism our article here is not actually claiming anything about relativity or morality but illustrating Conservapedia's general stance. I've been happy with a number of citations to articles in Conservapedia where they are mentioned in secondary sources and I think they contribute something though I have some misgivings about their adherence to guidelines so a better guide about that would be good. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW we don't actually quote Conservapedia on this, the quote is in the New Scientist citation and we summarize that. Dmcq (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The New Scientist reference in the lead paragraph is a separate problem. I didn't add that reference and I think that using it isn't even OR, that it's just wrong. It's a good secondary source for the Conflict with scientific views section but as a reference for that clause it's misleading. In fact that whole sentence needs to be gone over with a wrecking ball and a fine toothed comb. As I've argued on the Talk page, the phrase criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism is NOT what Conservapedia is saying. They're saying the theory of relativity is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism. These are NOT the same.

WP:SELFSOURCE is the real issue. Dmcq is saying we may cite them for straightforward information about them like who set it up. I'm saying we can cite them for their words to show their POV, etc. He's being more narrow. I'm being more broad. What you do with that quote is still limited by all sorts of other constraints.--Olsonist (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Conservapedia should be cited directly (that's why I'm here) but reliable secondary sources are ALWAYS good. I think you're saying that if an Article about ABC is that ABC said XYZ then the cite should be to XYZ and if world renowned authority IJK has written the definitive tome on the ABC then IJK can be cited in addition but not in lieu.

But I don't understand the WP:OR issue here. Can you expand?--Olsonist (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The list of articles starting with "Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include" should be thrown out. All of the examples violate WP:SYNTH because none of them comment on Conservapedia's ideology. The original research is the selection of which articles show Conservapedia's ideology; the synthesis is saying that all of these are examples of the site's ideology. In fact, I will do so. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says that "A and B, therefore C" which is not happening here. No conclusion is being made; no synthesis; the examples stand on their own. The way you are defining synthesis all lists, indeed all paragraphs of multiple sentences must have a single set of sources.--Olsonist (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the list is all from Conservapedia. There is no cross pollenation of sources. C said X, Y, Z. C also said X, Y or X, Z. Again, the examples stand on their own.

About the OR, your complaint is about the selection of which articles. That would mean an editor's choice of any illustrating example. That's certainly not in WP:OR.--Olsonist (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if SYNTH was dealt with at WP:NORN. I do not believe there is SYNTH here because all the statements are directly supported by secondary sources talking about the leanings of Conservapedia. What the concern here is about is the use of citations into Conservapedia which aren't referenced by a secondary source to talk about anything except very direct things about Conservapedia like who founded it and what it says its policies are. I can see a couple of quotes which are just supported by secondary sources which quoted them, I'll stick in the primary source in Conservapedia as well since people seem to want that but I definitely wouldn't want to just have the links into Conservapedia for them unsupported by secondary sources. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:SYNTH can be a problem when people give a bunch of examples. Olsonist says "WP:SYNTH says that "A and B, therefore C" which is not happening here." But Olsonist also says "I'm saying we can cite them for their words to show their POV, etc." There is a fuzzy line that can be cross whereby an editor is clearly trying to say that a list of carefully selected examples shows something which is not actually stated by any third party publication outside Misplaced Pages. This needs to be considered by editors and is not really an RSN issue.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to the more formal question, as now defined, for this noticeboard: can primary sources be used to show what those primary sources say. The answer is clearly yes, as per Andrew Dalby. This is of course in the context of all the other doubts that might arise such notability, or whether there is a sort of implicit synthesis happening. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I have a good example from the quotes of the problem. Secondary sources about the Conservative Bible Project say 'free of corruption from liberal untruths' which is a direct quote from the Conservapedia About page . They do not however directly reference that page.The Comnservative Bible Project page says 'Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations.' I do not think we are entitled to put in the second quote about their Bible Projet and I think we are entitled to put in the first quote. I think SELFSORCE would allow the second quote. Do people think the second quote is allowable in the article or not? Do you think the first quote is allowable and should it be cited to the page that has it even when not directly referenced? Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

One can use Conservapedia as a source in instances outlined in the guideline. One can't just quote the first portion, while ignoring the caveats. The relevant ones listed below:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;

If one is challenged by other editors, and the material does not fit into the caveats, it should not be used. An editor could gain consensus by showing the material is not "unduly self-serving", "does not involve claims about third parties" or "there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity", but that does not seem to fit here. This is better discussed on the article Talk page because of the reasons listed above. Dave Dial (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't challenging any of that. I was challenging the interpretation of 'be used as sources of information about themselves' and how far that extended. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think DD2K's listing gives the 3 normal boundaries with regards to WP:RS? There could be other concerns such as WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH, but for WP:RS, apart from those 3 concerns, it is OK to quote sources when those sources are the subject, as long as editors can agree that it is done in a relevant and balanced way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely it can't be okay to trawl through Conservapedia and stick in references to whatever strikes one's fancy? I would have thought secondary sources would be needed for anything that wasn't obviously top level obvious. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. We do not have to put everything that can be reliably sourced in an article. When we use unreliable sources as a primary source for their own opinions we should indeed use them in ways that make clear, balanced, and notable points. But this is something for editors to judge with more than just an eye on what policy allows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'notable' in what you said is the point. I would dispute that a page that isn't mentioned in a secondary source is notable and only admit a few non-notable pages under SELFSOURCE. However it seems you would admit any page. The problem is people say notability only applies to the overall topic and not individual sections. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your argument about relying on a secondary source before using a primary source is (in my mind) similar to Binksternet's argument that selection of which articles is OR. I respectfully disagree but I see the similarity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonist (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Yes I do think what you want to do is OR. I am rather surprised though that people here seem so cavalier about citing most any old article out of Conservapedia provided it isn't overtly promotional just because the article is about the site. Dmcq (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so for the OR issue I'll post something over at NOR.--Olsonist (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, potentially the selection of a quote from a large source like this could be accused of being OR. I am not saying that is the case here, but it might be worth discussing. What is "original" or "non obvious" is the question you'll need to try to develop a consensus about. It seems like both of you are in any case making good efforts to find such a consensus, which is great.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've opened up a section on WP:NORN.--Olsonist (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Rockpool Publishing

Anyone know anything about Rockpool publishing? I've a specific question about this book in particular for doula. Don't know what I think about a book on doulas also published by a company that publishes astrology. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It gives the impression of being a work of advocacy, so I'd be wary of citing it. If it is widely referred to its current appearance in the external lins might be OK as long as it is described correctly. Mangoe (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced it in "Further" with something from Da Capo Press. Authors are academics, should be better. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that the author is certainly an expert, so the book should be acceptable. Lots of crap is published by publishers who also publish authoritative works; it's how they stay in business. IMO most editors put too much weight on the publisher when trying to determine reliability. I've seen POV editors use the publisher as their main argument whilst trying to sneak in obvious non-RS sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Interviews and film critic personal websites

http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/gran-torino-interview-with-clint-eastwood-2/ is the website of a film critic, Emanuel Levy. I want to use the interviews of the Gran Torino actors and staff in the Gran Torino article. Is that fine? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:SPS. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuff We Like

This is being used to verify Michael Bay's announcement of the character development of the new 2013 Ninja Turtles film. Can this site be deemed as a reliable source? Sarujo (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The about page mentions fixed staff, so it is apparently not based on un-moderated user contributions from anonymous netizens. That is a good sign. A second key question is whether it has a good reputation, and are worth citing. They claim to be widely cited, but maybe some quick checks can be done to see whether they are widely cited by notable publications on the web?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The source appears congruent to the topic, so it is in context, and the content is "labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users", so I would say yes. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference check

I came across a user who was blocked for making legal threats. He said on his talk page that a quote attributed to him was fabricated. I don't know if this is true or not, so can someone check the source to see if it is a reliable one? The source is ref #32 on the London mayoral election, 2012 (sorry, I don't know how to copy refs) Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As used the source is reliable. The subject's public rebuttal (where he claims that the quote was fabricated) is also mentioned in the article. Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The source is La Nación, which appears to be a reliable source as it is used in the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories: