Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srich32977 (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 19 September 2013 (→consultingbyrpm.com/blog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Sources used in Iranian presidential election, 2013

05:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable self-published source?

Note. It appears at last that Czixhc has accepted the overwhelming consensus both here and at WP:ANI that the source is not reliable for the purposes proposed, and accordingly, this discussion can be considered closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional aclaration As i said in that noticeboard, I desist for now, but i reserve the right to wait until one or more administrators unrelated to this issue revise my case on detail, with the proper time and without the pressure that several editors (the majority not administrators) might apply to the case. Additionaly I will take measures regarding the unrespectful behavoir that you've shown on this discussion. Czixhc (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In which case, I have no alternative but to once more call for you to be blocked for your refusal to accept consensus, and your continued tendentious behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Which part of I desist didn't you understood? you need to catch a breath. Czixhc (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

Discussion is continuing below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stuck – No substantive problem has been presented for uninvolved editors' review or comment. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Commment: I don't think highly involved editors are supposed to "Close" discussions, are they? User:Carolmooredc 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC) The "Stuck" tag does not mean the discussion is "Closed", but it may serve to divert attention. As mentioned below, I do not think adding it serves resolution. I suggest you remove the tag, in which case I will hat my comments below. – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I am hatting hatted this "Stuck" tag and comments. Questions regarding the substantive problem have been presented, but not answered. The "Stuck" tag only serves to deflect attention from the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Hat was reverted by User:SPECIFICO. This comment has been restored and revised.21:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Source: Callahan, Gene (January 2, 2012). "Murphy on LvMI"
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#The Institute as a cult
3. Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology." (Later modified to read: "Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology." (Footnote 39 "Murphy on LvMI" remains))
4. Article talk page thread: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Former Mises scholar repudiates Institute as .22cult.22

– S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the only assertion I am arguing Gene Callahan's blog should be used to source is: in the opinion of Gene Callahan, a former Mises Institute Scholar, the Institute is a cult. This assertion is presented specifically as the opinion of Professor Callahan in the article; the opinion is notable because Callahan is a notable academic who for years worked closely with the Institute. I submit that his blog is a reliable source for presenting his view of the Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. We aren't a gossip rag, and his expertise does not relate to the sociological study of cults. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Steeltrap; what you need is a RS that identifies the fact that Callahan's opinion on this is notable. --Errant 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
    • FYI, Callahan did not inititate the "cult" label. He is commenting on statment by Mises employee Robert Murphy, who wrote a blog post which denies that Mises Institute is a cult. I have no idea why Murphy denied it, presumably others uncited by Murphy asserted it. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • (By OP): Thus we have a blog by Callahan commenting on another blog, by Murphy, who is SPS and an expert commenting about third parties (the Mises Institute and the members of the Mises Institute "cult") in a subject outside of his area of expertise. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the "non-expert" bit is a straw man. These are ordinary English language opinions. Neither blogger presents an academic theory as to the sociological structure and functioning of a cult. Please drop it and concentrate on the matter at hand. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply by OP: Non-expert goes to the heart of the matter. If Murphy or Callahan are experts, they can comment as experts in their field of expertise. Either way their blogs are subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS. In this regard they are commenting about third parties and their opinions are not acceptable RS. (Are you defending the use of the Callahan (or Murphy) blog in this context? If so, say so. If not, please render an opinion and say the Callahan blog is not acceptable RS.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Unreliable. The assertion should be picked up in a more reliable source to be repeated by Misplaced Pages. Let's see if it appears in a magazine or newspaper article. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Time Magazine and National Review. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By OP: So?? Are you saying Time & National Review somehow justify usage of the Callahan blog as RS? Or perhaps the Callahan blog is no longer needed? Please clarify. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Misplaced Pages:SPS#Self-published_sources. User:Carolmooredc 02:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment by OP: It is quite extraordinary that User:SPECIFICO should tag this RSN as "stuck". Specifico has been asked to render an opinion, and not done so. Specifico has been asked to clarify the issue as to added references, and has not done so. If there is "No substantive problem", why do we have editors/admins commenting, and opining that the Callahan blog is not RS in this context? Editors are encouraged to take another look at the article talk page (linked above). If I was not the OP, I'd remove this ersatz "stuck" tag. – S. Rich (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich Please comment on content and not your feelings about me or other editors. I am an involved editor in this matter, having stated my comfort with the Callahan reference on the article talk page.

The purpose of this RSN thread is to hear from uninvolved editors so as to broaden the discussion. If you still believe, in light of all the additional material that's recently been added, that it's problematic for PhD economist and former senior Mises faculty member Callahan to question Murphy's statement that Mises Institute's pursuit of its "economic theories" couldn't possibly be cultish, you need to present a well-formed theory as to why the reference should be impeached. I've already responded above to your straw-man "non-expert" denial, which fails on its face because the question is the manner in which the Institute purports to discuss the area of Callahan's academic and professional expertise. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSPS says 'no' to Callahan's blog used to demean the easily identifiable individuals of an institute. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That fails the "judge judy" test. No person has been impugned by Callahan's rejection of Murphy. Murphy states that to no group which solicits dissent can be a cult. GC disagrees. So what? No statement about any individual behavior. Misesians know that such a statement does not entail any implication about any individual. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by OP. SPS says we cannot use blogs that talk about third parties. This restriction is not limited to individuals. – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich That is a direct misrepresentation of the SPS policy. The policy says SPS should not be used "as third-party sources about living people." Please be familiar with policy and take care to cite it fully and accurately. The policy you claim to cite has nothing to do with "talk about third parties" who are not living people. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason this thread remains stuck is that there is no identified policy violation related to the disputed content. When a series of inapplicable policies are raised, whack-a-mole style it doesn't lead to a convergence of interpretation one way or the other. Callahan states that just because an organization solicits dissent does not mean that it's not a cult. He's responding to his colleague Murphy. No party person or any other entity has been disparaged. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The disputed content is stated above – #3 Content: "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology." (The new mole appeared when this sentence was modified, without any notification in this RSN. A note was added to the effect that Time and National Review had been added, and I asked for clarification – but no clarification was posted here.) In any event, the basic issue is whether or not the Callahan blog is acceptable as SPS. Since Callahan seems to be addressing (according to this new rationale) the question of cultishness raised by Murphy, perhaps both the Murphy and Callahan blogs should be removed. (Moreover, this assertion by Callahan is the first sentence of the "cult" section and is not put into context as "refuting" anything other than (now) alluding to Murphy (who is mentioned in the earlier section – without using the term cult). Whether or not the language is disparaging is not the issue. Any SPS which references third parties/persons/entities -- praising them or burying them -- is not acceptable. There is no misrepresentation of policy. See: WP:SELFPUB #2 "it does not involve claims about third parties;" – S. Rich (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are claiming that it's acceptable for you to mis-state WP policy on this board, as I demonstrated that you have just done, you are mistaken. This thread remains pointless and stuck. If you believe that the content is inappropriate as sourced, you need to relate the content to the policy which it violates and to state the basis upon which you assert that the text violates policy. In doing so, you need to be sure that you are accurately citing and applying the policy. Going from one inapt citation to another to another is not constructive and cannot lead to any resolution here. Clearly you have editors engaged and eager to hear you out but there is no grist for the mill. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that the Callahan piece is a blog, and thereby comes under the guidance of SPS. At the same time SPECIFICO says "He's responding to his colleague Murphy." But in so doing SPECIFICO refuses to acknowledge that by "responding to his colleague Murphy" Callahan is making a claim that involves a living third party – Murphy and whatever Murphy said elsewhere. (In other words, SPECIFICO does not seem to understand that the SPS claim does not have to be about a third party in particular. The policy applies if the blog seeks to refute or confirm something that the third party said or did.) SPECIFICO argues that the nature or issue of this RSN discussion was changed because he made a change in the article text – but SPECIFICO did not inform this notice board of the change, much less ask if a proposed change could resolve this discussion. (E.g., it would have been so simple, so open, so forthright to say "I propose that we change the content to read 'blah-blah-blah.'" And then ask the opinion of those who are following this thread.) Nor did SPECIFICO bring up the idea of a change on the article talk page. In the very line above SPECIFICO's latest notation I cite the policy about using blogs when making claims which involve third parties, but SPECIFICO says I am "mis-stating" policy. Just what policy am I mis-stating? Please state it correctly. Enlighten us. – S. Rich (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unreliable in general and for the proposed use. A representative survey of the relevant literature shows that the issue of whether the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a cult does not exist, so the subsection cannot be said to place the Ludwig von Mises Institute subject in context. In addition, the extraordinary claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult needs to be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources, which Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not produced by a reliable third party. Also, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. See Identifying reliable sources - context matters. Only one person, Gene Callahan, could be considered to have engaged in checking facts, there is no indication of whether Callahan did or is capable of analyzing legal issues related to the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult, or that anyone but Callahan scrutinized the writing. There is no evidence that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com has received peer-review, has been vetted by the scholarly community, or has received any scholarly citations. Callahan's blog exist mainly to promote Callahan's particular point of view. The source fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Gene Callahan is an American economist, not an expert on cults or scientology. Callahan has no work regarding cults that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Callahan is not an established expert on Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. The blog makes an exceptional claim about third parties and is unduly self-serving since it does not express a viewpoint but instead uses unsupported conclusions regarding Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult. Gene-callahan.blogspot.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF. The source is unreliable for use within Misplaced Pages. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "A representative survey of the relevant literature" - Please be specific and describe what survey and what literature? Remember the text only presents Callahan's view, it does not state in WP's voice that any group is a cult. There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement. You are mistaken as to WP policy with respect to peer review and the use of a blog only for the author's opinion, because Callahan is a noted academician and expert on Misesian thought. Please provide the information about your survey. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The survey is my search and review of a database of print media that I have access to. The survey was to determine the wider issue of whether the cult subsection belongs in the article. It does not, which, among other reasons, makes 'The Institute as a cult' claim an extraordinary claim, requiring that the claim be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. We both agree that Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not a Misplaced Pages high-quality reliable source. The text presents Callahan's view on cult and Scientology, and we both agree that Callahan is not an expert on either one. You state that I am mistaken as to WP policy. However, that is just a conclusion not supported by an analysis whereas my post uses WP policy/guideline to review whether Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is an unreliable source in general and for the proposed use in Misplaced Pages. While we may come to different conclusions on that, what matters is the strength of argument and policy/guidelines, not posting opinion conclusion. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to place the subject in context through a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature, fairly and without bias. The use of Gene-callahan.blogspot.com in the article does not do that. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Time and National Review pieces by Justin Fox and Jonah Goldberg do not use the term/phrase "to a cult" or "cult". That material, lacking verification, has been removed from the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those references are the subject of this thread. Did you mean to post this comment elsewhere? SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "There are several RS cited in the article which either refer to vMI as a cult or address Murphy's statement." Why not specify which RS supports the notion that LvMI is a cult? The two items were citations supposedly supporting a description of LvMI as a cult. If there is non-blog RS that describes LvMI as a cult, we might be able to use it without using the Callahan blog. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for sourcing Callahan's opinions Respectfully, I must say I think a lot of my peers are misunderstanding what the source is being used to say. The sourced statement does not say LvMI is, as a matter of fact, a cult; it simply says that this is in the opinion of Gene Callahan. I believe Callahan's blog is a reliable source of what he believes. I also believe the opinion of a former prominent scholar at an institution (who is currently a notable and credible academic at Cardiff University) regarding the nature and work of that institution is relevant. Steeletrap (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee's excellent point that Callahan is not an expert in cults applies here. Even if he were an expert, the Callahan opinion is not accompanied by a description of what characteristics he is talking about, what made him come to the conclusion. The bit you wish to include is not encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So would your concern be addressed by including article text which specifies the issue to which Murphy and Callahan refer? The specific characteristics are in the cited sources but not in the current article text. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, you say the Time & National Review references are not part of this thread. But just what article changes are there that address the issue of Callahan's blog as an appropriate or inappropriate reference? – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say/ask, but if this thread again goes off-topic, I fear that it will again become stuck. Consider moving your comment out of the area in which Jreferee, Binksternet and I are discussing Callahan or, if your comment did not relate to Callahan, removing it altogether. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, you added the comment to this thread that Time & National Review had been added to the article. But you did not explain how doing so resolved this RSN. And then you said Time & National Review are not part of this tread, but you alluded to other additions to the article, again not explaining how they impact the question of this RSN. It is regrettable that you have "no idea" of what is being asked. If Time & NR are not pertinent to the RSN, please help us out and explain: 1. what are "the cited sources" that are pertinent and 2. why the Callahan blog is acceptable RS as used in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't help you because I don't understand you. Consider dropping this thread and posting a fresh, more clearly stated, question for RSN assistance. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Steeletrap understands – seems to me that other editors do. But if Steele (or anyone else) does not post in the near future I shall request WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Threads are generally left open for a month except in the case of withdrawal or obvious consensus, neither of which has thus far been achieved here. If you care about this matter, you owe it to your peers and to WP to make a clear, policy-based statement of the question you wish to raise, citing diffs to article text and WP policy. In any case, you need to read all the source references, which various editors have stated you appear not to have done. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The high horse attitude does not help your case. S. Rich made it abundantly clear that this thread is about whether the Callahan blog should be used in the LvMI article to say the Institute is a cult. Many have weighed in on the matter, and it looks like consensus is against the blog. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello binksternet, in case you missed it, I replied to one of your posts here a few days ago and asked your view on a way some of your concerns might be met. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just found out about this chat here and I'm still trying to catch up, so could someone please help me out? I'm not sure what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views. I totally see why we can't state them as fact, but it doesn't look like anyone is trying to, so the objections aren't even wrong; they just miss the target.

If I'm wrong, 'splain it to me in small words. MilesMoney (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Note, the archive default on this board is 5 days (not 30). I have requested WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich I would have expected you to understand that the archive parameter is not the same thing as closure of an ongoing discussion. There are questions which various editors have posed in the course of the thread in their responses to various other editors' comments here -- for example Miles' request that you summarize your view. Closure would not be constructive until the open questions have been addressed, and frankly it's hard to see what's to be gained by such a proposal. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A 5 day automatic archive means the discussion will disappear from the active board unless someone adds a new posting every 4-5 days. MilesMoney posted 3 days ago. Adding a timestamp for the sake of keeping a thread open, e.g., without adding to the content, serves little purpose. Next, if there are open questions, you might restate them. For example: Is it a question whether or not the blog is a personal blog? Is a question as to the fact that Callahan is commenting about another personal blog? Is it a question as to the fact that Callahan's area of expertise is economics? Indeed, because Callahan is talking about his personal experience at LvMI is there a question about whether he is a PRIMARY source? And is there a question as to whether he is talking about third parties and persons? (Or is there another open question that needs addressing?) Other editors seem to understand these issues, and I would trust the editor closing the discussion to do so with a considered determination. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Miles asked you a question here. Unless I'm missing something, the simplest thing would be for you to give him the courtesy of a response. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I will quote Binksternet from a few days ago: "S. Rich made it abundantly clear that this thread is about whether the Callahan blog should be used in the LvMI article to say the Institute is a cult." That said, repeating myself (or seeking to do MilesMoney's homework) is not productive. But I will respond to Miles – "I'm sorry, MilesMoney, but you are wrong. Please read through the material above." – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked you a question and you refused to answer it. No matter how you try to spin it, you evaded the question. This is not productive. MilesMoney (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There are questions worth a response and there are other questions. This thread has gone on long enough to determine consensus against using Callahan's blog to say Callahan believes LvMI is a cult. In the end it is a matter of WP:WEIGHT: If Callahan has not been quoted by reliable secondary sources then how important is this single blog post of his? Perhaps it is like the tree falling in the forest with none to hear. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My questions are worthy of a response, it is premature to say that the thread has come to a consensus, and your response is unhelpful. MilesMoney (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing the points made (except for OP, are presented in order of first posting):

If changes to the summary statements are desired, please let me know. – S. Rich (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The summary is not appropriate or constructive and you should redact it with a strike-through. Your table misrepresents or omits key points of several participants here. It creates the impression that you as OP are trying to control or influence the outcome of the thread in a non-collegial way. You are among peers in this discussion and you have appropriated an undue role for yourself. The discussion is ongoing. When the discussion has run its course, whoever closes it will be quite capable of fulfilling that function. Do you see other OPs acting similarly? The table should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• What points need revision & how? – S. Rich (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The summary is inaccurate and you still haven't answered my direct question. I'll ask it again: what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views?

Please tell me what parts of the summary are inaccurate – I shall be happy to fix. The policy WP:SPS. Callahan can give his opinion regarding his field of expertise – economics. We do not allow personal blog material that goes beyond that relevant field. Questionable sources "are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're kind of missing the point. Well, multiple points, really. The big one is that WP:SPS can't have anything to do with this because it's not a WP:BLP and we're not using Callahan for expert claims in the first place. We're using him (and Murphy) for their statements about their own experiences with the Institute. They're talking about themselves and what they believe, which is something each of us is qualified to discuss.

So long as we properly attribute these claims to them, as opposed to silently endorsing them by speaking as Misplaced Pages, we're being fair and accurate, and we're following all the rules. The only legitimate basis you could have for claiming unreliability is if you had some verifiable reason to believe that Callahan and Murphy didn't actually say these things or that the basic background facts (such as their association with the Institute) were false. Is that what you're claiming? If not, you need to walk away, because you seem to be grasping at straws here in your attempt to obstruct material whose content you dislike. Misplaced Pages is not censored, remember? MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, your points have been incorporated into the summary. Please let me know if more addition or revision is needed. (While you mentioned Murphy, I left those out because the Murphy blog is under discussion in another thread.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study

1. Source: Barma, Sukhbilas Bhāwāiyā (2004) Ethnomusicological Study by Sukhbilas Barma, Global Vision Publishing Ho
2. Article: Kamrupi dialect
3. Content: diff
4. Issues:
   • Barma uses the name "Kamrupi" to denote the Rajbanshi dialect (p97). This is non-standard because Kamrupi is already used for the dialect of the Kamrup region, much further to the east of the region Barma defines for Rajbanshi. Is Barma (2007) a reliable source for the definition of "Kamrupi"?
   • Barma further claims that Chatterji and Sen (in the next paragraph) calls the a language "Kamrupi", which is not true. Chatterji defines a dialect of Middle_Indo-Aryan Magadhi Prakrit "Kamarupa dialect", where Kamarupa denotes a much larger area that includes Kamrup region. Chatterji's use is given here: (https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/45743/33/08chapter7.pdf, Figure 7-3, page=302). Is Barma a reliable source for the usage of "Kamrupi" for the Magadhan dialect that Chatterji calls "Kamarupa Dialect", and imply it is the same dialect as modern Kamrupi?

Chaipau (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems this is too arcane an issue for general interest. So let me ask a general question instead. If author-one claims author-two said something, but if on scrutiny I find that author-two did not say such a thing, then how should I address this issue without WP:OR on my part? Chaipau (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no one replied, Chaipau. But I don't think the question's difficult. Just cite author-two. There are any number of mistakes and misreadings in the world's academic history: most of them are best ignored and forgotten. If author-one is extremely influential, or very frequently cited by Wikipedians (Q: is that the same thing?) then author-one's error may need pointing out in a footnote. Does that work for you? Andrew Dalby 09:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, for your comments. It is helpful. I could not find a citation template to tag this particular instance.

In this case Author-one (Barma) is not influential, but his work is available on books.google.com and searchable, so is widely used on Misplaced Pages. He is an ex-Bureaucrat and a current politician, and the book reflects his particular brand of politics. By no means is he a linguist. To push his political views, he uses non-standard terminologies not used in scholarship. There seems to be some serious problems with this work. Author-two (Chatterji), OTOH, is a very well regarded scholar, whose work is not searchable on the web.

Chaipau (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, this is the most difficult kind of case for us: we naturally steer towards sources that can be read online.

Since Chatterji is a reliable source, we can use him as much as we need to. It is a matter of Wikipedians' editorial judgment, and not a question of OR, whether we use Barma at all, and whether we point out that Barma's use of Chatterji is misleading (with all necessary quotations, if the matter is sufficiently important). In sum, I think you need not worry unduly about OR. Maybe others will now want to comment too ... Andrew Dalby 08:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am ready to scan parts of these unsearchable sources and upload them on Misplaced Pages, if the need so arises.

A related problem I am facing is addressing cherry-picked quotes, especially when quoting scholars whose first language is not English. I have seen sometimes, while emphasizing a point, scholars go on to connote something entirely different. For example, they make comments like "A is nothing but B" to emphasize a strong connection between A and B, but the connotation is "A is B", and I have seen it being used as such. I see that this cannot be addressed without the participation of a larger number of editors with some degree of domain knowledge. Chaipau (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

caic.org.au

Source: caic.org.au

Article: Landmark Worldwide, and others:

• culthelp.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• caic.org.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• (other domain redirects may exist as well)

Content:

• In the article Landmark Worldwide:

  ...with former members reporting manipulative and coercive techniques such as sleep deprivation.

  and (in the lede):

  In some quarters, it has been classed as a cult, with some participants alleging the use of manipulative and coercive techniques.

• On the Talk:Landmark Worldwide, it is being used by editors to forward claims that the company is a cult.
• These claims (among others) are then being used to support the company's inclusion at List of new religious movements.

Commentary:

• As near as I can tell, CAIC is now a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere. (A Whois search shows that the site is registered to an individual, not an organization.)
• The site is clear that it has an agenda.
• It (CAIC) has a statement on most pages that it is not saying anything in their voice.
• The site does not have clear ownership (the site copyright actually includes the phrase "Yada yada yada").
• Our own article on the only "source" for CAIC's voice says that she passed away nearly 13 years ago (over six years before the domain was registered).
• In the example of Landmark Worldwide, it is being used as a source to support a rather exceptional claim.

Is the source (caic.org.au and other redirected domains) a reliable source? Does it support the statements made at Landmark Worldwide quoted above?

• Not reliable - As proposer of commentary above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: As I suggested on the Article Talk page given CAIC is a clearinghouse of links to other articles (which are not being disputed individually) then one option would be to source each article directly. However, the opposite holds, if each CAIC linked article is not being disputed individually then why is CAIC being disputed as an aggregate of links? AnonNep (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable From looking around the site it appears to be mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course, I can write one of those, inclusion on that site wouldn't make it authoritative. Indeed on this page http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73&Itemid=12 the site maintainer "Jan Groenveld" says "Most of the articles regarding Landmark/Forum/EST are anecdotal - subjective experiences of others who have been through the Landmark/Forum/EST experience. They are provided to give an alternate viewpoint to that found on their own website." in other words articles on the site about Landmark are selected because they disagree with Landmark's own website, not because they necessarily have merit. Jasonfward (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The specific page on CAIC that mentions Landmark lists its sources (including publishing a Landmark rebuttal to its own content for balance) and does include a few 'subjective experiences' but is more of 'a self-published aggregation of material presumably published elsewhere' than 'mostly personal opinion pieces by people who have attended a Landmark course'. But, as said, the 'subjective experiences' could be ignored & other sources directly linked to the same effect:
    • 42 Hours, $500, 65 Breakdowns - Mother Jones, Volume 34/August 2009
    • ABC Radio National "Background Briefing" documentary on Landmark Education - ABC Radio National (Australian National Broadcaster)
    • 60 Minutes: Werner Erhard (March 3, 1991) - US CBS '60 Minutes' with link to transcript
    • "The Fuhrer Over est" by Jesse Kornbluth - New Times, New York, March 19, 1976. Pp. 29-52.
    • Marriage licence for Jack Rosenberg / Curt Wilhelm VonSavage / Werner and Ellen Erhard etc - Book excerpt 'Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile', Steve Pressman, 1993
    • AUDIO: Werner Erhard interview with Barbara Walters (1976) - as per description
    • Inside Landmark Forum (transcript) - English language transcript of French documentary "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous"
    • Inside Landmark Forum (video) - video of above with English subtitles
    • Landmark Education reply to France 3 documentary - Right of reply offered by CAIC to Landmark
    • The Forum Begins: The Curriculum and Pedagogy - Ph.D Dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • The Structure: First Sights Of The Forum - Excerpt from dissertation by Charles Wayne Denison, University of Denver, 1994
    • "Not interested in people - but only money" - Personal experience copyrighted to Rick Ross
    • Soul Training (another Landmark experince) - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999.
    • There's no meeting of the Minds - Westword, April 18-24, 1996
    • Mind game courses aimed at public sector workers - The Times, July 22, 1992
    • "Landmark Forum is a very aggressive and selfish program" - 'By an attendee of Landmark Education', 1988
    • The Con-Forumists - Swing Generation, November 1998
    • The Forum: Cult or comfort? - Boston Globe, March 3, 1999
    • Mellow Out Or You Will Pay - Argus Magazine, December 1980
    • Landmark Education - by Andy Testa
    • Cults & Psychological Abuse (my experience in the forum) - 'taken from remarks -- considerably expanded -- that I delivered as a panel member at a discussion called "Cults and Psychological Abuse" on 30 October 1992 at Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh'.
    • Part 1 Of a Discussion on AOL - as titled
    • Part 2 of a discussion on AOL - as titled.

AnonNep (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this gaggle of links appear to either be to unreliable sources (the AOL chat might be my favorite) or to sources that don't actually discuss the claims that this source is being used to report. In any case, these links are irrelevant to whether the CAIC itself is a reliable source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable if used with care. Despite the statement by Tgeairn, CAIC is not cited as a reference for the "cult" label at all in the Landmark article (for which other sources are cited), but rather only for the statement that there have been reports of "manipulative and coercive techniques". Nor has this source ever been discussed on the Talk:List of new religious movements page. Although I agree that there are other sources that can and should be used to support this brief statement, that is no reason to deem the existing reference unreliable. CAIC, and its website, are cited in academic literature, and a very quick search turns up several:
  • Jeffry Kaplan: "Doomsday Religious Movements" in 2002. Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future. London: Routledge/Frank Cass Publishers.(references)
  • George Chryssides: "Heavenly Deception" in James R. Lewis, Olav Hammer, eds. 2007. The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press (references)
  • George Chryssides: 2011. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press (bibliography)
  • Margaret Thaler Singer, ‎Janja Lalich: 1994. Cults in Our Midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers (acknowledgements as an important resource)
  • Nancy K. Grant Ph. D., Diana J. Mansell R. N.: "Eckankar (co-worker with God) The Religion of Light and Sound" in 2008. A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People. New York: iUniverse (references)
  • Thomas J. Badey, ed. August 2004. Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism 05/06. edition: 8. Dubuque: McGraw Hill Contemporary Learning Series (references)
  • Sharon Brehm, Saul Kassin, Steven Fein, et. al.: Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (recommended resource)

Moreover, according to CAIC's Wiki article, it has had notable run-ins with Landmark in the past, and CAIC would also be a relaiable source for its side of that story, again, if used carefully. • Astynax 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that CAIC is cited in academic literature, please review your references:

• In Millennial Violence: Past, Present, and Future, it is listed in a list of Internet Addresses in the "References and suggested reading" section. CAIC is never cited in the book.
• In "Heavenly Deception", the actual reference is to "Hassan, Steve, "The Truth about Sun Myung Moon" and includes a url for a copy of that article on CAIC's site. CAIC isn't the source in that reference, and does not provide any content other than hosting a copy of someone else's web page.
• In Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, CAIC is listed in a list of Critical, Countercult, and Cult Monitoring Sites. Being listed in a list of websites does not mean it is being used as a source. There is a reference to caic.org regarding MSIA, which takes the reader to an unattributed copy of an excerpt of someone thoughts on the subject. Again, there is not material here from CAIC, only an unattributed copy of someone else's work.
• I cannot find any reference to CAIC in Cults in Our Midst. Can you verify that one?
• Following the pattern, A Guidebook to Religious and Spiritual Practices for People Who Work with People uses CAIC as a repository for other people's material (and is not exactly "academic literature").
• Annual Editions: Violence and Terrorism, included on a list of websites - the exact same list as the others.
• Instructor's Resource Manual: Social Psychology, the name of the website is listed in a list of websites that are accessible from a personal website. Again, no material from CAIC is being used as a source.

In none of the "academic literature" you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all. At best, it is included in a list of websites; and at worst it is being used as a webhost for someone else's material. Neither of these make it a reliable source. --Tgeairn (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: You are again mischaracterizing the issue at hand. A great many reliable sources are collections of information from multiple authors/sources. For each book/journal listed, I already provided in which way the site was listed. Academic authors do not include items in their references unless they have used them as sources and/or regard them as reliable for their readers/students. They do not tend to put unreliable sources in their recommended reading lists or bibliographies unless they have either used the source or think it will be valuable for their readers/students. The sole exception for that would be if the article criticized the source as unreliable, which none of the above do in regard to CAIC. Even were we to dismiss reference, bibliography and recommended reading lists (and we should not), your contention that "In none of the 'academic literature' you listed is CAIC used as a source for anything at all" is patently false. Chryssides certainly cites them, and authors do not thank sources in their acknowledgements for the contributions made by the sources toward completion of the work unless they have made use of the source. • Astynax 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Not reliable As above, the CAIC website is clearly a self-published website that appears to have no scholarly or academic credentials. Moreover, the site itself doesn't even appear to make the claims that the source is being used to support. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Not reliable per WP:SPS. Of course if some of the links on that site point to sources that are WP:RS, there is no reason why those references could not be cited directly. It does seem however that, of the links that point to to newspaper and magazine articles, many are Op-ed pieces rather than news reports, or quotations by the reporter of the opinions of non-notable or unnamed individuals. DaveApter (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, it is not reliable in the sense that it can't be used to say Landmark Worldwide is a "cult" and therefore a "new religious movement". When you go to the CAIC site the first thing you see is a big disclaimer saying "Just because a group is mentioned on this site does not mean we regard it as a destructive cult. Both Cults and Isms are listed to provide information for those seeking the downside of many of these movements." So in their words, they're not saying it's a cult; also I don't think the self-published reviews there are reliable sources either. I'm not saying that Landmark doesn't have problems, but I don't think this is the way to deal with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

WGmaps article sources

not sure any of the external refs have any real relevance besides a passing mention that the site exists, nothing to do with notability. Thoughts on this madnesss? 05:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

traveltrends.biz

Can I get consensus on whether or not articles (not comments) on this website are reliable? Their about page states that they are owned by "Bluewater Press" and written by "Martin Kelly", but I don't know them from a hole in the ground and have no idea what his credentials are on this topic. The main reason for questioning this is to try and de-puffery STA Travel, a recently created article, with some criticism grounded in reality, and their article here was the top hit in a Google News search on the company. I don't want to do it, though, if this is just one non-notable person's rant. Ritchie333 09:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The article you mentioned is unreliable gossip published in an SPS form. While this forum may change its nature later, at the moment it is SPS. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Russian Misplaced Pages a reliable source?

Sorry to ask a question I think I already know the answer to, but an editor has been repeatedly overwriting parts or all of the article Mark Feygin with an unsourced version from the Russian Misplaced Pages. Am I correct in stating there that Russian Misplaced Pages is not in itself a reliable source, but that independent secondary sources should be provided? An outside opinion would be appreciated to help move the discussion forward. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the Russian-language Misplaced Pages, like this one, is not a reliable source for our purposes. If there's a sound article in the Russian Misplaced Pages, then it should have reliable sources to draw on. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but an extra comment: Translations from other language wikipedias are pretty common as a starting point and I guess it worth remarking that this in itself is not bad. Like with all edits, it is once that editors express reasonable doubt that demonstration becomes necessary that things can be verified in reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

England

Are the sources cited in the subsection "England" here reliable for the statement made in that subsection? Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They are. But whether or not the text should be included is another matter. TFD (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Roscelese's objection is that information that (to me, at least) certainly falls into the category of the "Catholic Church and abortion" somehow doesn't fit the topic. It would seem that she now thinks the topic is only supposed to involve conflicts within the Catholic Church over abortion. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've already explained repeatedly to Esoglou that a) the event's lack of relevance to Catholicism or the Catholic Church is the primary reason it doesn't belong, with the poor quality of the sources a secondary concern, and b) that there is a range in source quality and "not outright fabricating something" is not the only standard that needs to be met. This WP:IDHT is very childish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TFD's comment. Unfortunately, this had to be got out of the way first. It is indeed regrettable that a posting here was needed to get acceptance of something so obvious as the reliability of the cited sources for their report on the Church's declaration. Discussion on inclusion of the declaration can now follow. Esoglou (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody said that the sources were unreliable in the sense that they had possibly fabricated the statement, your claim that you've somehow achieved any kind of consensus here is annoying and tendentious. Please stop, and discuss the points people have actually made as though you were a productive editor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

TFD has clearly stated that "the sources cited in the subsection 'England'" in the article are "reliable for the statement made in that subsection". Nobody has contradicted him, at least not explicitly. You have remarked that there is a range of source quality, but have not said he is mistaken in judging that the sources reach at least the necessary minimum level of quality. You say that nobody said that the sources were unreliable in a certain sense, but again have refrained from stating your own view on their reliability for what they say. Do you contradict TFD's statement, which I support? If you do, please say explicitly that you hold that the cited sources are not reliable for what they state. We could then see whether the view you will be the first to express gets gets support from other editors. This noticeboard is about reliability of sources. It is not the place to discuss claims that there is no relevancy for the Catholic Church in its own public protest against the impunity that enables doctors to break the law by accepting to perform forbidden abortions (!) We can discuss points like that elsewhere. Esoglou (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're making yourself look like a fool and I can't help feeling second-hand embarrassment just from being in this conversation. Please stop humiliating yourself and stick to the topic: whether a self-published statement of someone's opinion on an unrelated event justifies inclusion of that event in an article. Nobody has stated that the sources don't support the statement, although if you do think that these niche opinion-based sources have a habit of fabricating material, that would be a good thing to consider before you use them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That the cited sources are reliable for the statement based on them is the only view that has been expressed here. Not even Roscelese has denied their reliability. This noticeboard is not the place to discuss the topic of whether what these reliable sources say should be included in the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Is an abstract of an unpubished paper referring to a conference delivery a reliable source? Subject Khazars and genetics

At Khazars, an editor has introduced a large amount of material from this source. The scholars are all notable, and the paper will be published shortly. But in 7 years, I have never seen anything like this kind of snippet, prepress, pre-peer reviewed, allowed to warrant any addition to a text. One simply cannot yet access the unpublished paper's contents. The board gave a thumbs down to a similar problem, with a preprint of a genetic paper on Khazars here, and I think the same principle applies. This looks like impatience for pushing in the results you want to read overriding the cautions of the wiki rulebook to me.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a primary source and therefore the issue is WP:WEIGHT. What degree of acceptance has the paper received? That can only be established through secondary sources. TFD (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The paper looks reasonable, but it should not be cited before it is properly published, and even then it's only a single study that should not be overblown. But no, it's not a primary source (by reasonable definition of "primary"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is primary, it says, "Here, we assemble the largest sample set available to date for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins...." It reports its authors research and findings. TFD (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No. An unpublished abstract from a conference meeting is not a reliable source, and agree with TFD that it is a primary source. Arzel (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not informed about this, although I think I should be. All the genetic studies mentioned in Khazars article comes from primary source. This is especially true for Elhaik. However, here is not as it was called an "unpublished abstract from a conference meeting" but a genetic study presented by highly respected American Society of Human Genetics--Tritomex (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In many areas of study research articles, which some people consider primary sources, are the only decent sources. But this is a good example of why the primary/secondary distinction is not always useful. So I don't think we should get hung up on that term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of a paper to be presented at a conference is not reliable publication of the paper. Since this is not a behavioral noticeboard, I won't say more, but it sure is tempting. Zero 07:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add to this, conference presentations themselves should never be accepted as reliable sources, since usually only the abstract is "peer reviewed" (and that itself may be a fairly light process). I would only consider a conference paper acceptable if it appeared in a conference proceedings, and then only under the WP:PRIMARY restrictions. There are a few other exceptions; if, for example, the presentation was itself a sort-of "review" article, in that it wasn't presenting novel results but just summarizing those that had already been published. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically it is graded as a 'poster' not a paper, i.e. an announcement of results that the broad scientific community has not yet had an opportunity to examine. Tritomex. You haven't even taken the care to notice that that page was sourced most rigorously, excluding anything that did not pass a very high bar. I made a compromise, while I think breaks the rules, by retaining mention of it (given the profile of the scholars it will certainly be published within several months). But as it stands, we have (a) no mention of the journal where it is to be published (b) no knowledge of the eventual publication date. I see an edit war has broken out on this, despite near unanimity here. Tritomex. The way you did that violates not only RS. Please do not persist against a majority of independent peers, esp. when I have myself reached out to find a minimal accommodation for citing at least the poster, even though this is definitely not acceptable at the moment on the page, particularly one written according to extremely rigorous principles of RS. This is a matter of waiting a few months, as with the Elhaik paper, as as User:Jayjg also noted on the Khazar page on that occasion, such preprints are too early to allow incorporation.('Elhaik wrote something considerably more complex than that, but in any event his study was neither published nor peer reviewed, so we can't use it. arXiv is a an archive for preprints of articles. If it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, then we can re-visit what it says at that time. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC) )Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to add that user Zeero000, is not uninvolved editor, he has been involved in at least 20 content dispute with me (all content dispute I had) including on this same question. --Tritomex (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to mention that, but it doesn't affect this case one way or the other. A conference pre-print or a pre-conference abstract certainly can't be treated as a reliable factual source. Normally, the conference itself (i.e. reactions by other scientists) will be the first stage of peer review; the second stage is the submission and evaluation of a final text after the conference. Before the conference there is little if any peer review.

I would add that the dispute about primary vs. secondary doesn't seem really relevant to me. If and when the conference paper is published, it's just like any other academic/scientific article from that point onwards: a typical secondary source. Such academic articles are "primary" to Misplaced Pages only in the sense that they tell us what sources of information the author used and what the author thought, but those things only matter to Misplaced Pages if we're writing the author's biography. Andrew Dalby 09:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I just want to agree with those that are pointing out that a paper given at a conference is not a reliable source for us. We've discussed this before, maybe it needs to be in WP:RS. I agree with Andrew, the primary vc secondary issue isn't relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This differs very much by field. In computer science, conference papers (at real conferences, not things called "World Multiconference on X" ;-) undergo full peer review, are usually published by recognised academic publishers (e.g. in the Springer LNCS series), and are often the primary (as in "most important", not WP:PSTS sense) line of publication. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was oversimplifying. I'm still a bit dubious about material that hasn't been published, whatever the status of the conference. And we need to be able to see the entire paper, not an abstract. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are in violent agreement about that issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I just found out that the material was already under per review "All accepted abstracts will be published in the ASHG 2013 Meeting Program and cannot be withdrawn from publication after June 6 (even at the request of the author and/or principal investigator). Abstracts not withdrawn by June 6 will be reviewed and programmed by members of the Program Committee. Abstract Publication Abstracts selected for presentation will be available on the 2013 meeting Web site in late August and are published online." Also see "How to Cite Abstracts" --Tritomex (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if the conference has no full papers, only abstracts (of the talk). In that case, at best the abstract is published. Meaningful peer review is not possible on the abstract only - the review by the program committee will not involve full evaluation, it will just filter out obvious crap and off-topic presentations, and maybe select contribution based on significance and variety to create a balanced conference program. I'm reasonably sure the authors will also submit the paper to a journal, maybe after receiving feedback via the conference. You may have to wait for that (typically a few months). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephan Here is additional prove: "Review of Abstracts. All abstracts are reviewed by at least one 2013 Program Committee member and two ad hoc reviewers. The reviewing process is strictly confidential. The Program Committee reviews all abstracts submitted for presentation and determines whether an abstract is suitable for platform or poster presentation. The Program Committee reserves the right to decline a presentation to any submitted abstracts that lack scientific content or merit, or merely announce the availability of a resource or service...Abstract Publication Abstracts selected for presentation will be available on the 2013 meeting Web site in late August and are published online. "

That doesn't contradict what Stephan wrote. All it means is that it's ok for platform or poster presentation, as it says. This is pretty standard for conferences and does the filtering Stephan mentions. It doesn't mean that there is a paper, or indeed anything, that has passed peer review. In fact, it's possible that any paper that comes out of the conference will be different in significant ways. You'll have to wait for that. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is accepted for a poster session only. There is no indication in the guidelines that anyone on the program committee looked at more than the 330 word abstract. Calling this "peer review" is preposterous. In fact it doesn't mean that a full paper even exists yet (though it might). It is pretty hard to take this all seriously, especially from someone who argued for ages against reporting on Elhaik's paper after it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Zero 13:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'd hesitate to give a blanket ruling on all such cases, which seems to be how you've stated the question and how some have answered it. In some fields abstracts from a conference might be widely cited and at least a bit pre-checked. And in certain contexts I've seen it widely accepted that certain types of things can be cited from snippets or abstracts. But there are certainly several warning signs here, and so then the another question is whether this is being used to source something surprising or something uncontroversial. I also try to keep in mind a principle that we should be cautious of trying to be "cutting edge" in research, which is not really what encyclopedias do. We could just wait?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As it is written in American Society of Human genetics website all abstracts are reviewed by Program Committee members before being published at ASHG website (august 2013). Also, changes to the papers are restricted to before June 6th (and of course before being officially published by ASHG website) . I myself can not be a reason for accepting/rejecting this genetic study into Misplaced Pages (already accepted by American Society of Human Genetics and reviewed by its appointed official committee members ) and my arguments regarding Elhaik papers were totally unrelated to the origin of its publisher.--Tritomex (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should wait, as Steven says. I would say 90% of what I read of in the I/P area I judge important (NGO on-site observer reports), but I never use it on principle, because the status of the source would only give rise to bickering or is generally not good in wikipedia's terms. One simply withholds one's material until it is reliably sourced beyond challenge(and that rarely happens). The curse of this place is impatience, which is usually a sign of wanting to get something one personally approves of in, or disapproves of, out. Eran Elhaik's preprint was in a much greater stage of advance in publication when objections immediately arose precisely of this kind. Tritomex even opposed its use after full publication (because its conclusions were wrong!), while here he proposes using a source that is pre-prepublication (because its conclusions are right). I'll race you, Tritomex or anyone to get this paper into Khazars (and other articles) as soon as it comes online, published by any of the usual human genome journals. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

More importantly to me, as main drafter of the page, is the aesthetics. We can't give a link, we can't give the publication year, or the journal in which it will appear. It violates the template norm established for an article that tries to approximate GA level standards. Worse still, whereas all other genetic papers cited, pro (very few) or con (many), are given extremely brief, succinct and collective notice (per WP:Undue, since this stuff has little to do with the Khazars, except as a minor historical theory), and Tritomex added virtually half of the abstract conclusions to it, making a complete mess of that studied brevity and neutrality of the section. Its weighting more or less reads:'Yeah, yeah . . but this is the truth, just published' (the conclusion happens to be what Tritomex believes. I personally don't believe anything either way on this issue).Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a pre-print and not a self published study, but a study published by highly respected genetic institution, the American Society of Human Genetics.It is not an anonymous PDF file but a study already reviewed by specially appointed experts, committee members of American Society of Human Genetics. To quote Stephen "It looks as if the conference has no full papers, only abstracts (of the talk). In that case, at best the abstract is published."---Tritomex (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the study is not published. The abstract is. A core requirement for a scientific publication is reproducibility of the results. The abstract does not have enough data for meaningful replication. It's possible to cite the abstract, but WP:WEIGHT makes it very hard to do more than at most mention it in passing. As I said, be patient. The authors are recognised scholars, and, from the home page of the first author, he routinely publishes similar results on different populations in academic journals. Chances are excellent that this will happen here, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's possible to cite the abstract, but WP:WEIGHT makes it very hard to do more than at most mention it in passing.

Thanks, Stephan. Despite my general reservations, that is precisely how I made my call in this edit, which Tritomex, refusing a compromise, immediately reverted. I will withhold rereverting for several hours, just in case the strong consensus that Tritomex's use of it is inappropriate at the moment changes. But I hope that he accepts that when there seems to be a solid third party consensus, one is not entitled to persist in reverting to one's personal preferred version. This is a collaborative venture.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The abstract was published but not the whole paper. We cannot give the abstract the same weight was a whole paper. A substantial quote from the abstract is too much weight. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In every field, academics pursue research through experiments, surverys and reinterpretation of existing data. Other scholars then examine their methology, and attempt to replicate their research, or in some cases totally ignore them. A consensus then emerges whether the findings become the new consensus, are accepted as a majority or valid minority view or are relegated to the fringe. At that point WP:WEIGHT kicks in and we can decide how the findings should be presented or if they should be ignored. Until other scholars have commented on this research however no weight can be established. TFD (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Having been on several abstract reviews for conference proceedings I have to say that the peer review process for an abstract is not at all like the peer review process for an actual paper to be published in a journal. Arzel (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is written by the authors of the paper and is therefore rs for what they said, "Our findings support the Khazarian Hypothesis", which is what the disputed edit says. The only objection can be weight. TFD (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong edit, wrong year, wrong paper (and, apparently, a real paper, not a bare abstract). The source currently under discussion comes to the opposite conclusion - it "does not support the hypothesis of a significant contribution of the elusive Khazars into the gene pool of the Ashkenazi Jews." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for your suggestions: So is there a support (from uninvolved editors) for proposal to add following sentence (until the paper is published in journal) to Khazars page: A New genetic study presented in September 2013 found no support for the hypothesis of a significant contribution of the elusive Khazars into the gene pool of the Ashkenazi Jews."--Tritomex (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not from me, if the citation is to a pre-conference abstract. I gave my view above. When the results appear in a peer-reviewed article or book, that's the time to cite them. Andrew Dalby 07:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, that is a gross distortion of the discussion, where outside input has suggested )(a) don't use the poster ((Zero),Qwyrxian; Arzel; Dougweller (b)unless it is weighted according to secondary source support (TFD,Andrew Dalby (=a); 'it should not be cited before it is properly published,'(Stephan Schulz ); (c)we should wait (Andrew Lancaster=b ); (d) mention only in passing ((Stephan Schulz),Binksternet.

The majority are against using it until it is either published in a journal, or (higher bar) referred to in secondary texts, and do not think the poster is in conformity with RS standards. They advise patience. I made a decent compromise which ignores this general scepticism, and wrote 'or not significant'+poster source, notwithstanding the fact that the new paper's results conform to the other thumbs-.down sources in the lead (with the unique difference that, this paper, like Elhaik's, uses proxies for the Khazars). Notwithstanding this you read this as a chance to expand the already generous terms I offered. It is POV pushing. Were I a precisian, I would be technically in my rights, on the basis of these varied comments, to cancel all mention of the text, until it is published. I gave you an inch, you want two thirds of a yard.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, I don't mean to sound mean here, but there cannot be any "compromise" here. A paper that has not been published is not a reliable source. I have to say that the idea above that we could cite it strictly as verifying the author's opinions is likewise not acceptable, because technically until it is published in a paper, it's not really their "official" (in a scientific sense) opinion. And, like Arzel, I've also been involved directly and indirectly with the conference review process, and, as already stated, papers can get presented on conferences based on nothing other than an abstract, and, sometimes, nothing other than a title plus the author's names. Finally, the notion that we would ever cite an abstract (not a published paper) is likewise a very poor idea, in that abstracts simply do not capture the subtle details, which are often quite important. All an abstract is supposed to do is to give enough info so that other researchers know whether or not the article is sufficiently relevant to their life that it's worth reading. Yes, it's better than, say, a trailer for a movie in that it does usually "give away" the "ending", but not much better. Tritomex, my position, at least, which I believe is wholly consistent with WP:RS and WP:V, is that you cannot ever use an unpublished paper (which is what a conference paper is) as a source in a Misplaced Pages article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I made it clear from my original edit summary that in my reading of WP:RS, this should simply not be cited for the moment. I knew Tritomex would read my partial revert as motivated, not by editorial scruple, by some obscure ideological or antisemitic or POV-angling prejudice that undermined the origin of the Jewish connection to Israel. That is how, unfortunately, he reads every edit I do, and almost automatically reverts whatever I do to a page he is interested in. As a published scholar (in retirement) I'm quite familiar with the peer-review processes, but I also contacted geneticists who gave me exactly the analysis you and others have given. Without meaning to be personal, my experience told me however that Tritomex's reappearance on that page meant battles, edit-warring, and walls of talk page argument mainly based on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I thought once of revising Ashkenazi Jews, and I had to abandon the page through sheer exhaustion. I don't report people on principle. At the same time, there is a limit to what I can stand when editors talk past everything to get their way. I am only one editor, and in my original edit summary, I said explicitly what the board has now confirmed, and esp. what you stress, namely No, Tritomex. This is (a) violating of summary style, WP:Undue (b) an abstract of an unpublished paper is not RS (c) one must be patient, as one was with Elhaik (d) I've put a footnote, but, strictly speaking, this is against the rules. A compromise. This compromise can be accepted by Tritomex (he didn't though it was his best bet) or rejected by other editors who, hewing closely the RS rules, could reject it, and remove the source. The 'compromise' I suggested is against the rules, as is now clear, but its function was to signal to Tritomex that I, for one, have absolutely no ideological antagonism to including of a scholarly nature anything that undermines the Ashkenazi-Khazar hypothesis. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I can not say I am uninvolved, but I do know that Nishidani is right that in past cases like this Tritomex you have taken the opposite position. I do think the article will be an interesting one and almost certainly worth citing when it comes out, if nothing else because of the author list. But I think even if the abstract seems clear now, there is too much chance that the eventual published title and abstract will be different. The words you are most interested in are PRECISELY the types of ones which might be allowed more easily in a congress, but neutralized a bit in a final paper.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not peer reviewed and only when the final paper is published can we consider using it. Consider using it. Not all peer reviewed papers are equal, and there are editors who believe that we should wait to see what other professionals say about a paper before using it, although I think this should be decided case by case. What I do feel strongly about is that an editor must have read the entire paper before adding text sourced to the paper, abstracts are never good enough. In fact, we've had heated debates over whether abstracts should be used at all. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We should be careful of abstracts, but I think a blanket ban of citing abstracts is probably un-called for. More controversially, I think we can not apply the standard of waiting for a "field" to come to a consensus first. This simply won't work for many fields, and the idea can lead to some very twisted and strange articles and strange debates in those fields. But both of these points are not really important here where the abstract itself is not final.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Doug, for another reason. We are, really, supposed to be writing to encyclopedic standards. People who have been commissioned to write articles know well that it is presumed (obligatory) that you master the sources, and are not using hearsay or thin hints. Esp. in citing technical papers, the tendency is to cite the abstract, and not read past it (much as editors generally prefer in controversial area to edit the lead, without reading the whole article- a source of endless problems). Abstracts can be deceptive. Much of the earlier page consisted of selective use of the abstract, ignoring the details in the printed pages, as I showed when I examined all of the papers. See here. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani: just an aside but from the context I presume you are agreeing with Doug about abstracts. Concerning that point I only wanted to say that I hesitate to write blanket statements. The other point, above citing individual research papers, would mean we would end up needing to cite whatever scraps of 10 year old secondary source we can find. That would give a very distorted view in the field of human genetics. I believe there was a fairly big communal discussion about this some time back concerning this very article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew. Yep.I don't think the idea that we can only cite scientific papers through secondary sources holds. Suffice it that we have the full reports themselves (secondary sources take too much time to see the light of day). I am wary though of using newspaper reports of scientific papers as reliable secondary sources. From what I see, it's all selective spin, and we've had that crap at Khazars and elsewhere. Editors must in any case assume a responsibility not to cherrypick nice bits. It took days to read through all of the scientific papers, and correct the bias of citation one chap (or another) introduced. Doing that is a serious behavioural issue if it continues.Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable, for all the reasons already cited, and the consensus is clear. In an overpoliticised field, where the science is moving forward quickly we have to keep the bar high. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Mugshots.com's page on Michael Lohan for his place of birth

Is Michael Lohan's page on mugshots.com reliable for his place of birth?

And if it is reliable, would it violate WP:BLPPRIMARY? Nightscream (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable. The source takes no responsibility for its content, "MUGSHOTS.COM DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR TIMELINESS OF THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE. NAMES MAY BE SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS. FOR LATEST CASE STATUS, CONTACT THE OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHICH ORIGINALLY RELEASED THE DATA". There's no guarantee this source transmits any material intact, it certainly doesn't check it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of sources on history of the Georgian alphabet?

There is a long-running dispute in the article about the Georgian alphabet regarding the history of said alphabet. See here for the "History" section of this article as it currently stands. See also here for the current talk-page discussion of the issue (the non-English name of this section, likely unreadable to most of you, is "Georgian alphabet" in Georgian). Following is a description of the issues as I currently understand them; hopefully I haven't misspoken, and I apologize in advance if I have inadvertently misrepresented anyone's arguments.

There are two primary competing hypotheses for the origin of the Georgian alphabet. One version claims that the alphabet is of indigenous origin, having been created before the Christian era, and commonly attributed to the 3rd-century-BC king Parnavaz I. The other version says the Georgian alphabet was invented around AD 400 by an Armenian scholar, Mesrop Mashtots; Mesrop (or Mesrob) is also credited with the invention of the Armenian alphabet. (Note, by the way, that although Georgia and Armenia are right next to each other, their languages are totally unrelated.)

The article currently mentions both of these hypotheses, each with several references to sources. The problem we are having is that Wikipedians favouring each version are insisting the other version's sources are unreliable — and that, by consequence, only their favoured version should be mentioned.

• The person currently championing the Armenian origin theory completely discounts the recorded accomplishments of King Parnavaz (and even the claimed existence of Parnavaz) as largely legend and refuses to accept that these legendary claims deserve any credence. The Armenian theory, on the other hand, is (so he points out) supported by numerous modern academic sources, and is in fact (as he understands) the only origin theory for the Georgian alphabet that has any currency in the scholarly community.

• Supporters of an indigenous creation of the Georgian alphabet contend that the stories of King Parnavaz are historically credible, whereas the Armenian accounts of Mesrop Mashtots are not; also, that it unreasonably strains credibility to imagine that a non-Georgian could possibly have been familiar enough with Georgian to create a workable alphabet for this language. As for the numerous modern academic sources backing an Armenian origin, it is asserted that all these sources are simply regurgitating the (suspect) Armenian claims on the subject, so these modern sources are allegedly unreliable on this issue, even though they might appear on the surface to be the kind of sources we would generally accept on Misplaced Pages.

There also seems to be a lot of nationalist-based accusations being flung around, but I hope any outsiders willing to investigate the matter can look past the various ad-hominems and concentrate on the question of which (if any) of the sources being used right now are sufficiently reliable to be used.

I imagine this matter will probably also have to go WP:NPOVN — to try to figure out how either or both of these two competing origin claims should be dealt with in the article — but before trying to take it to NPOVN, I think it's best to get a better idea of the reliability of the sources backing each claim. Any outside input would be welcome. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This board is good at assessing particular sources rather than in resolving disputes between sources. Could you list one or two of the best sources for each position so that we can assess them? Zero 07:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A quick look around scholarly sources doesn't reveal much in the way of evidence for either theory. Page 4 of this book describes both theories as legends. In any case, since both theories are out there both should be presented in the article. Zero 08:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Zero. The source that Zero cites here is (I would say) highly reliable. Since it describes both of the origin legends, we can do so too, citing this book itself if necessary. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly some poor sourcing going on here. Among the sources allegedly supporting the indigenous Parnavaz version (unfortunately all cited only in Russian), probably the highest quality one is the one by Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze, who is a well-reputed historical linguist. The work exists also in an English translation uner the title Alphabetic writing and the old Georgian script (which I haven't so far been able to consult directly). However, according to this summary of the state of research, Gamkrelidze wasn't in fact advocating the hypothesis in question – he proposed that Parnavaz practiced some different form of "alloglotographic" writing, not that he invented the current Georgian alphabet. All these sources need to be checked carefully in case there are more such misrepresentations. The article I just linked to (Nino Kemertelidze, "Theories of the origin of Kartuli writing") may be a decent starting point for a rewrite. It should also be checked whether the current structure of the article, strongly implying a dichotomy between just two competing hypotheses (Mashtots versus Parnavaz), might not be quite badly oversimplified. If the Kemertelidze article is anything to go by, the issues are much more multi-faceted than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A large number of the Russian sources (notes 17-25) are too old to be useful. We have a very large number of quality sources from English academic works on this question that can easily replace them. That is the first thing that requires substitution (though contemporary Russian linguistic papers, on the cutting edge, of course should be accepted). I would advise using sources like these :-

• Nino D.Kemertelidze, 'The Georgian Tradition' in David Cram,Andrew Robert Linn,Elke Nowak (eds.) History of Linguistics, 1996: Traditions in linguistics worldwide,John Benjamins Publishing, 1999 pp.227-233 because it reviews the field, and gives each theory is due weight.
• Mzekala Shanidze,'Greek influence on Georgian linguistics,' in Sylvain Auroux (ed.),History of the Language Sciences, Walter de Gruyter, 2000 pp.444-447
• Harold Haarmann, 'The Caucasus: Scenarios of ethnic conflict and trajectories of standarization,' in Matthias Hüning,Ulrike Vogl,Olivier Moliner (eds.) Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History, John Benjamins, 2012 pp.283-307, pp.297-300 (an easy overview but useful because it tries to stand outside the ethnic biases that influence interpretation)
• Tinatin Bolkvadze, 'Eastern-Christian tradition and the Georgian language,' in Tope Omoniyi,Joshua A. Fishman, Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion, John Benjamins Publishing, 2006 pp.60-67 Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for what you have come up with so far. I've looked at the above papers and find it instructive that they portray the question as more complicated than simply having to decide if the Georgian alphabet was invented by Parnavaz or by Mashtots. I also like the fact that we have scholarly treatments which discuss the competing claims; this is, after all, what we are supposed to be doing in Misplaced Pages (per WP:PSTS) — citing reliable secondary sources which discuss and interpret the primary sources, rather than trying to interpret the primary sources ourselves.

A comment, by the way, on the word "alloglottography" (or "alloglotography") — AFAIK, this refers to the practice of writing in a different language from the one being spoken (e.g., ancient Georgian scribes may have "written" their language by translating what they wanted to say into Aramaic, and then writing the Aramaic, and the resulting text would be translated on the fly back into Georgian for later reading). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

consultingbyrpm.com/blog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy

1. Source: "Free Advice: The personal blog of economist Robert P. Murphy": "In Defense of the Mises Institute" .
2. Article: Ludwig von Mises Institute#Criticisms
3. Content:

   Mises Scholar Robert Murphy wrote in support of the Institute's founder, Llewellyn Rockwell. He called the critics of Rothbard and Rockwell "hyenas" and defended Rockwell's refusal to respond to the controversy surrounding the racist content in the Ron Paul newsletters. In the opinion of former Mises Institute Scholar Gene Callahan, "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time Bob and I got there" around 2001. Callahan states, "Rothbard, in the late 80s or early 90s, had decided that an appeal to racists was just the ticket for his movement. He published articles saying things like blacks weren't doing very well because they weren't so smart, got involved with Neo-Confederate causes, and so on. I think by 2000, Lew Rockwell sincerely regretted that time". Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology.

• Talkpage discussion: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Murphy blog as RS for article .28BRD.29
• Notes by OP: Footnote 37 is the Murphy blog citation. Footnotes 38–40 are about the Ron Paul newsletters. Footnote 41 is the subject of another RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. (The quoted passage is copied from screenshot of paragraph without using <ref></ref> Wiki markup so that footnote numbering does not change with subsequent edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite (or maybe because of) a lot of words coming from Srich, I still have no idea what his objection is. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I cannot read his mind, but a frequent objection (and one widely supported at this board) is that in general a blog is not a reliable source, and that even in cases where it is accepted (e.g. for an opinion), there needs to be a good reason why a particular blog post deserves enough weight to include it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried that on, but it didn't fit. We're using Murphy's words about himself and his own organization, so it's WP:ABOUTSELF that applies here, not WP:BLOGS. Moreover, we're quoting him in support of the subject of the article, which means WP:BLP can't possibly apply. The reason we're doing this is so that we can frame Callahan's response, which would otherwise make no sense, so this is well-motivated.

I can't read his mind, either, but if that's what's on his mind then he's wasting our time again. I've been frustrated with his confusing, incompetent and counterproductive behavior on this issue, and I'm no less frustrated now. MilesMoney (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just gonna point out that I've asked SRich to explain himself, he's made other edits to this section, but hasn't even tried to explain himself. Looks like all we're left with is mind-reading and I'm not detecting any hints of what your objection is. a whole lot to read.MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. Please redact it per WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood it, but whatever. MilesMoney (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• PRIMARY sources are piss-poor at evaluating racism. They're entirely unsuitable to cult-studies. And they're inappropriate for the history of small controversial organisations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It turns out that the primary source isn't even quoted on the issue of cults, and we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered. MilesMoney (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't interest me. The source isn't reliable for the claims it is making. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply to anything I said. Unfortunately, none of your comments show that you have a working understanding of the relevant issues so I'm not sure what to do with your opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote you in detail, "we have to let them discuss racism because it would be unbalanced to let Callahan's allegations go unanswered" We must X because WP:OTHERSTUFF. No we must not. I'm sorry but you can't backdoor shit into the encyclopaedia because someone else once did so. The source you're citing has no capacity to judge racism in the sociology of small group organisations, nor is it credible for the history of a small controversial political group. This is because it is a primary SPS. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:OTHERSTUFF, you find that it's not only a (non-binding) essay, it's a link to a section called "What about article x?". This argues against the idea that one article's existence should be justified -- in an article deletion discussion -- by referencing other articles.

What we're talking about isn't article deletion, nobody's making the argument that it argues against, and it's not even binding, regardless. Like I said, you don't have a working understanding of relevant issues. You're misquoting non-policy out of context to something it was never even supposed to apply to. The relevant policy is WP:BALANCE and it's on my side. MilesMoney (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFF is often mentioned in discussions about problematic edits. The analogy is that the existence of other lousy stuff/articles does not justify keeping this lousy stuff. While BALANCE is editing policy, it does not come into play until the threshold question is asked – Is the Murphy blog (or Callahan blog) acceptable RS? We cannot have two personal blogs (not acceptable RS) presented in the name of BALANCE. This is especially true when these personal blogs are talking about third parties. Also, Murphy's blog is not about "his organization" in that he has no official role in the administration or policy positions of LvMI. He teaches & has had stuff published by LvMI. (Another analogy. Fouad Ajami is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's written over 400 articles about Arab & Islam issues. It would be improper to look through his publications, find interesting tid-bits, and post them in a "Views espoused by founders and organization scholars" section.) The views of the individuals, like Murphy and Callahan and others, are best confined to their particular articles. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Srich The Murphy piece is RS for the content which is cited to it in the context of this article. Most of the points I stated in the Callahan thread above also apply here to Murphy. In neither thread have you made a case based on policy and content. Instead you are dressing up your opinion with inapt citations and misinterpretations of policy. Please do some background reading: . Please note, per one of the links provided, it is not constructive to deploy gratuitous language such as "lousy stuff" here. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

PRIMARY SPS with no EXPERT making accusations tending to libel. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What article text sourced to Murphy's blog is libelous? I don't think calling Rockwell's unnamed critics "hyenas" is actionable. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Libel is not the issue. (Murphy could be saying wonderful things about different people.) When a personal blog talks about others (persons and third parties) it goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF. Murphy's personal blog involves named, particular third parties/third persons. It is not acceptable RS about the Ludwig von Mises Institution. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is out of touch with the facts. Murphy is writing about himself; he's a member of the Institute and therefore free to discuss it all he likes. He's saying good things about it, defending it, so libel doesn't even enter the picture. But if he wants to deny that it's a cult, that's his call, and he's a reliable source on what members believe about the cult status of the Institute. MilesMoney (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you've been curiously silent. Can we conclude that you're dropping your objections now that they've been soundly refuted? MilesMoney (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be a welcome outcome, since Srich has rejected user Fifelfoo's libel concern. Of course, keeping Murphy's bit intact makes it all the more appropriate we also keep Gene Callahan's comment on Murphy, for balance. Note that Callahan defends Rockwell by stating he believes that Rockwell came to regret the racist redneck strategy which supported the founding of vMI. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:QS says: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves;... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. " Murphy's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Callahan's blog might be suitable in his article or for posting his expert opinion in the field of economics. Murphy has taught & had publications published by LvMI, that does not make him an official of the organization. I'm a "member" of the Sierra Club. While I can use my personal blog to express any personal opinion about the Sierra Club, that opinion cannot be used in WP. Fifelfoo has objected on multiple points. I support many of the points. Again, we have a blog commenting about another blog which is commenting about other uncited comments. This is QS based on other QS. – S. Rich (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@srich: Have you reviewed the links which discuss various of the fallacies you have used in these RSN threads? That will help move this discussion forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My background reading is not the issue of this thread. Rather, let's look at the names included in Murphy's blog: Ron Paul, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Peter Klein, Roderick Long, Mark Thornton, Lew Rockwell, Guido Hulsmann, Jeff Herbener. Even if he says wonderful things about these people, he is giving us gossip, rumor, and personal opinion. His personal blog has no meaningful editorial oversight. It can be used in the Murphy article, but not elsewhere. – S. Rich (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Village websites

Can a village website such as this be used as a source for statements about that particular village, sort of like WP:SELFSOURCE? (Normally I avoid using such sites, but this particular page provides a very detailed history of the village in question, with no reason to suggest it's grossly unreliable). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine for uncontroversial material. It seems very well researched, and I would expect that most of the information is drawn from sources that could be traced, so you could search for corroboration. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a good source for articles about the village. It is important to use the best sources available, and for villages that often would be the village itself. TFD (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Using it will help fill in gaps in the history section in the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't like to be the skeleton at the feast, but I'm doubtful about this. I agree it looks great and well-researched, but (unless I'm misreading something) we don't know who wrote it, and we do know that the aim of the website's proprietors is to promote business in the village. It is not a site that we would normally consider RS. Rather like a not-so-good Misplaced Pages page about a similar topic, it has a POV: it uses available facts to enlarge the village's history and importance. Putting this page under external links, yes, yes: using this page as a help in finding good sources (as Judith says), great: citing this page in a stable Misplaced Pages article, not so good. Am I wrong?

Knowing that there isn't yet a Victoria County History for Dorset villages (which would often be the best source), here are three online sources that you might or might not have looked at:

1. Lewis, too old for Fifelfoo but quite good in its way
2. Inventory of national monuments: masses of stuff on Abbotsbury
3. English Heritage "professional" website. Type Abbotsbury into the search box

Any use? Andrew Dalby 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not so much a skeleton at the feast, more like an echo of my own suppressed misgivings. Having already learned something of the village's history from other sources, I doubt that the village website makes fantastical claims, in fact I suspect it may be more accurate than some other RS (e.g. national newspapers), though as you rightly say, it wouldn't normally be considered RS. (Sigh!) I'll have to use it as a springboard for finding other sources - hopefully I can find them! Thanks for your suggestions above - can the Lewis one be cited, or, seeing as it's so old it's effectively an historical document in itself, is using it directly a form of OR? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I admit that the RS question arises with Lewis too. (Echoing your sigh.) One does indeed get a bit stuck. You will find more stuff on the same "British History Online" site, again by typing Abbotsbury in the search box ... notably the generous Victoria County History text covering Abbotsbury Abbey. That's certainly RS, but whether it's any use to you I don't know. Andrew Dalby 12:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew you point to a valid concern, but normally I suppose it will be possible to identify the types of information which are likely to be promotional. To take an obvious extreme, anything about the local pub having the best fish and chips in England might be dubious. I do realize that some villages promote dubious historical links to famous people, but in such cases I suppose that would be a moment to go off to the websites you mention and try to double check. Put it this way: seems better than no source, and probably quite good enough for some things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Andrew. Currently a large number of statements on Misplaced Pages pages are sourced to sites much less serious than this one :) Andrew Dalby 14:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been quite productive. The advantage of the village website is it's very readable and presents the whole history sequentially on one page, which makes placing the context of some of the other sources easier. I've so far used the British History Online page (provided by Andrew D) as a source for a statement about abbey records having been destroyed, yet I might have missed the bald BHO statement if I hadn't previously been impressed (I'm obviously very impressionable) by the more colourful description of the same incident on the village site.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Citogenesis problem

Per the clever minds at (the website that shall not be named), it was discovered that reference.com is linked from ~12k articles. However, reference.com itself often hosts copies of wikipedia articles. Thus, citogenesis.

This is a classic example: Landala - no source other than reference.com, which itself contains a copy of the article from Misplaced Pages.

I think we should list reference.com and (in some cases) dictionary.com as non-reliable sources (do we have a black list?) and start an effort to clean this up. What do you think? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

After playing around a bit, I did a search on:

• "reference.com" -"classic.reference.com" -"filmreference.com" -"football-reference.com" -"hockey-reference.com" -"basketball.reference.com" -"dictionary.reference.com" -"chemistry-reference.com" -"sports-reference.com" -"baseball-reference.com" intitle:-reference.com

That's getting me 370 hits. It's an underestimate, but probably not by a lot. Here's what I'm seeing:

For those keeping score at home, I've now gotten this down to 319 hits using

• "reference.com" -"shark-reference.com" -"haiti-reference.com" -"vhsl-reference.com" -"classic.reference.com" -"filmreference.com" -"football-reference.com" -"hockey-reference.com" -"basketball.reference.com" -"dictionary.reference.com" -"chemistry-reference.com" -"sports-reference.com" -"baseball-reference.com" intitle:-reference.com

• With the exclusion of shark-reference.com we're down to 234 hits. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed Michelle Malkin
• No issue at dictionary.
• Fixed gapyear.com
• fixed Howling Laud Hope
• Not sure why Dwarf sawfish is showing up.
• Fixed Gholam Mujtaba
• Fixed Joseph Oppenheim
• Fixed Vanga Kingdom
• Fixed Da Nang Port
• Fixed Reginald Case, Drummonderinoch, Liquor license, Romanos II, Women in Sikhism, Terminating bias circuit, Frederick W. Green (Egyptologist), Philip Knights, Baron Knights, Paul Barsky, AdPack USA.

If anyone else wants to lend a hand cleaning these up, add what you do to the above list.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed Floor, dwarf sawfish has shark-reference.com in External links. Tobus2 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nice catch! Don't know why I didn't see that. I'll update my query. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a list somewhere of sources that people may think are good, but which aren't? Also, I haven't checked the diffs above, but I hope we're not just removing the links - should we ensure that the content that is there is not itself the product of citogenesis?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of a list, but ask.com should definitely be on there. I'm not "just removing links", but aside from adding an odd {{cn}} tag where I think it's warranted I'm not bothering to track down additional sources. So far these all good like good-faith, benign and trivial mistakes on low-traffic pages. If you want to make a pass through and validate this for yourself, you're more than welcome (I could stand another set of eyes on these edits).

I've just finished another dozen. The list gets reordered as I continue to add filters (which is a little strange), so I don't know if you're seeing the same order to the search results as I'm seeing. Rather than me marking down each article, do you want to start from the end of the list and I'll continue working forward? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the link - it was for "sub-floor, also called Underlayment" which I don't think really needs a ref, could put back a cn or link to a glossary if others think it does.

I'm about to start work so won't be doing anything for at least 8-10 hours... if the list is being reordered then I'd suggest an "A-M"/"N-Z" or other alphabetical split - easy to subsplit if others join in too. Tobus2 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated search query (194 hits, ~100 are done): "reference.com" -"site-reference.com" -"kata-reference.com" -"wordreference.com" -"racing-reference.com" -"shark-reference.com" -"haiti-reference.com" -"vhsl-reference.com" -"classic.reference.com" -"filmreference.com" -"football-reference.com" -"hockey-reference.com" -"basketball.reference.com" -"dictionary.reference.com" -"chemistry-reference.com" -"sports-reference.com" -"baseball-reference.com" intitle:-reference.com
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've plowed through the lot. I'll run the search again in a week and see what has changed. Thanks for bringing this up. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work. You might enjoy looking at the large scale problems at the top of this page which involve similar problems in finding and locating issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'll take a look at evolutionnews. Don't expect too much progress before the weekend, though. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• As a reminder, if a site (or a book or a publisher) mirrors wikipedia content, it's a good idea to list it at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks. That list is sadly not complete but it does help stop circular sourcing, and this is a handy thing to point to when other editors worry that you're removing something that seems, at first glance, to be sourced content. bobrayner (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is "Brainyquote.com" a reliable source?

www.brainyquote.com is a collection of quotes from various artists, authors, and public figures. Is this a reliable source? The quotes contained in brainyquote.com do not appear to have any secondary or primary source attribution. Herzlicheboy (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful. Any quote worth quoting can be sourced to a reliable, researched book of quotations (Bartlett's, Oxford, etc.) or a primary source. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So can I unilaterally remove any quote in any Misplaced Pages article solely attributed to Brainyquote.com? Herzlicheboy (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is attributed to a living individual, yes. Otherwise, you might want to just add a fact tag. In some cases it would be quite easy to come up with an appropriate source. Did you have any particular articles in mind? Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the quote attributed to Wilhelm Steinitz in the third line of this section: French_defense#History. Is it solely attributed to "Brainyquotes". Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find that quote via Google Books and added the new citation. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, very impressive find. Herzlicheboy (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

When using a quotation, you should include a reference to where it was originally published. But Brainquote does not do that do it is best avoided. Also, it is rarely a good idea to provide a quote unless a secondary source can establish what it means. Otherwise it is original research. TFD (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it ok to delete what a source says, keep the source & add material contradicting the source?

This ones a bit tricky. Recently some copper mines in the Timna Valley were redated to Solomonic times. Various articles have been written about this (ignore the headlines as they don't reflect what the articles actually say). The Phys.org article says "Scholarly work and materials found in the area suggest the mines were operated by the Edomites, a semi-nomadic tribal confederation that according to the Bible warred constantly with Israel." It also says " It's entirely possible that David and Solomon existed and even that they exerted some control over the mines in the Timna Valley at times, he says." An article in the Jewish Press says "The archaeological record shows the mines in Timna Valley were built and operated by a local society, likely the early Edomites, who are known to have occupied the land and formed a kingdom that rivaled Judah." And "He also says that the findings at the Slaves’ Hill undermine criticisms of the Bible’s historicity based on a lack of archaeological evidence. It’s entirely possible that Kings David and Solomon exerted some control over the mines in the Timna Valley at times, he says" (he being the chief excavator).

This has been added to our article on the book King Solomon's Mines. I revised it (and I perhaps should have put in the speculation by the excavator) to match the source about the Edomites warring constantly with Israel, but an editor disagrees about the Edomites and so it now reads " Research published in September 2013 has shown that this site was in use during the 10th century BC as a copper mine possibly by the Edomites<ref>http://phys.org/news/2013-09-proof-solomon-israel.html</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Proof of Solomon's mines found in Israel|url=http://www.jewishpress.com/news/proof-of-solomons-copper-mines-found-in-israel/2013/09/08/|accessdate=17 September 2013|newspaper=The Jewish Press|date=September 8th, 2013 Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/proof-of-solomons-copper-mines-found-in-israel/2013/09/08/}}</ref>, who are believed to be vassals of King Solomon<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/Edom#Biblical_Edom</ref><ref>http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_05562.html</ref>." In other words, it contradicts and ignores what the original sources say (using an article of hours and the Jewish Virtual Library, which does not say they were Solmon's vassals and is clearly opinion, not fact, using words such as "apparently" and "According to the Septuagint, what is said about Aram in I Kings 11:25 refers to Edom, and it thus turns out that this Hadad rebelled at the beginning of Solomon's reign and ruled Edom. It is difficult to accept this version... It would therefore appear that Edom's liberation was possible only at the end of Solomon's reign."

I'm not sure how to handle this (and I'm not sure this belongs in an article about a book, so the easiest way would be to just take it all out and not have an article about a book fight out a debate over the historicity of these mines). I'm pretty convinced though that we can't just delete relevant material that is in the sources being used for these recent excavations. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take on it. The problem seems to be these two edits: and . I find both of these edits to be inappropriate. The first one misrepresents the source, and is technically OR, while the second edit uses a Misplaced Pages article as a source, which obviously fails RS. However, the point of the article is to publish archaeological evidence so maybe it isn't suitable for paraphrasing the bible (it is published by the science faculty after all), so perhaps the Edomites relationship to Israel should just be dropped. Betty Logan (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am reading it wrong but the sentence quoted above has, with respect to sourcing, two sections.

• The post above appears to be about the first section which only seems to have a "light" claims "possibly the Edomites". I don't see any contradiction with the sources described above? It just does not repeat everything? If so there would be no policy problem with saying less than what a source says, as long as the meaning does not really change.
• The second bit who are believed to be vassals of King Solomon looks inappropriately sourced, and indeed not really necessary to the subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I was surprised that Misplaced Pages didn´t have a article about king Solomons mines, as, you know, "theory". The word "mine" don´t even show up in Solomon until "Contemporary fiction". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Microsoft Office website used to define project management terms

I found this page on a support section of Microsoft Office's official website. Could it be used as a source on Deliverable without changing any content? The article only has one citation (as of right now) and I was hoping to beef it up a bit. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about this? The article seems to be written by an industry professional with references citated...which I guess makes it a tertiary source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

These are pretty weak sources. A textbook for MBA students would be better. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Or a project-management textbook. (Although PM methodologies tend to nurture their own sets of keywords which have significant differences from common usage, cf "control" &c). Speaking from personal experience I'd be particularly wary of this as all my deliverables are intangible. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was a tech comm major, and I still have all my textbooks at home (at the office right now). Some courses involved a bit of PM, so I will see what I can find in those instead. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Iran

Is this a reliable source --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR is a problem here, as Professor Manuocheher Vahidnia cites Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nndb.com/

Hello! Is this encyclopedia-type site a reliable source? 79.117.175.246 (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In a word, no. "Our standard is correctness over verifiability (the reverse of Misplaced Pages)". Previous discussion from this noticeboard has some more info:. Siawase (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about Institute for Building Efficiency - enough sources?

Hello

This is Anna Timms, Senior Manager, Social Media for Johnson Controls. I am aware of the conflict of interest policy, so will not make any edits to any company related articles.

I would like to ask for guidance from this noticeboard on whether I have enough sources to request a new Misplaced Pages article or whether I should suggest an addition to the existing Johnson Controls article.

The Institute for Building Efficiency is an initiative of Johnson Controls to provide information and analysis of technologies, policies, and practices for efficient, high performance buildings (http://www.institutebe.com).

Here is a list of sources that have written about the Institute for Building Efficiency:

• http://distributedenergy.com/DE/Articles/22289.aspx?goback=%2Egmr_3102657%2Egmp_3102657#%21
• http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/05/measuring-energy-efficiency-buildings
• http://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/articles/findings-of-the-institute-for-building-efficiency%E2%80%99s-energy-efficiency-indicator-2011-study
• http://www.matternetwork.com/2011/1/institute-building-efficiency-expanding-pie.cfm
• http://scalinggreen.com/2012/08/institute-for-building-efficiency%E2%80%99s-jennifer-layke-insights-on-communicating-the-enormous-potential-of-energy-efficiency/
• http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/institute-building-efficiency-reveals-findings-future-demand-response/2011-05-16
• http://www.gbpn.org/newsroom/achieving-scale-energy-efficiency-us-new-video
• http://www.uli.org/centers-initiatives/new-research-identifies-opportunities-and-obstacles-for-energy-efficiency-in-buildings-sector/
• http://www.facilitiesnet.com/energyefficiency/article/Longerpayback-Energy-Upgrades-Maximize-Building-Efficiency--12300
• http://www.opportunitygreen.com/green-business-blog/2011/09/30/johnson-controls-research-indicates-cost-savings-remains-the-single-biggest-driver-for-energy-efficiency/
• http://www.racplus.com/news/johnson-controls-releases-building-efficiency-report/8632389.article
• http://www.eia.gov/conference/2013/pdf/presentations/hughes.pdf
• http://www.jsonline.com/business/survey-more-commercial-building-owners-want-to-energy-efficient-oe5pg8d-159139065.html
• http://www.uncsd2012.org/index.php?page=view&nr=489&type=1000&menu=126
• http://greenwisejv.org/californias-capital-leads-the-nation-in-energy-efficiency-financing/
• http://www.progressivefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/11.2010PPI_Memo-Hodum-Efficiency_Boom.pdf
• http://www.texascleanenergy.org/Commercial-PACE-TCEC8.pdf
• http://www.ecmag.com/section/miscellaneous/building-owners-fighting-rising-energy-prices-efficiency
• http://buildotechindia.com/india-leads-in-importance-placed-on-building-efficiency/
• http://boston.1thingus.com/reevaluating-the-word-%E2%80%98retrofit%E2%80%99-when-it-comes-to-building-efficiency/
• http://constructionpronet.com/Content_Free/20120622-GBI.aspx
• http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/category/29016/publisher/institute-for-building-efficiency/
• http://gestion.pe/empresas/72-empresas-nivel-global-planea-invertir-ecoeficiencia-2070110
• http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?p=16&id=6133
• http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/news/retrofitting-the-empire-state-building-provides-profit-lessons-for-going-green-in-australia/2012080855794/Page-2

Based on the list of sources above, I'd like to ask for your guidance: are there enough reliable sources to justify a separate article on the Institute for Building Efficiency? Or would it be advisable to ask for the Institute for Building Efficiency to be made a subsection of the existing Johnson Controls article?

Thank you--Anna C Timms (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1. "Elections polls" (in Persian). rasanehiran. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
2. "Results of the presidential poll". Akharin News (in Persian). 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
3. "2013 Elections polls" (in Persian). alborz news. 13 May 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
4. ^ "2013 elections poll". ie92 (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "ie92" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
5. "vote online to your candidate!". Arna News (in Persian). 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
6. "Iranelect, first question: Who's the most popular between conservatives?" (in Persian). iranelect. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
7. "Final polls" (in Persian). kashanjc. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
8. "Polls" (in Persian). iranamerica. 18 May 2013. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
9. ^ "Polls" (in Persian). Alef. 20 May 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2013. Cite error: The named reference "alef" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
10. "Choise your candidate". fararu (in Persian). 23 May 2013. Retrieved 23 May 2013.
11. نظرسنجی انتخابات ریاست جمهوری
12. نظرسنجی
13. انتخابات

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution