Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VictorD7 (talk | contribs) at 19:35, 23 August 2014 (→Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own author's film review?: 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

Pusoy Dos

I would like other editors to provide their opinion regarding the two websites that make up the sources for the article Pusoy Dos they are from the websites www.pagat.com and www.pusoydos.com (which is a dead link). Both appear to fall under WP:SPS. Before leaving the article un-referenced I would like to get others opinions on these potential sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd leave them. Pagat has been around since forever. This sort of article doesn't need a high level of sourcing, and the links cause no harm.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Organiser by default unreliable to state about this article "Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana"?

1. Source: Organiser
2. Article: Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana
3. Content: Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana has the objective of rewriting the history of India in the light of modern scientific research and new archaeological findings to present an integrated and comprehensive history highlighting the social, cultural, religious, spiritual, economic, political aspects of life.

One other editor has a belief that anything in this magazine by any author about this institute is SPS.

My opinion: To be honest, even if it is considered SPS (which it is not, it is a separate publication from the organization in question), the content states their self-defined objective which matches with the organizations objective as stated on their website. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Both the organization (Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana) and the source (Organiser) are affiliated to RSS. On the other hand, since it is talking about itself and describing its vision statement, it is not unreliable in this context. On the third hand, it is better to directly quote the organization (ABISY) about its vision statement, if possible. There might be other concerns like WP:UNDUE and so on, which are separate concerns. Kingsindian (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Organiser just looks like a newspaper. Is there a reason why it wouldn't be reliable? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, that is my opinion too. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Organiser is the official organ of the RSS, an Indian Hindu Nationalist organization. It can be reliable in certain contexts. The perception of unreliability here comes from the fact that the organization (ABISY) is said to be an organization rewriting or reinterpreting history in terms of an ideology (which it shares with the RSS). However, as I mentioned above, for it's own vision statement, such a source can probably be reliable. Kingsindian (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, thanks. It is in line with the vision statement of ABISY as given on their website. Another newspaper article in The Hindu also gives the same vision statement. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you really start a discussion here without notifying the involved editors? And mis-state the dispute as well, into the bargain? Unbelievable. For anybody who is still looking at this; the dispute is not about whether the Organizer is reliable enough to present the RSS view; it is whether is it reliable enough to be presented in Misplaced Pages's voice, without attribution. In other words, everybody involved agrees that it can be used to say "the organisation says its objective is...." while Amritasya is trying to claim that it is good enough to say "The objective of the organisation...." without mentioning who says that. In any case, there is now also a discussion at the India Noticeboard, started by myself, because I was unaware of this posting. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, calm down. I did not use this at all anywhere. And we all, including me, agreed on the article talk page discussion without this. Why are you trying to create a deliberate outrage here now? Do you forget you said, and I quote you, This is a VHP publication. WP:BURDEN says you must take it to RSN. You were wrong that it is VHP publication. You are making false claims when you say the question I posted here is, and I quote you again, whether the Organizer is reliable enough to present the RSS view, what I asked is available here and is quite specific and definitely not this. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde93 that the quote should be rephrased so as to say "ABISY states that its objective is..." rather than presenting in Misplaced Pages's voice. This is separate from using Organiser as source or not. Obviously a vision statement can be as grandiose as one chooses. It should be attributed to the organization, not stated in Misplaced Pages's voice as fact. Kingsindian (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation Museum

Contains a Vanity Fair ref by A. A. Gill

Are the following sources reliable for affixing the term "notorious" critic to that person's name (using quotationmark's to indicate that the term is found in the sources and is not in Misplaced Pages's voice) in the Creation Museum article where he is currently identified only as a "critic"?

In February 2010, Vanity Fair magazine sent British critic A. A. Gill and actor Paul Bettany (who portrayed Charles Darwin in the film Creation) to visit the museum on the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. Gill wrote of his visit: "now seems like a good time to see what the world looks like without the benefit of science. Or spectacles... Adam comes on looking like the Hispanic bass player for a Janis Joplin backup band, with a lot of hair and a tan... And he has what looks suspiciously like a belly button."

Sources being questioned here as being reliable sources for adding "notorious" in quotes:

1. Recently, A.A. Gill (notorious baboon slayer and the restaurant critic at the Times of London) visited three New York eateries (Momofuku Bakery and Milk Bar, the Breslin, and DBGB) and came away with the impression that right now in New York, there is an infantile-regression recession.

1. Britain’s most notorious restaurant critic is one of the stars of the Auckland Writers & Readers Festival, which runs May 11-15. Nervous fellow journalists, acutely aware they are not in his league because almost no one is, are despatched to watch him toy with a croissant and catch the astringent aphorisms as they fall from lips that, in his writing, seem set in a perpetual cruel and wintry smile.

1. However, bleeding heart is not his natural vein - he is better at blistering rage. This book includes his two most notorious rants - "Hunforgiven", which led to complaints from the German ambassador, and "Mad in Japan", which takes a bovver boy's boot to Japanese culture.

1. AA Gill may be the most notorious restaurant critic in the Western hemisphere. Among the many vicious critics who fling lacerating insults at London's eateries, Gill of the Sunday Times cuts deepest. In the States, he is perhaps best known as the critic who, in Vanity Fair, compared star chef Jean-George Vongeritchen's dumplings at his New York restaurant 66 to "fishy, liver-filled condoms."

1. Gill is notorious for his acerbic, provocative style, on one occasion in 1997 damaging his career by describing the Welsh as: "loquacious dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls,"

1. achieved a feat few people thought possible by landing a rave review from the notorious Sunday Times scribe. Gill once infamously claimed ``you can easily travel from Cardiff to Anglesey without ever stimulating a taste bud

1. This volume is a best-of notorious British critic Gill’s restaurant reviews and general food writing

1. Vanity Fair magazine gives us the back of its white-gloved hand. For its October issue, VF unleashed notorious hitman A.A. Gill to deliver the smackdown. Gill dutifully throws every vile adjective he can think of into a bitter stew of rhetorical nastiness. Hoover Dam gets the only ounce of praise Gill can muster.

1. Further along in his notorious reportage, Mr. Gill claims that Albania is so backward, that it can be likened to "Europe in the 16th century" (!).

1. Gill is also the notorious critic for the Sunday Times, and a writer for Vanity Fair.

1. often the case when notorious critic AA Gill darkens the door of many establishments. Indeed...

Personally I think it is a trifle odd to use Gill as a mainstream source for "media criticism" considering his notoriety, but some editors seem to think he is a reliable source for how the media view the controversial museum. Thanks for any fresh opinions on whether these sources are sufficient to add the word "notorious" in quotes, and sourced to these sources. Collect (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you starting a thread here when this is already being discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the Grump. If the issue is a single word and that word is descriptive rather than factual, then this might not be an RS issue. However, I'd agree that the sources offered here are sufficient for a full sentence, "A.A. Gil is often referred to as 'notorious' in the media." (I do not feel that just putting quotes around the word, as in "A.A. Gil, the 'notorious' this-and-that" makes it sufficiently clear that the "notorious" is the media's and not Misplaced Pages's.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea was "notorious" (insert refs) critic would make it clear that the term was not in Misplaced Pages's voice. Collect (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes @Collect:, I understood that that was the proposed idea. I do not believe this idea is accurate. My take on the matter is that quotes alone are not sufficient to establish this. It would only make it look like a craven attempt to use a word without owning it. Far better to establish the word's true owner. Also, refs are very awkward when used mid-clause. EDIT: Okay, I think you're trying to say, "If we use the reference tags, they will establish that the word in quotes is from those sources." Yeah, I see where you're going with that, but a full sentence is better, both for content delivery and for writing style. Again, ref tags don't belong mid-clause. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone used the word 'notorious' in relation to what Gill said regarding the Creation Museum? If not, I can't see the justification for Misplaced Pages using an out-of-context characterisation (a subjective judgement), regardless of how often it has been applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

He is called "notorious" in literally hundreds of sources -- the Vanity Fair article does not call him "notorious" but I rather suspect that few magazines call their own writers "notorious" so that is a non-starter as a requirement. The NPOV discussion is a tad different in focus, though the real problem is that I suspect the article is not a fair representation of the mainstream media in the case at hand. With the multiple refs immediately following the adjective, I do not think anyone would have a problem then? Collect (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest raising this question at BLPN. We might get some interesting responses as to whether your desired edit meets the requirements of BLP. Which after all is absolute policy AFAICT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is -- though self-identification may be an issue. Yesterday The Guardian will have said: AA Gill, critic and baboon-murdering bastard, 60. Collect (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, what? Gill suggests that the Guardian may describe him as a 'baboon-murdering bastard' and that makes it self-identification? A novel argument, but hardly a convincing one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears to indicate that he considers himself widely criticized. That an editor may misapprise what I wrote is intriguing. Collect (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• The sources provided would be sufficient to mention in Gill's biography that he is "widely described as 'notorious'". But that's apparently not what Collect is after here. The question of whether Gill should be labeled "notorious" in the context of his writings about a creationist museum is outside the scope of this noticeboard. MastCell  01:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for remarking snarkily. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

My response wasn't meant to be snarky, and even upon re-reading it I am unsure why you interpreted it that way. You want to affix the adjective "notorious" to Gill's name in the context of his writings about a creationist museum. Even assuming that the sources supporting such an adjective are reliable, that's a matter of editorial judgement outside the scope of this board. MastCell  23:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For those who misapprise readily: I was the editor who had removed "outspoken" from the article earlier as not being sourced. I suggest that "notorious" is sourced, and that the replacement of "outspoken" with "notorious" properly cited is reasonable. Again -- I was the one who had removed "outspoken" in the past. Cheers -- now please avoid snark here. Collect (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Those "sources" provided are wildly misleading and cherry-picked. For starters, they aren't ascribing "notoriety" to the same aspect of the person, or even to the person at all. (Notorious as "baboon slayer" ! ? ! Two essays are described as "notorious", not the person.) Some of these comments are from message boards, none of them seem to speak directly to the proposed material in the article. I'm sure I could find fifteen article about Sarah Palin where the word "notorious" was used in passing, but that's hardly an argument to affix it to every use of her name in any other context. This is a clear cut case of WP:LABEL and trying to call someone a version of "controversial" without neutrality.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- the query was about using the word "notorious" as an adjective to "critic" and not about person "notoriety" as I trust the sources make clear. Nor did I ever aver that Gill is "notorious" as a person, nor do the sources support calling him "notorious" as a person. The article initially had "outspoken" which I did not find to be reliably sourced, so that cavil seems remarkably ill-firmed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to anonymous message board banter like this is seriously time-wasting nonsense. And you provide this crowd-sourced review site as a reliable source about a living person? You put these on a list of "reliable sources". Anonymous comments on a message board! You also include sources where he isn't even called notorious. You should know better and you've wasted other editor's time. And it all just seems like an effort at rationalizing an implied ad hominem attack; I can't see how a good or bad reputation as a restaurant critic has anything to do with anything related to the Creation Museum.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Um-- the source you aver is "anonymous" is by "Frank Camel", identified as a pseudonymous "travel professional". The ilxor quotes are actually found on many sites. And calling him a "notorious critic" is not exactly a level one attack on him by any means. But heck -- if a restaurant and travel critic is the best source available on the topic of museums, I would be a tad amazed. It is a tad akin to having a farmer write about nuclear physics. Collect (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to anonymous message board banter from 2006 like this is seriously time-wasting nonsense. And, of course I aver that a completely unverifiable poster using a self-described pseudonym on a open crowd-sourced review site is anonymous. Find me a single other editor who agrees with you that these anonymous comment board messages equate to "reliable sources".__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And are untraceable pseudonyms reliable indicators of real-life identity just for these specific sites? Or do you believe pseudonymous user names on things like Yelp or Youtube comments are adequate for us to consider someone non-anonymous?__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Properly sourcing standards documents

This discussion is intended to be general in nature not specific to any one source, article, or individual content. Please place any response below the first comment and not between paragraphs to keep the subject for discussion from fragmenting and becoming incomprehensible to new arrivals. Thanks!

I've run into a big problem in how to properly source articles on standard documents (such as national standards, international standards, industry standards, etc). They fit in this strange no-mans land of wiki policy/guidelines. They're not quite manuals, not quite journals, not quite laws, not quite primary, but not quite secondary, etc. They're obviously of import and valuable information for an encyclopedia but at the same time difficult to "fit" into any sort of existing guidance. As a result of their unique qualities sourcing of information along existing wiki policy/guidelines is proving to be difficult. The problem I'm encounter is, what I'm calling, an Intersubjective verifiability paradox meaning concepts can be accurate, reproducible, verifiable, and considered true; simultaneously they are also inaccurate, unreproducible, unverifiable, and considered false. What I mean by that, in the context of standards and sourcing, is that any secondary source which Misplaced Pages would normally consider reliable will always be both verifiable and unverifiable.

Because such standards documents are standardizations of concepts and not iterations of all possibilities within their scope they function in much the same way as laws do. A law which simply states "Killing is illegal" would have the common understanding that it is against the law to kill someone. It would be verifiable, accurate, etc. At the same time as it remaining verifiable, it could also be verifiable that it is not illegal to kill if by accident or duress or if the thing you killed as for food (but if not if a human), etc. The more abstract the more can be verifiable and unverifiable depending on the perspective. In law there are lawyers/judges to argue/determine what is/is not meant by the words/spirit of the law. Then there are academics who study these rulings and often provide excellent secondary sources. In the case of standards they are often more ambiguous than laws (to be more inclusive in scope), there are no rulings or objective analyses, and the academics are often the ones creating the standards not studying them.

Without the reliable secondary sources the only ones that remain are applications of a standard. These are specific to perspective, context, applications within the standard and anything verifiable to that application may also be unverifiable to another application. Any academic/industry analyses not only suffer the same problems, they are even more unreliable as sources because they have a conflict of interest. They may be influencing the development/interpretation of the subject through their analysis despite not being the only valid one (e.g. of similar: politician stating a legal analysis may intentionally or unintentionally influence a case but it's not a reliable source on the law, even if they wrote it).

The closest guidance for this type of situation that I've read to balancing view points/weighting. How does one give weight to conflicting but equally verifiable applications of a standard to be able to summarize the standard itself? Example:

• 1 - reliable sources 1-50 say: "Minor widget maker paints widgets red to comply with international standard of colours for widgets"
• 2 - reliable sources 51-85 say "Major widget maker paints widgets green to comply with international standard of colours for widgets"
• 3 - reliable sources 86-100 say: "Other Major widget maker paints widgets blue to comply with international standard of colours for widgets".

From a balance perspective, all other things being equal, you can't really balance those. If you take the perspective of volume of sources, #1 is the majority view, #2 is the minority view, and #3 is not worth writing about. If you take the perspective of significance of company, #2 is the majority, #3 is the minority, and #1 isn't worth including. You can't really balance them because they may, in addition to being verifiable, also be accurate. Anything you dismiss, for any reason, would have an original research type of effect (ie: changing the meaning through editorializing) - If you find a source that says large widgets should be green with yellow dots, it will still be in the minority and could even be considered to be "fringe" regardless of the accuracy or verifiability. (or it devolves into a "synthesized truth" vs "weighted falsehood" argument)

Assuming for the moment balancing can't be accomplished, with that scenario, summarizing based on those sources can't say anything more than "International standard of colours for widgets resulted in widgets being painted red, green, and blue." You can't say why, or if it's required or just recommended, or if other colours are in the standard, or if in fact green widgets #2 makes are supposed to have yellow dots because they're large widgets not small widgets. The only method you could then use is to begin iteration of possibilities which is absurd and will likely still fail to summarize anything properly.

Even under the exceptions made in the "primary sources" policy one can't summarize the vast majority of standards without "special knowledge" or synthesis. Taking W3C standard for HTML4.01 which is a collection of hundreds of html pages that, even if treated as a single entity, specifies definitions from RFCs & ISO standards, sets definitions outside the common understanding, etc. It would be likely too massive to do as a single article on wikipedia, but if forked would require synthesis because definitions would be listed separate from individual concepts. ISO standards are nicely divided by concept, provide references as needed, etc. perfect for creating encyclopedic content. Except that they have a "directives" document to indicate what is normative/informative/etc, how to interpret words, how structure influences interpretation, so on and so forth. That special knowledge and combining of documents results in OR. Verifiability through synthesis, example: "the standard can be used for colouring widgets in 16 colours and 4 patterns, exampled by 1/2/3 widget maker articles", is ultimately OR since only interpreting the standard explains how many colours/patterns there are, when they're used, etc. Documents which do state such things in explicit enough detail to represent the standard to a reasonable degree of accuracy are similarly not reliable under wiki guidance because they are merely repeating/parroting the source.

If secondary sources are out due to the "intersubjective verifiability paradox" and primary sources are out due to original research, I can think of no way to produce quality articles on these topics. Skimming through dozens of articles already on wikipedia, not a single one was even remotely cited properly. Given the relative importance, influence, and widespread adoption of such documents and their inconsistent quality on Misplaced Pages I bring this to the noticeboard for proper discussion. I have a view to pursue creation of new subject based policy or guideline like WP:RSMED that applies only to sourcing for normative documents/standards. I would prefer not pursue that, rather that discussion here results in a clear approach within existing guidelines.

Notes: I am aware that my opinion of the importance/non-existence of quality sources/etc are not substantiated and as such should be assumed to be incorrect. I base this opinion on observations and personal experience researching not omniscient powers ;)

Thanks in advance for your time/thought on this. Please place comments below. Cheers JMJimmy (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We are allowed to cite primary sources (we just have to do so with care). An article about a specific standards document would be a case where it would be appropriate to mention the key provisions contained within that document (quoting or closely paraphrasing it)... and for such statements it would be appropriate to cite the document itself (a document is the most reliable source possible for a statement as to the contents of the document). We would then turn to secondary sources for analysis and discussion of how that standard is interpreted.

In a more generalized article (say the article on Widgets), it might be appropriate to quote and cite a specific standards document... and compare it to other specific standards documents. When doing so it is best to attribute (saying something like... "According to the International Widgets Standards, published by the International Widget Makers Assoc., widgets should be painted red <cite XYZ>. ) Then this can be compared to any contrasting documents. (saying: "However, according to Standards and Practices of Widgets, published by the Widget Manufacturers of North America, widgets should be painted green.") Again, a primary document can be mentioned and cited for a statement as to the specific contents of that doucment... however, once you shift to analysis or interpretation of the document, you need a secondary source.

Finally... it helps to look deeper into why the secondary sources disagree... and that is where looking at the primary documents can help. One reason for the disagreement in secondary sources might be the fact that there are actually competing standards... However, another might be that the standards have changed over time (perhaps widget standards said "red" from 1947 to 1962... changed in 1962 to "green"... and in 2013 changed again to "blue" (which might explain why there are so few secondary sources that say "blue"... there hasn't been time for the secondary sources to catch up with reality. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I responded to the bulk of your comment below, I just wanted to address time specifically because it's very true that it takes a long time to catch up to reality. A scenario I've encountered was a standard that was in place for 22 years and stated what it applied without doubt. In 2 revisions the standard removed the explicit declaration and expanded the standard to be more inclusive. 10-14 years after those changes the overwhelming majority of secondary sources have not caught up with the changes. Those few that have are personal websites with no value as wiki sources despite their extremely high quality content. Even assuming I was wrong, there were direct conflicts that require no interpretation and made said bulk unreliable (or they were members of the issuing organization). JMJimmy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of this would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think standards and manuals and such are undeniably useful and important to the wider world, but we don't necessarily need that material repeated verbatim and wholesale in the encyclopaedia, sourced to the primary material alone. And the OP is correct that an editor summarizing multiple ISO standards with their own analysis and ad hoc personal comparisons of dissimilar standards would be OR. But secondary sources are not "out". Your paradox only comes from a misunderstanding of "verifiability". We don't demand that a secondary source verify or prove its claims are truth. It just has to be clearly verifiable that a better reliable source said it, and we report that. Verifying a claim is ultimately true is often impossible, verifying the source said that claim is commonly possible. As far as your "red, green, blue" scenario, if sources make different claims in the exact way you suggested, then an article should just mention all three claims and not summarise it as if only one happened. If there's disagreement among equally reliable sources or nuance, then the summary should reflect that disagreement and nuance. In fact, if you read your own description, you were able to summarize the views and positions of the various reliable sources and widget makers quite handily yourself within two paragraphs, in your own comment! That's what an article should do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I was very careful to use verifiable and accuracy as not to bring issues of truth into the discussion. Verifiable I use mean that a source directly supports the statement being made (not states word for word but does not require interpretation). Accuracy I use to mean to be reasonably faithful to the spirit of the document and not obviously contrary to it, as not promote misleading/incomplete/bad information (Jimbo's "no information is better than bad information"). To that end the desire is to create quality encyclopedic content, not every minutia of every standard. The "disagreement and nuance" could be subject to dozens or even hundreds of accurate perspectives. This is EXACTLY the problem: "you were able to summarize the views and positions of the various reliable sources and widget makers quite handily yourself". I did not summarize it at all, without using the primary source and the OR required to read it, I have no source which tells me that there are an additional 13 colours or that there are patterns at all. Any attempt to claim the 64 different possibilities (16*4) would require 64 articles of that nature each describing a different colour/pattern combination, or one which directly supports the full claim (which would have to be academic or an industry specific publication which would be unreliable for the reasons mentioned in the OP). This brings in Blueboar's comments... looking at why the sources disagree is that they will always disagree if they at all different in their application of the standard (meaning compliant with, but not subject to all parts). A simple fictional example of this is

• Part 1: General (IX75)
• Part 2.1: Plasma Displays
• Part 2.2: Monitors
• Part 2.3: LCD Displays

If you have a reliable source stating "IX75 compliant LCD displays are commonly Class 2" and another stating "IX75 compliant displays are commonly Class 1" and another stating "IX75 compliant LCDs are Class 0". All of them are accurate to the IX75 standard, verifiable and no other secondary source exists relevant to this part of the standard. What can you summarize about the standard? At most: IX75 standard specifies a Class for LCDs, displays, and LCD displays. This is bad information (summary makes no sense). What the standard actually says in this scenario is:

• Part 1: General (IX75) - All displays in this standard are class 1 and exempt from IX007 unless otherwise specified
• Part 2.1: Plasma Displays - Commonly "Plasma TVs" that are not monitors (2.2) shall be a minimum of 23 inches
• Part 2.2: Monitors - Plasma monitors and LCD monitors are less than 23 inches. LCD monitors shall be Class 0
• Part 2.3: LCD Displays - Commonly "LCD TVs" that are not monitors (2.2) shall be Class 2 when IX007 applies

A quality summary might be: "IX75 is an International Display Consortium standard for the minimum quality of monitors and displays that use Plasma, LCD, or similar technologies. The quality requirements are based on the Class standard. All displays under 23 inches are considered to be monitors while larger displays are considered to be TVs. In general, the standard requires displays be Class 1 quality, though LCDs monitors are held to a higher standard. LCD TVs that contain 007 chips are only required to be Class 2 as a result of the higher power requirements" - This, imo, is a good summary without coming across as a manual or indiscriminate information. It would require 3 primary sources and synthesis (interpretation document to tell you part 1 applies to subsequent parts, the IX75 standard, and the IX007 standard for the claims about power). Getting any set of reliable sources that could allow you to make that kind of quality summary would be near impossible. You'd have to source a minimum of 11 different claims, none of which are in the 3 sources. This is a *simple* example on a common subject but a more typical example on typically more abstract concepts like "Information processing - 7-bit coded charters for information interchange" would be all but impossible to source. JMJimmy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't eliminate the use of secondary sources when you have that many primary sources at that level of technical detail. If you're at a level of detail where absolutely no secondary source exists that covers the material? At that point you are in the forest counting individual trees per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you have thirty-two automobile manuals that all give a separate answer for the width of a certain brand of tire, and no secondary reliable source has ever cared to take up the issue ever, then generally it's probably some version of WP:ISNOT, possibly but not limited to WP:NOTMANUAL. On a case-by-case basis you can find a balance based on WP:WEIGHT. We aren't trying to exactly replicate the accuracy or degree of precision of any particular group of primary sources; if you can't summarize a level of detail, you should only point to where the reader can find the originals in their original context, or (where available) to a source that is better at summarizing them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And we've come full circle, hence the paradox. WP:IINFO is actually where I think standards get their best support from: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." So not only should it be included, but it should be more detailed - without becoming a "how to" manual. I don't think WP:NOTAMANUAL applies simply because the articles are intended to be encyclopedic and they are not a "how to comply with standard XXXX" but do include general information on the contents. Regardless, consensus has already decided such documents are desired, the point of all this is what can be considered a reliable source?

• Conflict of interest. With extensive relationships, 100,000+ membership, 163 countries, and millions of individuals/companies who have implemented or have a vested interest in the standards it would be very difficult to determine what is reliable for the ISO, let alone any other standards organization (as many are interconnected)
• Long term reliability - Any revision can change in a document or any of the supporting documents can change the implication rendering all prior citations unreliable until they are updated. As mentioned before, a long term standard that once said one thing and now says another is largely not addressed in reliable sources 10-14 years later, even if its actively implemented.
• Source errors - How can one tell Patent nonsense from a quality source without a reading of the primary material? Since quality sources often cite previous sources the long term reliability issue becomes doubly problematic. Current policy would favour the bulk of material already in existence. As such, it could take a decade or more before sufficient sources to go from "fringe theory" to worthy of inclusion let alone replacing the old standard. Many are updated every 4-6 years now so wiki would be serving info at least 1-3 versions out of date.

Is there any other way of sourcing that is unaffected by these issues? JMJimmy (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

whowhatwhy.com

1. Source. Russ Baker of WhoWhatWhy, specifically http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/12/05/jfk-umbrella-man%E2%80%94more-doubts/

2. Article. Umbrella Man (JFK assassination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3. Content. Some researchers have noted a number of inconsistencies with Witt's story, however, and do not believe him to be the true "Umbrella Man."

While I have not been involved in editing the above content, I have noticed that this passage has gone in and out of the article a few times this year. Most recent removal here; most recent addition here. I am wondering how this source may be used (e.g. for statement of opinion from self or statement of fact for what another "researcher" may believe), if at all. Thanks! Location (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Edited 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

whowhatwhy.com is no way a reliable source for anything non-trivial (and even then ...). Alexbrn 17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Whowhatwhy.com is not a reliable or objective source. We'd need a WP:FRIND source to report what a fringe source claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd consider this a self-published source run by an expert, former investigative journalist Russ Baker. Remove the words "some researchers" and attribute the content directly to him. (Also, you don't need to put "Umbrella Man" in quotes like that.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources can't be used for claims about living people, even if they are thought to be experts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous source

I have an anonymous source by CNN (see here) "with detailed knowledge of the investigation; what he has told the police". I want to include a summary in the Shooting of Michael Brown, something like this: (I haven't written it yet.)

According to a CNN source, Wilson rolled down his window to tell Brown to stop walking in the street. When Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser, Brown first tried to push the officer back into the car, then punched him in the face and grabbed for his gun before breaking free after the gun went off once. Wilson pursued Brown, ordering him to freeze. When he turned around, Brown began taunting Wilson, saying he would not arrest them, then ran at the officer at full speed. Wilson then began shooting. The final shot was to Brown's forehead.

A source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN the account is "accurate," in that it matches what Wilson has told investigators.

"Cite News" template for reference.

CNN's source verifies the content of a call to a radio station made by a friend to Wilson's girlfriend, a three- or four- level connection from Wilson. I don't know whether there are other news organizations that have tracked down a reliable source to this account. Also look at my posts to "Police officer's version of the encounter" on the Shooting of Michael Brown talk page. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For one thing, you can't have not-clearly-attributed sentences that flatly say "Brown did this" in Misplaced Pages's voice, if it's actually only "Unidentified phone caller says Wilson says that Brown did this." It's a little early to summarize history in the words of an untested account from an unknown caller. I'll also point out that the CNN report has that in a section called "Duelling Narratives" it's probably inappropriate to summarize any single view from a source that gives equal space to other competing views.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, CNN is RS, but if they aren't treating the source as concrete (and that's what news orgs usually mean with their "unconfirmed" and "anonymous" and "this-just-ins") then we shouldn't either. I'd go so far as to phrase this as, "An anonymous contributor to CNN said" or "According to an anonymous CNN source," but yes I'd agree that the content itself is okay for inclusion. As Elaqueate says, given the different narratives, this is probably one time when "teach the controversy" is actually appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that the anonymous caller relating this account is reliable, or that we should include such hearsay. We're not obligated to include something in an article just because it appears in a reliable source. Unless other reliable sources are also reporting it, it probably doesn't merit inclusion. From WP:DUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."- MrX 03:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as an unfolding story, this seems like the most thinly sourced of all accounts, and I wouldn't suggest giving it the same weight (if any) of accounts that are confirmed to have been given by actual people. It's probably just too early to elevate a possible fourth-hand account filtered through a political radio show over a more neutral summary more widely sourced to reliable sources at this point. It's a weight and OR issue.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the caller (named "Josie") is reliable. But I am saying that CNN's anonymous source is reliable, at least in CNN's opinion. So rather than saying "Unidentified phone caller says Wilson says that Brown did this", I'm saying "According to CNN's anonymous source , Wilson says...; that is, it matches what Wilson has told investigators. I'm using the call for specific content but I'm depending entirely on CNN's anonymous source, presumably first-hand, for reliability.

I intend for this paragraph to go into a separate subsection of "Witness accounts" where it will be surrounded by other statements of what took place. Also I assume that CNN uses the two-confirmations-for-any-anonymous-source rule; that they require two anonymous sources (in addition to Josie's call) before they accept the content as "true". (I believe that the Washington Post broke several aspects on Watergate by relying on that rule to confirm what "Deep Throat" was saying.)

I am worried that CNN is the only news media running this story as confirmed. Should I wait until some other news organization also confirms the content, even if anonymously? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't jump to "CNN solidly believes that anonymous source knows what Wilson said," based on that article alone. They don't quite make that jump in the article you provided. If they felt it was confirmed in the way you're suggesting, then they would have written it a less roundabout way. Relying on assumptions of how certain they are is adding a layer of analysis that isn't in the source itself. I think it's stretching to say that anything about the overall accuracies if we were to remove parts of the attribution. The account may match Wilson's in broad strokes, but could still be distorted or misleadingly incomplete in unknowable ways.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a media outlet uses an anonymous source is not necessarily unreliable (for example, The Washington Post's use of "Deep Throat" during the Watergate Scandal). However, in this case, I agree with Elaqueat. CNN puts all sorts of hedges in their report to indicate that they are not completely trusting of what the source says.

I would also (temporarily) omit mentioning it on WP:NOTNEWS grounds.... once/if other news media start to pick up on the CNN story (reporting and commenting on what the caller has told CNN, and trying to confirm her account) then it might be appropriate for Misplaced Pages to discuss it. But until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The NY Post, MSNBC, Washington Post and over 9600 more (Google page-count) have commented on the story about the caller to KFTK's Dana Show. They just haven't confirmed it like CNN. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. It may have been slightly less than 400 page-counts. Google reports 394 (in 0.17 secs) in one place and 9625 in another. My search is: Ferguson KFTK Wilson. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Anders Rudling

Time for Per Anders Rudling to be taken to the WP:RSN believes User:Iryna Harpy.

1. The article Per Anders Rudling has been described as multiple issues: POV and too few opinions.
2. A revert has been made

Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

See both the Per Anders Rudling article and discussion on the Per Anders Rudling talk page as to how a relevant historian is being used as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But what about Volhynia? Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for this. I just made a few touch-ups here and there because that's how Misplaced Pages works. See my comment at Talk:Per Anders Rudling. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This conversation provides an overview of Rudling's "objectivity": . He's a credentialed historian but has a POV and has been caught with inaccuracies and perhaps dishonesty. He should be avoided when he makes controversial statements or claims. There are some pro-Ukrainian nationalist historians who should be treated equally carefully.Faustian (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Yes, I appreciate that you've modified his bio a little, but I am still concerned with the use of Defending history com as a reliable source. It certainly presents as being an interest group WP:INDY. See authors, about us and even their indictment Misplaced Pages's article about them from when it was purely sourced from their own site information to being reworked with other sources. Their indictment of Timothy Snyder is a thinly veiled attack on his works and him, as a person.

In other words, while you've toned down the language to an extent on the Per Anders Rudling article, considering that the "Treatment of Ukrainian nationalism" section is based on information paraphrased from the Defending history page, I don't even see the section name as actually being relevant to the information it carries. Members of Canadian-Ukrainian community groups objecting to Rudling's public announcement infers (very, very strongly) that they are automatically "Nationalists" per Defending history's hysterical definition of 'nationalism', reflecting in that section as WP:LABEL. If Defending history org can be considered to be a WP:RS (which I don't believe to be the case), it should only be used with "according to" prefacing the opinion in the body of the article, not hidden in a footnote as has been done. Anything less can only be understood as being extremely misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that at least one community group isn't nationalistic, which one?Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Poeticbent has already addressed that issue in modifications to the article. The remaining issue is that of Defending history com (represented by the The Seventy Years Declaration article in Misplaced Pages) as a reliable source from which to base the major portion of an article (being the Per Anders Rudling biography) without questions of neutrality or a highly problematic imbalance in the content being raised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I see how Rudling is Swedish, but how is he "Swedish-American"? --Hegvald (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea as to where that came from, nor can I see any sources for it. I can see that he's was educated predominantly in Sweden and has credentials from Canada and the US (although that doesn't actually even mean that he's had to spend any time there as primary postgrad supervisors aren't even necessarily in the same country as the candidate). Being published by the University of Pittsburgh means nothing as it's simply a matter of having an honorary position for the research quantum - a byline. Cheers for pointing that out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished (but circulated) manuscripts

I have obtained a copy of an unpublished biography of former Congressman Rousseau Owen Crump and mayor from the public library in Bay City, MI (where Crump lived). It was written by his son-in-law, Victor Killick (a statistician by profession, not an historian or biographer) about 60 years after Crump's death. Although unpublished, copies of the manuscript has been circulated (the original is in the State Archives).

Since this is the only lengthy biography of Crump, it's a notable source. It passes WP:V. But would it be a reliable source in any shape or form? Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it's unpublished it's not going to be useful as a means to verify any claims in an article. If it were published it could (at least) be a reliable source as to what the author thought of the former Congressman. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:V says that Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form", with a footnote that says "This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see." So it certainly meets the minimum definition of a published source. Guettarda (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Next question: How did you obtain a copy, and in what way was it made available to the public? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bay City public library has a copy that's available in their reading room, but which does not circulate. I have a photocopy of their copy, which was either made by library staff or by my father-in-law himself (I didn't ask who actually made the photocopy). Technically, I suppose I obtained the document by picking it up from a side table in my father-in-law's house where it sat alongside a collection of Crump-related memorabilia. Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

At best, it's WP:SPS, which means the main problems are probably arguing that there's due weight for any original material found in it. The fact that it's in an archive helps verify authorship, in the same way as a person-of-note's papers, or accounts recorded in a family bible. That article, Rousseau Owen Crump, already looks fairly well-sourced already. What material is the source being proposed as the citation for?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was about my take on it as a source, but I wanted to see what other people, who think about this kind of thing more than me, had to think. I don't actually have a lot of specific information I wanted to source from the manuscript at this point in time - it's more a matter of trying to figure out what I have to work with. To begin with, I want to work through the article and add inline sources. Since Killick's manuscript is among the sources currently listed I figured I should sort out whether it was an appropriate source or not before I added inline attribution. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The book itself—the actual copy in the library—is pretty cleanly along the border of "available to the public." If, as I'm assuming, the photocopy includes the title and page numbers etc. so that you can see that it really does come from this book (which would address the possibility that your father-in-law got his Bay City book photocopies mixed up with others), I'd say we can be reasonably confident that it is what it seems to be. I'd call it reliable for most non-extreme claims. When in doubt, attribute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest caution to the idea you would add it to as a sole in-line citation for that existing material. It might make the material presumably taken from more reliable sources look like it was only taken from the family biography, Citations should give people greater confidence in the material, not less. If the article started looking like it was mostly backed up by the SPS, then I could see material being challenged or removed on that basis, which is the opposite of what you're intending.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, if the existing article material came from non-self-published reliable sources, be careful not to add a mass of citations that might confuse readers about whether it was only found in that family-written self-published source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I'm sorry if I was unclear. My goal is to cite material to the best source available (which obviously isn't Killick, unless there's nothing better). And if I end up citing Killick, I will make sure that it's obvious that it's "according to Killick" (in some shape or form). Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Long River Press

What kind of "publisher" is this? Is this just some place where anyone can get their stuff published? Print on demand?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been unable to find much useful information on Long River Press, beyond what is clearly promotional material: "Founded in 2002, Long River Press is an independent small press publishing fiction and nonfiction on all aspects of Chinese history, culture, and society. With editorial offices located in the San Francisco Bay Area and production facilities located in China, Long River Press draws upon the best editorial and technical resources of American and Chinese publishers to produce books of enduring quality for the publishing trade, museum stores, and both a general and academic readership. With an emphasis on fiction, history, art, philosophy, and language, the goal of Long River Press is to broaden its ever-widening audience of individuals developing or cultivating an interest in China." As to whether material published by them is RS, we'd need more specific information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Long River Press is an established publisher and part of the Perseus Books group, specifically their academic division. They're almost certainly a reliable source where used. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perseus Academic distributes some Long River Press books, specifically academic books about China. Consortium Book Sales & Distribution, which is a division of Perseus, also distributes their books. So I think the reliability of their books should be the same as whichever division of Perseus distributes them. TFD (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nepalese American

I am writing about two sources presently used at the Nepalese American article, these are the Bhutan News Service and the website Bhutan Refugees that presently appears to be a dead link. Significant amount of the section "Bhutanese American (group of people of Nepali origin)" appears to be uncited using footnotes, and before removing per WP:BURDEN, I want to see what others think about the content and presently used sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be cautious about removal, even though the two Bhutan sources look weak. One issue is that a big chunk of that material seems to be primarily supported by CNN rather than the sources you're questioning. It could probably be reworked to more directly reflect the claims made in the CNN source, rather than outright removal, which would probably be seen as contentious. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! While we've got fresh eyes on the page is everyculture.com a reliable source? They are published by Advameg, and their articles have bibliographies, but I am not seeing any footnotes stating what content is verified by what source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own author's film review?

On the page for America: Imagine the World Without Her (Dinesh D'Souza's political documentary), there is a talk page agreement to add a positive review to the otherwise negative (and liberal) "Critical response" section, but the review of the most prominent full time professional critic to positively review the film, Breitbart's Christian Toto, is being rejected by an editor on the grounds that the source is supposedly questionable (not because of the quote's content). Breitbart is a news/opinion site employing reporters and a large editorial team that currently ranks #41 on Alexa's ranking of global news sites, but this isn't about its fitness as a news source. This is a section dedicated to attributed subjective opinions. The other sources currently used in the section include The A.V. Club (which is operated by The Onion, a satirical site), rogerebert.com (film opinion blog), and two quotes from Huffington Post columnists (the liberal equivalent of Breitbart).

Breitbart routinely publishes film reviews, often by its feature entertainment writer Christian Toto. Toto is a professional film critic who is frequently quoted by Rotten Tomatoes and included in RT aggregations (complete with links to his Breitbart reviews). He wrote for the Washington Times for years, and was hired by Breitbart a couple of years ago as a columnist, associate entertainment editor, and feature reviewer. He's a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association and other professional organizations. This particular review was cited in newspaper coverage.

It seems to me that Breitbart is clearly a reliable source in this context, and there's no basis for excluding it or Toto on pure sourcing grounds. Thoughts? VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Be bold! Include it and attribute it clearly. Also for balance since there are two from the HuffPo, find another non-liberal source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about an attributed quote, and I did add it only to have it reverted on alleged sourcing grounds, which is why I'm here. Should I take your comment to mean you do think the source is reliable in this context? VictorD7 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Government Sources

This question was originally posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. I am reposting here as it seems like the more appropriate place to ask.

Hi. I have a question about the reliability of government sources. I've noticed several government sources in articles (e.g. NASA in astronomy-related articles; HMIe reports in UK education-related articles; RCAHMS in articles on Scottish monuments; etc.). My question is, are all sources produced by a government considered to be reliable? For example, I consider the information produced by my government to be reliable, but wouldn't place the same trust in the government of North Korea - that's not to say Misplaced Pages feels the same. Conversely, it's possible Misplaced Pages doesn't consider any government sources to be reliable. Thank you in advance for your help. --Adam Black 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not all government sources are per se reliable or unreliable. It depends on the concrete context, that is which (type of) government, which source and about what. Even for the same government the reliability of a source can vary greatly. For instance using Nasa to source various astronomical or geographical stuff is fine, various EPA publications on pollution might be become slightly iffy already and a US government source for people killed during the Iraq war is already rather questionable. However it also depends whether you want to describe something like (undisputed) fact or attribute it as opinion or partisan source. In Nasa case you probably use it for (undisputed) factual description, in the EPA case an explicit attribution (according to EPA) might be required already and for US government source on the deaths in Iraq it certainly is.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution