Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 156

Archive 150

←

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

Archive 158

→

Archive 160

"Tech blogs" as sources for a company controversy?

I wouldn't mind sources like Ars Technica being used to cite noncontroversial information, but I have a suspicion that this source and several other "tech blogs" are being relied on too much in the Suburban Express article, specifically in the "2013 controversy" section and to describe the company's reputation on Yelp and Reddit. I've brought up my concern on the Talk page, but I think it might help to get some additional opinions. HtownCat (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ars is owned Condé Nast who publishes some high quality magazines. I would probably put it on the same level as Wired for straight reporting and feature pieces. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Much of Suburban Express Wiki article relates to attacks on Suburban Express by Reddit users and Suburban Express response to same. ARS Technica articles relating to Suburban Express devote a large number of column inches to discussing Reddit vs Suburban Express with a noticeable bias in favor of Reddit users. Since ARS and Reddit are both owned by Conde Nast, there would seem to be somewhat of a conflict of interest. It is in the interest of conde nast if its subsidiary ARS supports Reddit users and drives traffic to subsidiary Reddit. It seems clear that ARS blog posts should not be used as sources in this, or any article which relates to Reddit (or any other conde nast media property). 2602:306:367E:C8B9:21F:5BFF:FEBF:E186 (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

^_Bold 185.156.72.9 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

International Kungfu Federation used as a BLP source

This organisation[internationalkungfu.com/] is used in relationship to a BLP, Wong Kiew Kit to claim he is "the fourth generation successor from the famous Shaolin Monastery of China, and a grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu and Chi Kung" in the article Shaolin Wahnam Institute and in his own article to state "grandmaster of Shaolin Kung Fu and Qigong." Google search[1] doesn't bring up enough for me to see this group as a reliable source for a BLP in this specific instance. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be very skeptical. Perhaps it could be treated as an SPS... ie allow it, but attribute. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical as well, but it does look like an acceptable source for saying that he is grand-master-certified by the IKF. CorporateM (Talk) 13:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'd say not, as it says " fourth generation successor from the famous Shaolin Monastery of China," - which is Shaolin Monastery, not Southern Shaolin Monastery. So we can't use it as a source since it's got the wrong monastery, and it's not up to us to interpret it.

Self-published book being used for exceptional controversial claims about a NRM.

The article is Brahma_Kumaris. The reference used is supposedly a book written by "Anti-Om Mandli Committee" (Om Mandli is the previous name of Brahma Kumaris). The link for the book[2], named "An_Reply_To_Is_This_Justice", and also the only place it can be accessed, is the anti-Brahma Kumaris site brahmakumaris.info. The book is fully typed by brahmakumaris.info, an ex-members critical site which contains original research and exceptional claims. There is no original version of it available on the internet and none has been shown on the article.

The book, even if true, is self-published by the Anti-Om Mandli Committee. It contains heavy WP:Exceptional claims that are not mentioned in any secondary or reliable source, only in itself. And it is being used as basis for extraordinary and heavily controversial claims in the WP article, such as the following diff: [3].

The article is also under probation, which highlights the importance of verifiable, reliable secondary sources, in opposition to original research, specially on controversial claims.[4]

I appreciate any attention on this matter. Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The text is available at [Project Gutenberg] via BramaKumaris. UMich had an original copy that has unfortunately gone missing. I'm not seeing any cites to this work on google scholar, which isn't unexpected given the rarity and the fact that work is dated from 1940.

As to your points: reference works are allowed to contain original research, and the fact that we only know of electronic versions of the work does not impeach its reliability. Given the absence of any press information I think it's reasonable to conclude this was self-published, but the work does contain several transcriptions of newspaper articles; do those articles contain anything of interest? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LC, thanks for the response. The version you linked is the same typed by brahmakumaris.info.

According to WP:NOTRS, the Article Probation [5], WP:Exceptional and WP:SPS, an original research, or self-published source, may be used only for non-controversial points. In this case, it's being used for highly controversial and exceptional claims, that are not mentioned in any secondary or reliable source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A few points. The articles in on probation as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris#Article probation, so it would be I guess acceptable to request ArbCom input as per that ruling. Also, it would really help if someone indicated exactly what was regarded as exceptional. The questioned material seems to, correct me if I'm wrong, refer to citation #19, which sources the following material:

• "Kripalani was reported to have learnt a spiritual practise from a Bengali sadhu at the cost of 10,000 rupees" - Not sure if that is considered controversial or not.
• "Lekhraj started holding satsangs which attracted many people and the group became known as Om Mandli. In the beginning of the movement, members considered God to be omnipresent, and their founder Kripalani to be god Brahma, the author of the Bhagavad Gita" - which I guess could be controversial, but I would like to know what aspect.
• "Kripalani claimed that he was the Hindu god Krishna reincarnated. The group was accused of being a cult and putting individuals into a trance by way of hypnotic or occult influences. It was reported that under the guise of high sounding philosophy, a systematic ridicule of Hinduism, worship and prayer was going on and priest and preachers of other religions were stigmatised as hypocritical charlatans and that followers were being duped into the belief that salvation could only be attained through him and the Mandli and within one week" some of which I could see as being controversial, but if it is referring to the accusations, I'm not sure that saying accusations were made is necessarily controversial

There is one fourth reference link, but it seems to link to the third quote above. So, honestly, I really would like to know exactly which statements sourced from the work are considered controversial. If we knew, it would be possible to find out if any other sources support it or not. Also, at least theoretically, if there is one or more problematic editor involved, it would not be impossible to ask for ArbCom to perhaps take up the matter. But we would need to know exactly what is being called exceptional claims here. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, John Carter, thanks for the response. What is being called exceptional is the claim contained in the book, that Lekhraj sexually abused the girls who participated in Om Mandli, and immorally touched and kissed them. Even if the book is true, beyond being self-published, that claim was only made by the anti-committee, which lost the legal case against Om Mandli. Even in the context of the book, the claims are not accepted as fact. Yet we have in the article, for example, the following diff presenting the exceptional claim as fact: [6] GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that one: "Some members of the local Sindhi people reacted unfavourably to the movement because of immoral and intimate behaviour between the founder and the young women who attended his ashram, and his encouragement that they leave their husbands and families and become his gopis. The situation was further inflamed when it founder challenged the authority of his local caste leaders during the marriage of one daughter and by taking back a second married daughter whilst leaving her child with the other family.". OK, knowing what is being argued helps. I could see maybe that some of the content be kept in, although perhaps changing it to something like "...Sindhi people reacted unfavourably based on allegations of immortal and intimate behavior...", if the material about that Sindhi reaction is considered significant enough to be included, which, for all I know, it might be. Local reactions to groups tend to be a big deal historically, depending on the size of the group. The second sentence, which I'm assuming is factually accurate?, might be less controversial, as it seems to be more about social factors than individual behavioral ones, depending of course who the male involved in those matters was. Or are you contending that the matter of the alleged Sindhi response is itself not significant enough for inclusion? Just asking for clarification here. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing the words might be something, but "immoral intimate behavior" (which means sexual abuse) is something contained only in the book we are talking about. WP:Exceptional says that exceptional claims need multiple high quality sources as basis. There is no reliable, secondary, high quality source to back up those claims, let alone multiple. The Arbitration case says there are quite enough secondary sources about Brahma Kumaris, and that WP:OR cannot be used to back up controversial claims. Just to clarify: My concern is precisely the excerpt "immoral intimate behavior" right now, and also using the anti-committee book as basis for controversial claims, as I read on guidelines and arbitration, that controversial claims require secondary sources. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, "immoral intimate behavior" could just mean indulging in "free love"-type sexual license, I don't know, and that isn't necessarily sexual abuse, although, admittedly, that is a really fine line there in the religious context. If there are no other sources alleging some sort of sexual misconduct, abusive or otherwise, though, then I don't see any reason for those words to stay in the article. The rest of the sentence, if it is better sourced, could probably stay, although it would be useful to indicate if the negative Sindhi response, if that is sourcable elsewhere, did have any sort of clear cause. Maybe, if that is the case, something like "Allegations from current or former members turned the Sindhi against the BK," or some other comment of that type that doesn't go into any particular dubiously sourced details. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter. So, by your advice, I assume I can remove "immoral intimate behavior", as no reliable secondary source supports any sexual misconduct. I will do that as per your advice. Thank you very much. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Gene-callahan.blogspot.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

FYI

 – A related discussion is underway below at consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog – personal blog of economist Robert Murphy 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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:
   1. "Gene Callahan has implied that the Institute is a cult and compared it to Scientology."
   2. Later modified to read: "Callahan rejected Robert's Murphy's denial that the Mises Institute is a cult, and compared it to Scientology.[39]" (Footnote 39 "Murphy on LvMI" remains))
   3. [inserted Sept. 22] Context here: [7] SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
   4. [inserted Sept. 22] Full paragraph reads: "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.[39][self-published source?][40][41][42] In the opinion of former Mises Institute Scholar Gene Callahan, "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time Bob [Murphy] 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.[43][self-published source?]"
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 ^(chat!) 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 [Callahan is] 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)

Note re ANRFC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request for closure posted at WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The ANRFC was removed after discussion picked up again.16:49, 15 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 Wikipedia. -- 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. While we may come to different conclusions on that, what matters is the strength of argument and policy/guidelines, not posting opinion conclusion. Wikipedia'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):

Editor	RS/Non-RS	Summary	Summary provided by:
Steeletrap	RS	Editors' views cannot be usefully summarized, out of context, in a table such as this one. Please disregard this table.	Steeletrap
Fifelfoo	Non-RS	Gossip. Expertise is not w/ cults	OP
Errant	Non-RS	Needs RS to show Callahan's opinion is notable	OP
SPECIFICO	RS	Editors' views cannot be usefully summarized, out of context, in a table such as this one. Please disregard this table.	SPECIFICO
Binksternet	Non-RS	[Cult] assertion should come from more reliable source; blog demeans identifiable 3rd parties; non-encyclopedic; undue weight (tree falls in forest)	OP; modified by Binksternet
Carolmooredc	Non-RS	SPS	OP
Jreferee	Non-RS	Extraordinary claim, not verified by high-quality third party sources, non-expert opinion	OP
MilesMoney	RS	Editors' views cannot be usefully summarized, out of context, in a table such as this one. Please disregard this table.	MilesMoney
OP	Non-RS	SPS, Callahan is blogging about another blog, references 3rd parties & living people, Callahan is not commenting about economics, changes to article text have not modified the nature of the blog	OP

If changes to the summary statements are desired, please let me know – or make changes to your particular section. – S. Rich (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)17:03, 20 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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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)

Your summary is very much your summary; it's all spin and has only a tenuous connection to reality. In particular, it violates the talk page rules by falsely attributing views to others. For example, you excluded mention of Murphy which is central to my argument. You said it was ok for us to change it, and since you wouldn't do it when we asked, I took the liberty of collapsing it.

I keep asking you a simple question and you can't answer it. At some point, I just gotta conclude you don't have an answer. But not yet. I'll ask again: what policy stops us from presenting Gene Callahan's views as Gene Callahan's views? Before you answer, stop and read WP:RSOPINION. MilesMoney (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I have incorporated your points about Murphy into the summary. Please let me know about other changes you think are needed. As for your question, I have cited SPS and WP:QS. Perhaps this quote from RSOPINION (the third paragraph) will help: "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published ... blogs ... as a source for material about a living person,... [bold in the original]." Callahan is writing about what Murphy wrote and what Murphy thinks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you've been asked by other editors to remove or hat your table. You are misrepresenting the views of other editors in violation of WP policy. You are not our amanuensis. Please remove, strike-though or hat your table. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

When I repeatedly ask other editors to make comments on what changes are desirable, accusing me of misrepresentation fails WP:AGF. If you feel changes are warranted to the summary I posted in your section, please feel free to make such changes yourself. Please do not change the sections related to other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

[insert]@srichYou are taking an entirely inappropriate posture that you are in a position to command the behavior of other editors. I made it quite clear to you first that you misrepresented me, and second that the table itself was (is) inappropriate. Please strike your personal attack re:AGF. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I already pointed out, you need a single, valid argument against inclusion, not a hundred waving hands (or pumped fists). I asked you for a principled basis for your objection, for something supported by the rules and our sources, but you've kept tossing out easily refuted arguments while trying to shift the conversation to your dishonest chart/table thing. As further counterproductive distraction (not to mention intimidation), you're threatening me on ANI pages with accusations so baseless that you've had to retract them and go hunting for some place else to attack me. How is any of this going to help you prove your case? Just drop the nonsense and focus on the topic. MilesMoney (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here is that there have been a few opinions shared by editors who either don't understand the question or don't know the answer. Some just don't understand that we're quoting someone on what they believe, not stating it as fact. Others don't understand the policies that allow us to do this. And there are those who make both mistakes.

This is not a vote. It's a discussion. Opinions that are based on errors just don't count. If I argued that we must allow Callahan because he's the Pope, my opinion is worthless and should be thrown out. If I bring in a hundred other editors who likewise argue based on his Papal infallibility, they're likewise worthless.

All it takes is a single, correct argument. Incorrect ones are noise, not signal, no matter how many there are. But Rich's chart is a noise-amplification device, designed to drive out the signal under a flood of mistaken conclusions, to create a false consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Rich, adding an attribution column isn't enough. Now you have to remove everything that's written by you and summarizes someone else. After that, we can slash out each row that contains an invalid argument. When we're done, all that'll be left is SPECIFO's and mine. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a note to each of the other contributing editors and asked them to modify the summaries of their comments. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See, that's just another way for you to try to control the conversation, demanding that we fill in the blanks in your hopelessly broken table. No, thanks. There have been enough editors opting out that the table is doomed. And since you won't stick to the topic you brought up, this entire section has withered on the vine. I recommend WP:BLOWITUP: get rid of this dead end and start with a short, clear post that explains how the rules applied to the facts lead to your conclusion. If you can't do this (and I have my doubts), then you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own. You have gained no traction so far and you're not going to unless you come up with something better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO; to address your question (why can't we present Callahan's view as his view). The problem isn't so much that we can present his view (we can, he has published it, that's fine). The problem is that you've not presented anything to support Callahan's viewpoint as a noteworthy one. Anyone can start a blog. I do appreciate he was (or claims to have been, I am unclear here) a member of the institute. But even so, a SPS blog source isn't very strong. It's not our place (per, for example, WP:OR) to choose which views to present. So what you need to locate is an independent, RS, that discusses Callahan's view as noteworthy. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just read Gene Callahan and you'll see that he is an adjunct scholar at the Institute and has published heavily in his field. There's absolutely nothing in the rules that says we can't quote him on the subject of what he believes about the Institute that he is a member of. Instead, it's obvious that he's qualified to speak on this topic and what he says is notable. We know for sure that it's notable because it was noted and got a response.

I'm going to say this again: policy permits and encourages us to use Callahan for an attributed statement. There is no element of WP:OR and WP:SPS just doesn't say what you think it does. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but your comment qualifies as noise. MilesMoney (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's borderline, but I think in the case of this contested information we would, yes, look for a secondary source to support the view as noteworthy. Per WP:SPS; Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so --Errant ^(chat!) 23:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this? It seems as though all of the criticism of the Institute is coming from its own members. This lowers the burden on us substantially. MilesMoney (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Again that's the blog of a former member; which fails the test of being independent coverage. Just to highlight the mistake you are making here, It seems as though - where are you getting that from? Yourself, or a RS? --Errant ^(chat!) 09:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Further on my post above, even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult is an ordinary claim, it still needs to be verifiable against reliable sources. Being a cult is something capable of being prove true or false. You cannot verity a fact with an opinion, no matter what source opinion you use. Even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult were verifiable using opinion, Gene-callahan.blogspot.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source for the proposed use or the target article. The opinion of Gene Callahan, of what he believes, characterizes Gene Callahan as a person, not the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The only place it could be posted is the Gene Callahan article, but since no third-party source has used it to describe what Callahan believes, the information does not belong in that article either.
  The problem is that editors want to use the charged, loaded word "cult" instead of taking the time to summarize how third party reliable sources are characterizing the institute. It is not a cult, but look at the definition of cult.[8]: veneration of a person and/or ideal. A body of admirers. Ideology. If you look at the collective of the reliable sources on the institute, you may not see these exact words or explanation, but you may see something along these lines: 'Those who oppose or question the Ludwig von Mises Institute assert that, as a body containing a mix of admirers and idolizers of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, they go beyond promoting the economics proposed by Ludwig von Mises to a point of veneration.' So which reads better? The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a cult or what I just wrote? What I wrote is not sourced so do not use it in the article. Instead, go though the reliable sources on the Ludwig von Mises Institute, get a sense/summary of how they are being characterized by others, the consider posting that in a verifiable, neutral way. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Good advice, Jreferee; you are a clear thinker. The only correction to make here is that the supposed cult leader would be Murray Rothbard, not Ludwig von Mises. Rothbard was a strong character who made certain that his views were foremost at the Mises Institute he co-founded. Rothbard is dead, so BLP considerations do not stop us from using blogs to call him a cult leader. However, I have argued that BLP applies to the people who are still members of LvMI, the ones who would thus be called cult members. As well, the blogs are not important enough for us to single them out for attention; they have not risen to the world's attention by way of mainstream media, so why does Wikipedia care about blog accusations? Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I see your error: you say, "even if the claim of Ludwig von Mises Institute as a cult is an ordinary claim", but we're not making that claim. We're stating that X says Y, not affirming Y. So you're using the wrong set of requirements. MilesMoney (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We do several things in the editing process. We analyze the claim & source and, if the claim & source meet editing policy, we restate the claim based on what the source says. In this case, the claim that LvMI is a cult is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Thus it comes under special scrutiny. As a source, Callahan is primary because he was there and he's talking about his experience with the people there. And as a blog, which is commenting about another blog, it fails RS – even if it were not making an extraordinary claim. In other words, we do not say "X says Y" – because X's comment does not meet RS standards (as a blog) and Y is an extraordinary claim. This would apply if Callahan was making an ordinary (or unchallenged) claim. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As User:MilesMoney implies, much of this controversy stems from shoddy reading comprehension. The claim that "The Mises Institute is a cult" is extraordinary, but does not appear in this article. The claim is that LvMI is a cult in the opinion of Gene Callahan, who is a notable academic that had a long, prolific role with LvMI. Similarly, we present the view that Democracy is "incompatible with wealth creation" on the Mises page; this is not an extraordinary claim because it is presented not as fact but as the opinion of Mises fellows. Steeletrap (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to think I was really clear but Rich's response doesn't make any sense or show he understands what's going on. I'll say it some more, until it sinks in. We're not saying the Institute is or isn't a cult. We're saying that these two members disagree on this topic. Until you understand this, nothing you say matters. Sorry, but I'm being blunt because you're just not getting it. MilesMoney (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted a variety of arguments above. In reply to the comment that "We're stating that X says Y, not affirming Y" - X's opinion about an unproven fact claim about Y is a characterization about X, not Y, so Callahan's opinion about an unproven fact claim about the Ludwig von Mises Institute does not belong in the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good argument. Even if we grant your reasoning -- which we can't because it doesn't seem to be supported by policy -- it fails because of the facts. You argue that X talking about Y belongs in the article about X, but in this case, X is a member of Y, so it belongs in the article on Y. Claims by members of the Institute belong in the article about the Institute, not anywhere else. Sorry, but that doesn't work for you. MilesMoney (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Two bloggers taking potshots? Not notable. If you can find a mainstream source mentioning Callahan's position then you have something you can bank on. Otherwise it is undue weight given to Callahan, who is not an expert on cults. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not based on an accurate summary of the situation. If you and I opened blogs that debated with each other about whether the Institute is a cult, it would be entirely non-notable. What we're talking about are two members of the Institute having a public discussion with each other about their own Institute. Callahan is, as a member of the Institute, qualified to speak about it. This makes your opinion here non-notable. MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksernet, what if their blogs said "Michael Moore is fat" or "Sarah Palin is stupid" -- would you insist they be notable experts in physiology or psychometrics? There is RS documented public discussion of vMI as a cult, see Time Magazine, Buckley, and other RS discussion. In light of the corroborating secondary sources, I feel that MilesMoney's analysis is supported by WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If Time magazine & National Review directly supported the material (the contention that the institute is a cult), that would be one thing. But they do not. Justin Fox (Time) talks about Rothbard, the Kochs, and gives quotes from Buckley, Gordon, and Rothbard. Fox does not come out and say anything about the institute. (He quotes Buckley who says the number of followers ("disciples") of Rothbard & Koresh are similar. But this does NOT serve to characterize the institute as a cult.) Jonah Goldberg (National Review) quotes Doherty, who does not discuss LvMI. The quoted material from Doherty again quotes the Buckley obit, expanding the sentence which reads "Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God." (Thus we have Goldberg quoting Doherty who quotes Buckley.) Characterizing the support for the cult characterization as coming from Time & National Review (or even Buckley) fails the WP:RS#Context matters direct support requirement.17:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not contending that it's a cult. We're stating the uncontroversial fact that members publicly debate over whether it is a cult. This is a simple point that even a child could understand, but you keep missing it. Are you WP:COMPETENT? MilesMoney (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ethiopian Journal

An Ethiopian Journal article indicates with regard to Matt Bryden, the former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG), that "the UN has also insisted on retaining and re-nominating Matt Bryden, Arnaud Laloum and Jörg Roofthooft despite objections from some quarters" (c.f. [9]). This was used on the Bryden page to source the following wikitext: "Bryden was retained on the panel despite objections from some parties" [10]. I would like to know if this is ok. If not, how can the phrase be amended to conform with wiki policy? Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the concern? The wording or the source itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Is electronic intifada a a reliable source regarding issues related to Israeli-Arab conflict, Zionism, Holocaust Anti-Semitism and relationship between Arab world and Nazi Germany

• 1. Source.[11]
• 2. Article Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world
• 3. Content. [12]

Thank you for your opinion.Tritomex (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This question has been asked on this noticeboard at least 10 times before, but in the current case, the question as expressed is misleading. Nobody is trying to cite any fact to Electronic Intifada (and if they were, I would probably oppose it). The situation is that an interview they posted is being used for the words of the person interviewed, a leading expert on the subject. The opinions expressed by the person interviewed are fully consistent with his known views and I don't see any reason to regard the reporting as unreliable. Zero^talk 14:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, If the interview published by clearly unreliable source is "fully consistent with the known views of Achcar " than proper references regarding his views should be added through reliable sources. An unreliable, partisan source can not be reference for any scholar view, certainly not on subject which is directly linked to the reason of its unreliability. Otherwise, we could quote scholars, scientists, politicians from blogs, political pamphlets, self published articles etc.--Tritomex (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

While replacing an acceptable source with a better source at some point in the future sounds like a reasonable principle, I take it that such possible futures are not the question here. Zero0000's response looks like a correct answer to the more practical question originally asked.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Some editors have tried countless times to have "Electronic Intifada" branded as "clearly unreliable". They have never succeeded. Now Tritomex argues as if they have....so what does this do to his/her credibility? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

An activist source is more likely to be reliable for an interview with someone in broad agreement with their views, not less as Tritomex suggests. In this case there is a choice. Several editors (including me) have read Achcar's book and could summarise his views using more or less the same words, but that would just make it harder for readers to verify that the summary is objective rather than OR. It is better to use Achcar's own words as a summary of his views. If a summary just as suitable is found in a place less likely to be challenged, it could be used instead. Meanwhile, no case for suppressing the information has been made. Zero^talk 09:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

"Simultaneously, however, he did not publicly support [the 1925 Nazi 25-point program]; in his political biography, Mein Kampf (1925, 1926), Hitler only mentions it as “the so-called program of the movement”.[Turner, Henry A. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler. Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 77]" Here is a link to a snippet view of the passage in Turner's book. He wrote, "Subsequently, even while proclaiming the correctness of the program as a whole, [Hitler] consistently refrained from citing its terms in detailed fashion. He conspicuously omitted its text from Mein Kampf, where he alluded to it disparagingly as the "so-called program of the movement."

An editor removed this line from the article National Socialist Program with the comment, "The absoluetly most reliable source as to the contents of a book are, and will ALWAYS be that said book. Turners claim cannot be verified (wikipedia rule), as infact it can be easily disproven."[13] I have discussed this with the editor at Talk:National Socialist Program#An error.

Whether or not Hitler supported the program is relevant to the article. To me, if an editor disagrees with what Turner says, then s/he should find another source, rather than just remove the text based on his/her reading of Mein Kampf. I would appreciate any comments.

TFD (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR The IP's interpretation of a book is original research. Nothing else to discuss. There is probably an OR notice board where an admin can help you remove the IP's research from Wikipeia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

TFD, as you present it, your reasoning seems correct. It could be that other sources exist which give another opinion, but then they can be added later and that does not require us to remove mention of this opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As N-HH wrote on the article talk page, Turner did not write what is claimed, so Turner cannot be refuted by refuting what is claimed. (I.e. the difficulty seems to be a strawman.) What Turner actually wrote, that Hitler referred to the 25 points in disparaging fashion, appears to be true. I'll quote Mein Kampf on the article talk page shortly. Zero^talk 13:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A commercial link

In Goniometer I recently added a new section- Doctor blade inspection- and the following text:

Used Doctor blades, used in gravure and other printing and coating processes, may be inspected using a goniometer, typically with a built-in light source, to examine the blade edge to see whether the blade has worn at the desired angle and whether there are signs of wear at other angles. A difference in angle from that set on the machine may indicate excessive pressure, and a range of angles ("rounding") probably indicates a lack of stiffness, or wear, in the blade holder assembly.

The source supports most of the first sentence. The second sentence is verifiable in principle.

This was deleted as spam and since then there has been a bit of discussion about this source- see Talk:Goniometer.

I believe that WP:SPAM says "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia"

So- a couple of questions

• is the use of this source in this context acceptable?
• Widening out the question- Vsmith asserts a blanket ban: "A commercial webpage that exists to promote and sell a product is not a valid reference." in any circumstances apparently, as (s)he does not wish to discuss the particulars of this entry. IMHO, that creates particular difficulties for engineering, manufacturing, and technological articles. Is this a serious WP policy?

Gravuritas (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

True, but such a policy saves us from other difficulties. If we did allow those links, the engineering, manufacturing and technological articles would soon have little else (who could resist free advertising on the 6th most visited site on the web?). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm new to WP, but I'd be surprised if policy-making on WP is done by one man and a dog. So where does this policy appear? I asked VSmith and (s)he ducked the question despite posting a reply, which is either inconsiderate or implies that it's his/her invention. Are you arguing in favour of a policy that really exists? or are you suggesting that such a policy should exist?- in which case maybe the examples to discuss could possibly be better-known objects than goniometers.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Try WP:RS, particularly WP:QUESTIONABLE: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites .... that are promotional in nature... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

So firstly, we seem to have established that the words of VSmith's original assertion were his/her own invention. That's progress- thank you.

Now let's have the quote in full. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." So we are agreed that the only issue is that source was promotional in nature. Agreed, but so what? The WP policy continues "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities." So none of that applies. And finishing the quote- "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited" Now finally we have got to something that might apply. I suggest that, in the absence of another non-commercial source, the existence of a commercial website selling goniometers is a perfectly reasonable source to back up my assertion from Goniometer that

"Used Doctor blades, from gravure and other printing and coating processes, may be inspected using a goniometer".

Gravuritas (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For your source to be accepted, it's not sufficient to point that the guidelines allow links to promotional sites in limited circumstances. You could have just pointed to WP:IAR to establish that. What you need to do here is make a case as to why your source fits into an already-accepted class of exceptions, or why creating a new class will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Given that you're asking for simultaneous exceptions to WP:LINKSPAM, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, I don't see how an effective argument can be made. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems the user above wishes to use commercial webpages as references for content in Wikipedia articles. If we allow such, as indicated above, commercial interests will jump at the chance to promote their stuff. I'm quite surprised that there seems to be a lack of direct advice on this in our policies. I was of the understanding that company websites could be linked in articles about the company, but other such uses as in articles about products or services shouldn't use commercial "references" to avoid "promotion" of a single company. Commercial websites lack independent editorial oversite, are promotional "designed to sell" and not neutral, and are self-published. So how can we use a commercial website as a reference in an article? I don't think the user bringing this question here has any connection to the website so WP:COI likely doesn't apply, but ... if we allow the use of such websites others with a conflict of interest will see a source of free advertising/promotion.

I also see the user is seeing this discussion as supporting his edits: see this and note ref #8 which links to this website which prompted this discussion following their use of this on the goniometer article as mentioned above. Vsmith (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me rewind slightly here and apologise to Vsmith for some over-the top language on my part. Let me say that, in my few weeks editing on WP I am beginning to understand the scale of the effort performed by many people just keeping up with vandalism, edit wars, etc let alone adding to the material and keeping it up to date. I'd like to avoid adding further to this load- but I do have a remaining issue with the consensus emerging in this section and the way it seems to unfolding in doctor blades- as follows-

In the Goniometer example, I added a section that boils down to "Goniometers are used for examining doctor blades" (say g.a.u.f.e.d.b.) and added a commercial link to verify that assertion. Whether or not Benton Graphics goniometers are good or bad, they _are_ selling them for that purpose and the assertion g.a.u.f.e.d.b. should be taken as verified by all. By all means delete the link- but for goodness sake a CN tag should not then be added. Similarly a link to a supplier of hard-chromed gravure cylinders demonstrates that at least some gravure cylinders are hard chromed; a website advertising chromed or ceramic anilox rollers shows that anilox rollers can be chromed or ceramic, etc. If I added to an appropriate article that, say, ceramic aniloxes can be laser-engraved, I could verify it in an instant by a link to an commercial website, but I might look for a long time before finding an appropriate printed article (and when I did it would probably be a puff-piece from a trade mag, which is only likely to be there if the laser anilox engraver has taken out an appropriate amount of advertising). I operate & have operated in some moderately obscure bits of technology and engineering, and sources of the preferred sort are hard to come by. Some of the recent edits I've done- Mimeograph, talk:punch press, electrical discharge machining; carbon paper are not wonderfully backed up by cites, though I've done my best- but hey- do you want this stuff or not?

Gravuritas (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't want citations to commercial suppliers. Allowing those links create more problems than they solve. Yes, this means coverage on a lot of interesting topics will be limited to nonexistent. That's ok.

There's a higher tolerance for accepting (non-controversial) edits that aren't (yet) backed up by reliable sources. However, since those kinds of edits can be reverted as soon as anyone challenges them, I don't know that adding unsourced material is a good use of your time.

Ideally, you'd be starting with an impeccable source and mining it for edits. Putting "doctor blades" into google books returns plenty of hits, many of which are preview-enabled. Not all of those are going to be reliable (particularly the "books" that are just reprints of wikipedia articles) but most of them will be. Start from that and all of this WP:RS annoyance just disappears. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that ideal sources are ideal, but that doesn't help us think through the sort of examples I was posing. I think this boils down to the difference between a reliable source and a reliable source. If I use a commercial website to show the existence of e.g. a ceramic anilox, then, for that purpose, the source is reliable- no reasonable person would doubt the existence of aniloxes which are ceramic. If the commercial link is not appropriate on WP, fine- let the link be deleted. But it is not reasonable for the same person to delete the link and immediately slap a CN tag on it. If a future editor happens to challenge the statement and add a CN tag, then maybe someone will dig up the commercial link to verify the statement and get rid of the CN tag (and then redelete the commercial link, if you like). If nobody traces the commercial link, or finds a better one, then the material will be lost in future- so be it. The burr under my saddle is that removing the commercial link is OK if it's found to be objectionable, but that removing a commercial link which genuinely verified something, and then immediately tagging the article with a CN is just wantonly destructive.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to get rid of the CN tags. Here's what I found.

Leach, R.H.; Pierce, R.J., eds. (2007), The Printing Ink Manual (5th ed.), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, ISBN 978-0-948905-81-0

• "The anilox roller is a crucial factor in achieving good-quality flexo printing, and yet there is still much to be learnt about it. Cermaic rollers and chrome-plated rollers have very different ink release characteristics, and supply different amount of ink..."
• "On modern presses the transfer roller and is likely to be fitted with a doctor blade for better ink film thickness control."

Are these helpful? Is there anything else useful in the book? I have no idea; you're the expert here. If that book isn't useful, let me know and I'll see what else I can dig up (and we'll probably transfer the conversation over to the article's talk page at that point). I'll be hitting multiple research libraries over the next month so we're not limited to what's on the web.

To sum up: You improved both articles, and I'd like to thank you for that. Now it's my turn to improve the article by digging up some cites, but I could use your help. I think we can have those tags replaced by cites in the next couple of weeks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am steamrollered by relentless positivity. Thank you for the link and the thanks. I'll check the link out, try harder to find WP:RS cites, and appeal for help on the relevant talk page if I run out of ideas for sources. Gravuritas (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Eknath Ranade and Vivekananda Rock Memorial source

We are expanding Eknath Ranade and used this source. it just seems to be a personal fan site compiled by an individual, Paritosh Uttam, and not officially connected with any, say GoI, organization.. I feel the site is reliable and has all the information we need. Can we use it as source? --Tito☸Dutta 13:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we know anything about Paritosh Uttam as someone with expertise in this area? For example is he a cited author or expert?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• He seems to be a novelist. I do not know if he is an expert of this subject. --Tito☸Dutta 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is he very well-known, so that his opinion would be considered notable? (But it is better if you can show his opinion is respected somehow.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• We do not have an article on Paritosh Uttam in Wikipedia (we should have one, it seems he passes WP:GNG. Anyway...). We have not taken his opinions, we are mainly using the site for basic biographical details e.g. Ranade was born on DMY^[ref]. He went to PLACE to do THIS WORD in YEAR^[ref]. --Tito☸Dutta 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The two Paritosh Uttams are probably different persons, especially since the author Paritosh Uttam doesn't mention Vivekananda or the memorials or the rockmemorial website on his personal website or CV and vice versa. Abecedare (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So, until we know more, we are in a grey zone. Best would be to find out more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

saberqureshi.com

I do not believe that the website saberequashi.com is a reliable source at all, but rather than get into any kind of embryonic edit war about it, I'll ask the collective expertise on reliable sources. Some of the links are frankly rather spammy in my opinion, and in no instance is the source reliable. There may or may not be a conflict of interest involved, but that's of secondary importance.

The articles involved are as follows:

• Yogurt, [14], where http://www.saberqureshi.com/blog813.html is used to support the statement "Some accounts suggest that Indian emperor Akbar's cooks would use mustard seeds and cinnamon in yogurt to add flavor."
• Online advertising, [15], where http://www.saberqureshi.com/webtrafficsource.html is used as a reference; this link is not only rather spammy, but the text it supports is a close paraphrase of the website text, so I am actually going to remove it per WP:COPYVIO.
• Naan qalia, [16], where http://www.saberqureshi.com/blog.html is used to support the statement "It is believed that Tughlaq's army used to bake naan every few days to avoid longer stop overs during their journey."
• Honey Singh, [17], where http://www.saberqureshi.com/bohemia-rap-battle-honey-singh.html is used to support the text "There was also a rumor surfacing in a magazine in Chandigarh that interviewed Honey Singh, stated that Honey Singh wanted to rap battle with acclaimed Punjabi rapper Bohemia, though he did not name him directly, but made indirect references to his music." (That content is problematic in itself, to my mind.)
• Storyboard, [18], where http://www.saberqureshi.com/storyboarding.html is used to support the text "Often storyboards include arrows or instructions that indicate movement."

In my head this is straightforward, but I could obviously be wrong. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is a spam. However I see some of the articles where this source has been used meets WP:RS, for example naan qalia, as the publisher of the website already has an article published about the same in a local magazine. The same applies for storyboarding as the publisher has credible sources mentioned in the article on the website, which again meets WP:RS. However, I cannot say the how reliable the source is for other articles such as yogurt and online advertising Mozem121 (talk)

Hmm. OK, thanks for this input. I'm afraid I can't see any of this on the website - neither the credible sources you mention, nor any mention of the magazine article (which might or might not constitute a RS) - but it's getting very late here so I'll leave this until tomorrow. --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think either that the source is not reliable. The content is pretty much clear and carries no controvertial material, but infact quotes sources in the article itself which makes it more legitimate. Article on Honey Singh is a bit off since the author himself claims that the article might be misleading, and this is usually done to attract readers. At the end the author has claimed that there was no such claim by any of the artists. But the rest of the articles are based on full facts and sources including yogurt as there is another source on the net which mentions the same.Nefirious (talk)

Quite clear that it is spam. From the services page: "saberqureshi.com is a professional domain evaluation website that will evaluate your domain portfolio and help you choose your premium domains, help you identify any copyright and TM violations, and advise you on how to monetize and develop your domain. Is it confusing for you to identify the valuable domains from your domain portfolio ? Not a problem. I will help you out with that." It then goes on to list the pricing of the packages. -SFK2 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite clear this is no spam as "saberqureshi.com describes itself as a website belonging to a Journalist who has worked with leading newspapers and Film and Media Production companies. "I am expert in the field of Search Engine Optimization, Online Marketing, wiriting news stories and features. I have done a lot of research work on different subjects and all posts on my blogs have been written after thorough research from primary and secondary resources". -SFK2 (talk), have you read the contents of the website properly ? I do not remotely see anything that says it is a professional domain evaluation website. Please get your eyes checked. Arizonabhoot (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)— Arizonabhoot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nice try - changing the content after I posted it here. We don't need that to show that it's spam - it's obvious to most of the regulars here that the link is not appropriate. Even the admin went ahead and reverted your links.-SFK2 (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding. SFK2 is having difficulty in understanding the website's content. Please do not mislead the editors by making up words. There are no regulars here, only editors. Also do not revert any edits till the board decides. Nefirious (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there is nothing wrong with SFK's eyes or understanding. I checked this site very carefully last night and it certainly said exactly that. It is clear that the site's owner has some kind of insight in this discussion or is participating in it directly; that is not forbidden, certainly, but it should be stated openly. In addition, when a new account is created and immediately join a discussion in a remote corner of Wikipedia, and another account with very few edits returns after two years in order to make a comment in the same discussion, it raises questions (and eyebrows). --bonadea contributions talk 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As far I think this user that goes by the name of SFK2 is not well versed with Wikipedia Guidelines. There are experts who are journalists and that host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write, please see WP:NEWSBLOG. Arizonabhoot (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)— Arizonabhoot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you for making comments based on Wikipedia policy. You are right, but this is a commercial website for a SEO professional, it is not a major news website. --bonadea contributions talk 06:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so that we're clear... [19]. What do you have to say now? -SFK2 (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FTR: Following this SPI, User:Arizonabhoot and User:Mozem121 have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of User:Nefirious, who got a temporary block. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Parry

The work of Robert Parry (journalist) speaks for itself: Parry worked for Associated Press and Newsweek from 1974 to 1990, during which time he broke key aspects of the Iran-Contra affair, for which he won a Polk Award. In 1995, in frustration at mainstream media's attitude to tackling stories like Iran-Contra, he started consortiumnews.com, which he still edits. I've tried to use a Parry article published on consortiumnews.com as a source (as claim explicitly attributed to Parry, not as "fact"), and it's been repeatedly excised (eg). Can we please agree that Parry is a serious journalist whose reports can be taken seriously, and not dismissed as random bloggery even when published on consortiumnews.com? Podiaebba (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be rs, however WP:WEIGHT must also be taken into account. If the mainstream media has picked up on this story then I would use them as a source. If they have not, then it lacks weight for inclusion. The article should provide a similar weight to different views as what one would expect from a BBC analysis explaining what happened. TFD (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

similar weight to different views as what one would expect from a BBC analysis - um, no, this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. News sources are either for drama (TV, radio) or rent-a-quotes from whomever they can get on the phone, all organised under great pressure of time. This has absolutely nothing in common with how an encyclopedia should be written. And for God's sake: Parry had the guts and integrity to leave the mainstream media because of how they tried to cover up Iran-Contra - does this mean nothing? Podiaebba (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it is based primarily on secondary sources. This is not the medium for righting great wrongs of all news media as you imply. That said, I think Parry's analysis merits a sentence or two in the article. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Its a thorny one this MSM pick up. He seems ok though. Far better than SOHR Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that Parry is a serious journalist, but given that other reliable sources aren't citing his Syria work there's a problem of how much WP:WEIGHT to give his reporting. My first impression was that he shouldn't be cited at all, but if VQuakr thinks a couple of sentences are appropriate then I wouldn't object to that. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I respect VQuakr's position, but given that Parry's work is self-published and his "reporting" on Syria has not been cited, I have to agree with your first impression. If Parry were to write a piece or something for, say, Foreign Policy, or if Reuters were to report on Parry's work as a credible account, I would want to include his perspective. But right now we're talking about including some exceptional claims made by a person with no editorial review or oversight -- on his own website -- just because 1) we want some sort of "balance" and including unreliable sources is the only way to accomplish that to some editors' satisfaction, and 2) he did some notable reporting almost 30 years ago. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

riight. So highly respected journalist leaves mainstream media because they keep quashing or lying about politically difficult subjects, starts an independent news service that gets noted by Project Censored, but no, we must ignore him unless the mainstream media he left and severely criticised (which is hardly going to endear him to them) suddenly start picking up his work? Have I got that right? It's like we can't trust highly experienced and award-winning reporters, ever, but corporate machines which mostly spew out press releases always. Podiaebba (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but can you get off your WP:SOAPBOX now? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was addressing the issue at hand, which is the reliability of Robert Parry. My mistake. Podiaebba (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, again

Can this work be allowed to stand [20], even though both the author and the work is highly controversial, and the method heavily criticized by leading scientists in the field [21]? Athenean (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The guy's a crackpot. His 'theories' are only relevant in his bio. — kwami (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Concern as per - this article in the paper and as per this overview of the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Arnaiz-Villena's genetic research on the Greeks (and other peoples) is cited here. The gist of it is that his findings are controversial, critized amongst others by Luca Cavalli-Sforza. All in all, we can certainly discuss his studies in his bio, but should keep them out of overview articles especially, given their strongly disputed conclusions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Ok, so the article is Dueling Network.

And links to sources are: http://deck-list.com/yugioh-online-dueling-network/ http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/rulebook/index.html http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/limited/ http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/delancey03_blog/archive/2011/06/16/playing-with-you-39-re-nostalgia-a-dueling-network-review.aspx http://wikibin.org/articles/dueling-network.html citations from these websites are in the article.Bear with Cup of Tea (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces 1

• www.americanspecialops.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub.

• Can't find any info about this site period, let alone editorial policy, ownership, etc.

Does anyone here familiar with WP:RS find this site to be reliable? Thanks - thewolfchild 06:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be used by many other sources; I can only find one Business Insider article.[22] Of course that's not nothing. It seems a quality designed site, and chock full of information, but it's not clear who is running it or where they're getting their information. I wouldn't use it for controversial info, but I wouldn't necessarily consider unreliable either. However, for the specific Special Mission Unit article, it doesn't seem to be used for anything that doesn't have several other sources already, so I don't think that's going to affect that article either way. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces 2

• sofrep.com

• Being used at Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem; this is a subscription site, cannot access references. Site appears to be run by Special Forces 'guys', and content appears to be user submitted (by other Special Forces 'guys') and is published 'as is'.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise if this site is considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be run by Brandon Webb (author) who is a published author in the field.[23][24][25][26] So I'd say generally reliable. Of course it depends on the exact exact statement you're trying to back. If something seems to be a personal reminiscence then it is that, and not necessarily representative. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Special Operation Forces 3

• fas.org

• Being used for Special Mission Unit stub

• First problem, this is a subscription, may not be able to access content being used as a source. This site is run by what seems to be a Washington DC think tank with charitable status, and it appears it may be a blog of sorts for various 'scientists' to submit user content.

Can anyone here familiar with WP:RS advise is this site can be considered a reliable source? Thanks - thewolfchild 07:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This one seems clear. Just from our article, Federation of American Scientists, it seems quite reliable, established, and reputable. However what do a bunch of scientists know about special forces? --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

tabloids

In a number of pages - viz. Tony Blair, Kate Winslet, Peter Mandelson, John Major et all, it is stated that any newspaper published in a tabloid format is unacceptable for any use at all in a BLP. As all the major British newspapers are now tabloid or the very slightly larger Berliner format, this, taken literally, means no British newspaper is usable on Wikipedia. In fact, a majority of all newspapers worldwide are no longer full-size publications, so we could simply say no newspapers at all are allowed <g>. Is it proper to now delete all sources published in tabloid format as being verboten in BLPs, and presumably as tabloids verboten on all of Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I researched this topic a while back and learned that tabloid has two meanings. One is Tabloid (newspaper format), which has nothing to do with reliability and only relates to the size of paper the story is printed on. The other is "featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner" (Webster's) which does effect its reliability. I would think we would want to avoid a Tabloid style of reporting, but the size of the page isn't important. This would be easy to clarify at WP:BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We can not simply ban major newspapers from BLPs... While tabloids do tend to sensationalize their stories, even the most sensational of them can contain good reliable reporting from time to time. What we have to realize is this: reliability often depends on context. The same source might be reliable in one context, and not at all reliable in another context. We have to examine the specifics. Also, even the best of sources can contain errors. If you think a source contains an error, double check it against other sources, and assign them due weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all sources should be examined in context. And the context we are dealing with here is that British 'tabloids' use illegal information gathering techniques and regularly print falsehoods, rumours and sensationalist clap-trap, thus making their use on Wikipedia completely unacceptable in the vast majority of cases. For people who don't know which British papers are 'tabloid' (format) and which are 'tabloid' (style); here's a reminder of those to avoid (particularly in the case of BLPs): Daily Mail & Mail on Sunday, The Mirror & Sunday Mirror, The Sun, The Express, Daily Sport, Daily Record (Scotland), News of the World, Daily Star (UK), Metro. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your list doesn't point out which are tabloid format and which are simply tabloids. As noted above, the two are not the same; many valid/reliable newspapers use tabloid format. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Or are you stating that all the ones in your list are tabloids, no matter the format they use? Flyer22 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That list only shows those "bad tabloids", I believe they are all of a tabloid format too. All of these publications have a differing ethos than Wikipedia's (in theory if not in practice). Other UK publications should be treated cautiously, as there is a lot of inherent political bias involved, but the ones listed cannot really be described as reputable news organizations. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times is a better newspaper for politics than The Sun. Both btw are published by the same company and have similar political views. We should favor the better source. Also, stories about major political figures that are only covered in tabloids lack the importance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "tabloid" is problematic not only because it has more than one meaning but because the adjectival meaning involving sensationalism and lurid reporting doesn't always lend itself to a dichotomous categorization of sources. There is a spectrum, and it includes no bright line but rather a sizable gray area. Some newspapers are tabloid in the worst sense of the word, others are tabloid only because of the size of the paper they're printed on, and others fall somewhere in between. It should be noted that on the other side of the Pond there are several major dailies published in a tabloid size that rank among the more reputable newspapers in the U.S. (e.g., the Chicago Sun-Times, Newsday, and the sadly defunct Rocky Mountain News) and are easily as reliable as their broadsheet peers. At the other extreme are rags such as the New York Post whose reporting should always be viewed with a huge dose of skepticism, to put it mildy. Occupying middle ground are certain papers, notably the New York Daily News and Boston Herald, that run giant headlines and employ a rather dramatic, lurid style but nonetheless do contain some legitimate stories written by competent reporters and checked by competent editors. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post is a "rag"? I didn't know that there exists such a harsh view of it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

'fraid so. Rivertorch (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I reverted one of those text deletions that you mention and, then, I was rereverted and told I should go find better sources. I thought it was BRD: boldly edit, revert, then discuss the edit....not boldly edit, revert, revert the reverter and then tell the reverter to go get better sources and not revert again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Liz, this is an unacceptable pattern that cannot become a habit – you are 100% right. Unless the source is undoubtedly harmful, you should not have been re-reverted. If the other editor wants better sources, godspeed to them with finding those sources. I'm having a similar problem with Hillbillyholiday81 (who, by the way, is the only editor in this thread who adamantly refuses to cooperate because of a self-admitted agenda). Encouraging such editors means opening yourself up to bullying. So far, the consensus in this thread is that a newspaper in a tabloid format is no different from a newspaper in another format, therefore no connection should be made between the format of a newspaper and its reliability. Hearfourmewesique (talk)

So, which part of this policy is troubling you: ::Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.?

You don't seem to understand that the sources you are continually reinserting into the Adele article are the epitome of tabloid journalism. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's you who doesn't seem to understand that these are merely differently formatted newspapers, which is substantially different from tabloid journalism. This is... what, the tenth time that I say it? You just keep playing dead. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedians who don't like citing The Sun

In Britain, "tabloid" has acquired a particular meaning, independent of its physical format, which basically means a lowbrow mass market form of journalism, with a particular focus on celebrities (in which fact checking and lack of bias are strictly optional), and pictures of topless women. Hillbillyholiday has given a concise list of what you should avoid, and a full reading of The Sun (United Kingdom) will give you a better picture, as will It's The Sun Wot Won It, but in short you should avoid The Sun like the plague. The Daily Mirror is on the same level of intellect (example) and level of reputable journalism ("Oops, we screwed up"). The Daily Mail is not generally regarded as a tabloid per se, but it is very infamous for having an extreme right wing bias with a particular hatred for the EU, immigration and housing prices (typical target audience), to the extent that this game for generating headlines from it is funny precisely because it's uncannily accurate. Note, avoid does not mean never use ever - Neil Kinnock is one example where you might wish to directly cite The Sun, Fernando Belaúnde Terry is perhaps another due to a tangential link to the Falklands War. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the normal recommendations of this forum and explain what is being sourced from where - concrete cases. Trying to make general rules on this subject is not the right approach. People are just talking past each other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was giving general rules - I certainly wasn't as I gave two counter-examples. It is useful to mention a summary, because people can search for keywords like "The Sun" and "Daily Mail" up front on RSN, without needing to necessarily start a discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything above is about the general concept of tabloid, which as has been pointed out, can mean different things anyway. But the general answer to the general question is that yes we can use tabloid sources, sometimes. So to have any practical discussion, we need to actually talk about real details. What source is being used to say what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Part of the problem here is a baby/bathwater one. Though certainly many of the British tabloids do run exaggerated or misleading stories at times, they also run huge numbers of perfectly accurate stories, and for some topics (e.g. sports and pop culture) may be more detailed and useful sources than the more 'respectable' news outlets. Barnabypage (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we please remember that policy does not say "tabloids", it says "Tabloid journalism. I know this has been said before but we are still confusing the format with "tabloid journalism". Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think context matters too. It's hard to imagine how XBIZ and AVN (magazine) would not be classified as tabloid journalism given their nature, but for most porn topics there's usually nothing better, except in the case of the most famous performers. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Same thing: to see if something is tabloid journalism, we need to discuss context, real examples. BTW the discussion above makes it hard to claim that Hillbillyholiday81 does not understand the distinction about journalism, and so such claims should not be used to dismiss their concern. It is simply hard to say anything about the claim unless we may discuss real cases, with context.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journal article not reliable?

Is this one a reliable source?

Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Martinez-Laso, J. (2002). "Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective". Tissue Antigens 60 (2): 111–121. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2002.600201.x

The work of principal author, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, was criticized, but the article in question was not retracted. It's not being cited in support of anything relevant to controversies.Cavann (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is for use at Turkish people, yes? It's WP:PRIMARY, it hasn't been cited that much, and the primary author is controversial. There's also a red flag in that Arnaiz-Villena is publishing in Tissue Antigens while the other cites in that section are to J Human Genetics, J Physical Anthropology, Antiquity, etc. Given that we already have better citations in place, why include it? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor who removed the source also asked for Good Article Reassessment Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Turkish_people/1. It was more needed for this section Turkish_people#Prehistory.2C_Ancient_era_and_Early_Middle_Ages (see diff which was reverted: [27]) Cavann (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of that version of Prehistory has four cites to the Arnaiz-Villena paper. I'll also note that the Yardumian (2011) paper has only been cited once and is used three times in the paragraph. I think the question of undue weight needs to be addressed first. If these two papers are within the mainstream opinion in this field then we can probably dig up some better cites. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say they are, but I don't think this particular topic gathers that much attention. Yardumian (2011) is a review study. I guess I can find more sources within that. Cavann (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim that "Modern Turks descend primarily from ancient Anatolians" is not mainstream. No scientist worth his salt will make such a claim, because it is impossible to prove. Only kooks like Arnaiz-Villena would make such a claim. As far as I can tell, the consensus among the literature is as follows: 1) Anatolia as a land bridge, has been subject to numerous populations movements, and its genetic makeup is highly complex and varied, and includes neighboring peoples (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, etc..), as well as Bronze populations and Central Asian tribes, 2) The genetic impact of the Central Asian Turkic tribes was small because Anatolia already had a large population (but this population was itself highly diverse and simply "ancient Anatolians"), and 3) Modern Turks are closer to Middle Eastern and Balkan populations genetically than to Central Asian populations. However, stretching that to mean "modern Turks primarily descend from ancient Anatolian populations", is well, a stretch, and is not to be found within the literature. Athenean (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is also well-sourced that several million Balkan Muslims and Caucasus Muslims settled in Anatolia during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The genetic makeup up of modern Turkey is thus highly diverse, now that is amainstream claim. Not that the modern Turks are lineal descendants of the Bronze Age populations. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would roughly agree with your number 1, 2, and 3 assessments. That's why the article does not simply say "modern Turks primarily descend from ancient Anatolian populations." In case you did not know, if you are using quotes, it usually has to match something. The article says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.[69]" Moreover, other sources talk about paleolithic and neolithic populations too, so it is not just "kooks like Arnaiz-Villena." Cavann (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to add, the author seems to have a history of controversial articles. Some of his articles have even gotten him fired from journal editorial boards for a topic very similar one here. I'd be VERY reluctant to call this a RS. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

He was not fired, the article was retracted. And controversy about Antonio Arnaiz-Villena has nothing to do with his research on Turkish people. The articles I'm cited were also not retracted. Stop making up outright inaccuracies.Cavann (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

2002 is not very recent in this field, and we do not have to use such a source if there is something "redflag" about it. OTOH I think that just claiming continuity from ancient Anatolians is not all that shocking? Nor can we really justify deleting reference to "primary" research articles in the human genetics field if they are important. (There is very little secondary literature in that field which is up to date. Attempts to rely on it always lead to strange results.) What is relevant:

• It sounds like the author is controversial.
• We should cautiously check to make sure this is not widely cited before deciding not to use it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another article by the same principal author (this citation was also deleted from the Turkish people article), [28] has been cited 51 times. Also, the principal author is controversial on some topics, but not this one (ie: Turkish people), and the article has 10 more co-authors! Def does not look fringe. I had forgotten to include this one on my original post that started the thread. Cavann (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about the use of this source, being too lazy to investigate it. I just want to say that there is nothing "red flag" about publishing in a different journal from other authors. In fact it is a normal phenomenon across all areas of scholarship. Zero^talk 09:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. However, whether or not it meets WP:WEIGHT is a separate issue. It is better to use secondary sources that explain what weight academics have given to the report. TFD (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We have Cavalli Sforza's book, The History and Geography of Human Genes, but it is not detailed enough about a specific ethnicity, since it's about the entire world. I can have another look tho. Cavann (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Another question: We have Yardumian et al (2011). And it's a review article, which is good. But it has been cited only once, prolly due to the fact that this is not a very popular topic. It is in line with other sources, but in a lil more layperson terms. For example, other sources are talking about neolithic or paleolithic populations, or are talking about backgrounds of each haplogroups separately. Would the low citation number be controversial?

Yardumian, A.; Yardumian, T. G. (2011). "Who Are the Anatolian Turks?". Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 50: 6–42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101

Cavann (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is crucial here. I'm not going to say which work is reliable and which one isn't. Instead, we should go with the mainstream academia, not controversial authors. I agree with Athenean. Anatolia has been inhabited by dozens of various ethnic groups throughout history. The mainstream academia doesn't seem to support the view that Turks are solely descendants of Ancient Anatolians. Other groups such as Greeks, Armenians, Circassians, Georgians, Albanians, Arabs have definitely played some role in the formation of the Turkish nation too. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why the article says: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.[69]"

How did you get solely from that? Cavann (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the word primarily which does not reflect what the sources say. Yardumian, who may have said this, is only cited once. If were going to talk about the descendents of Turks, we need to incorporate ALL cultures and ethnic identities they have descended from, including central Asian hordes and Balkan peoples, if of course academic literature supports this. The issue now is that the literature may not support such claims and that genetic makeup has become interchangeable with the word "descendents". Anyhow, I sent the article to page-protection and I think a RFC is definitely needed on this issue. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yardumian et al. is not the only one saying this. However, I'm not opposed to adding Roman and Byzantine era populations. Than it would be perfectly in line with all sources, including Cavalli Sforza's book, "The History and Geography of Human Genes." Cavann (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No...central Asian hordes as well. Stop being so reluctant as to mentioning that Turks invaded and conquered. Did those who came from central Asia to Anatolia in the 11th century not have genes? Did they not Turkify the native population? If you want to talk about such scientific genetic prophesies of these ever-so controversial "academics", I propose you go add this to the genetic history section under a given context. I think the RfC should be solely provided for that purpose. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"central Asian hordes" (!) are already there (Turkic people). This is the 3rd time I'm quoting this. Is anyone even reading the article? "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples.[69]" This is what Cavalli Sforza says [[29]]. Cavann (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the sentence includes the word "primarily". You're claiming ancestry as a totally different social event by using the word "but". Therefore, ancestry should be removed and instead the sentence should use the word "in part" or "partially" while considering central Asian hordes or Turkic peoples for that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Take it to Cavalli Sforza and journal articles [30] if you disagree with their conclusions. I will stop clogging the noticeboard with this discussion. Cavann (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No one here is disagreeing with anything. The only thing I disagree with is the terminology used in the article. I and others have already mentioned what terminology we are seeking a compromise for and you are still very reluctant to point out that central Asian hordes/Turkic nomadic tribes are also part of what you call "descendency" of the modern Turk. Therefore, as I and other have said already, your attempts of rejecting this notion is pushing this discussion overboard and will get you nowhere since YOU are the only person you stands for the current terminology. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what part of "but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples" you are not getting. Also, "No one here is disagreeing with anything" is quite nonsensical, since what you are suggesting (some sort of equivalency between indigenous and Turkic) is contrary to results of cited sources. Actually, that is something NO source suggests. Please remember WP:verifiability. You can't simply add material cause you feel like it.Cavann (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I need to set an example of what the sentence should be like:

I wonder if user:Proudbolsahye realizes that there would be no "Proud" "bolsahye" in Bolis or any Bolsahye if "central Asian hordes" had never invaded and allowed them to live in the previously exclusively Greek Orthodox Constantinople :). Povopoulos (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wonder where you suddenly appeared from. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Modern Turkish people partly descend from Turkic peoples and indigenous groups of people including Ancient Anatolians and Thracians.

It may or may not be a perfect sentence. Would need a second opinion in terms of its effectiveness of wording and terminology, but I'm just trying to convey the general idea of what were trying to say here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That sorta equivalency is not in line with ANY of the sources. Eg, Hodoğlugil et al says only 9-15% is Central Asian [31].

As I said, you cannot just make up "terminology," especially considering you seem to be unaware of what any of the sources are saying.Cavann (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Cavann. Unfortunately Cavalli Sforza is way out of date. If Wikipedia has to use only out of date materials we come into conflict with NPOV because we distort our reporting of reality. This dilemma has come up many times concerning human genetics. My point: we do need to use research articles if we report this field properly. OTOH, it does appear that this discussion is really more about whether the word primarily should be removed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster. There are other sources too: newer journal articles: [32] (5 of em here) and other ones like [33], which are in line with Cavalli Sforza. I'm using Cavalli Sforza too, because it's a secondary source (a book).Cavann (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

The above discussion got too long. Just to summarize, I would like to use these 3 sources in addition to other sources. Are they reliable: [34] [35] [36] ? Cavann (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No...Arnaiz-Villena A. got fired from his job because over highly controversial claims over the same topics we are discussing here. We have already pointed this out in the beginning. Yardumian is only cited once. We already pointed that out as well. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The news article says his article was retracted. Where does it say he "got fired from his job"? You are also aware that the retracted article was about research on Jews and Palestinians, and has nothing to do with his work on Turkish people? Cavann (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, he got fired because he said various things about modern history like calling Israelis "colonists"... it wasn't about genetics at all. --Yalens (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

His findings regarding genes were presented in a highly politicized manner which got him fired. Whos to say his research regarding Turkish genes is any different. He is a very controversial researcher in his field and thus not reliable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

On Antonio Arnaiz-Villena. A controversial researcher is a controversial researcher. I'd like to hear others opinion too, but I would personally avoid citing experts like him. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would personally avoid citing experts who disagree with my point of view. I would discredit their sources to prevent their use on wikipedia by doing ad hominem to the authors. Povopoulos (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The author is clearly controversial. Come back with a better argument. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ePodunk

ePodunk[37] "provides in-depth information about more than 46,000 communities around the country". It is owned by Internet Brands. It's list of sources is here. It's very heavily used in our articles for demographic information.[38] I can't see anything about it that makes me think it should be used as though it's gospel. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As an example, it is being used in North Miami Beach, Florida as a source[39] for the Haitian population ([40] shows before and after recent IP edits which may have been vandalism or just bad editing. But where is it getting this data? (and for Columbian, etc). Here[41] is the 2010 census data, no data on Columbians, Haitians etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It does if you know how to use the census site. Here it clearly states that there were 9,807 Haitians in North Miami Beach city, Florida. Here it states there were 1,446 Colombians. No idea if or how ePodunk works (indeed, the valid reliable source SHOULD BE the Census.gov site, even if ePodunk were compiling from that site, the original data is better from the original source). But on the question of whether or not the Census has data on the number of Haitians and Columbians in N. Miami Beach, it certainly does. --Jayron32 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry if I don't understand how to use the census site. I couldn't find anything about Haitians though from your link, I'm clearly still doing something wrong. It will be interesting to compare the ePodunk numbers with the census. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Apparently, you can't link to the URL directly to get the correct link. Apparently the database calls are generated in a way that can't be copy-pasted from the URL. Sorry about that. Here's how I got the data: From http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml the main American Factfinder site, you click "Advanced search - Show me all" then on the next menu, under "item 1" click the radio button for "Race/ancetry" and then as you start to type "Haitian" it brings up a tooltip that lets you select "581- Haitian (336-359)" Select that. Under the other box, start to type "North Miami Beach" and likewise it brings up a tooltip that lets you select the exact name of the city. Select that, then select "search" and then on the next screen, you'll have like hundreds of "products" that have those values in them. About 5 options down is B01003 "Total Population" Click that blue link, and you get a page that gives you the value you're looking for, in this case the total population of Haitians living in North Miami Beach. So the data exists, and can be gotten manual, or for anyone smart enough, a program can be wrtiten to cull the information from the database automagically. ePodunk may have done this, for all I know. But the data should really be cited to the horses mouth, as it were. --Jayron32 16:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And Jayron and Doug have shown why I have in the past used ePodunk as a source (along with the US Census) as sources. When I used to use the US Census some editors had shown annoyance that they didn't know how to use the census website, which is very common, as Jayron shows above the steps can take awhile to explain. By sourcing to BOTH websites I was able to have the numbers shown quite quickly at epodunk but then also have the US census fact finder back it up. Perhaps some place we should have the discussion on how to source to the US census when you are actually listing a url to what is really no more than a fancy app that requires you to fill in fields to get the info you're looking for. Technically if I wanted to list that there were 100,000 Haitians in New York (made up number) I don't need a url at all, I can source the US census and require anyone who challenges to do the work to disprove it before they can mess with the numbers. URLs are not required. At least with epodunk we have a functioning url that gives the numbers in a handy immediate way that may be quite useful to our readers, and really we edit for our user's convenience, not our own fact checking convenience.Camelbinky (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If we can trust the "app" then I suppose the situation might be one like how we use google books as "convenience links"? (I also see people using Amazon previews sometimes.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

digitaldreamdoor.com

The site http://digitaldreamdoor.com appears to be a blog, hobby or vanity site. http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/about_us_ddd.html seems to support that. If that's the case should we be

1. using it to support the statement that its "best of lists", such as http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_songs-rbilly.html, are somehow notable? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earth_Angel&diff=prev&oldid=572956624
2. placing it on a blacklist so that it's not added as a RS?

I suspect that the editor who added that link above is one of the editors: "Bruce", but that's a different noticeboard. 00:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a 2010 RSN topic about this website (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 78#Digital Dream Door) but nobody answered User:IHeardFromBob's request for guidance.

I say let's blacklist it. The website accepts user-generated content without editorial oversight, making it completely unreliable. On June 24 this year I removed the website and associated text from 60 articles about music and musicians. (Example.) These were all I could find that needed removing. It appears that the links have crept back into the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisting it may be the best way to move forward then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed that digitaldreamdoor.com be blacklisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Digitaldreamdoor.com. Feel free to comment. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Military Channel - Top tens. Reliable Source?

This is a TV documentary series that interviews experts and military staff about 'game changing technology'.

http://military.discovery.com/ http://military.discovery.com/tv-shows/combat-countdown/videos/top-10-fighters.htm

Synopsis of series: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2247584/

Reliable? Z07x10 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In which article would you like to use this, and to support what claim? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:RS#Context matters. Also, an important editing concern is how do we take the expert interviews from the series and put them in articles as referenced material? – S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor (Mach 2.5 stated in source). I honestly think this source and the one currently listed are guessing because the information isn't released but I'm just putting it out there.Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You source to the episode and program. Medium of the source does not matter. Most military channel programs have transcripts or videos available for purchase. An inconvenience for fact checking, but policy states that convenience does not matter when sourcing. Only that it theoretically can be checked by someone.Camelbinky (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My assessment of the source is that it is an opinion/editorial piece, which gives very little in the way of verifiable information. I have checked other sources, which I usually find to be more reliable, such as books. The speculation out there on the craft's top speed varies wildly. For example, the book Introduction to the United States Air Force says the top speed is mach 2. The book Attack Fighters says mach 1.7. I think the book F22 Raptor gives the most reliable answer, saying, "The top speed of the F-22 is classified. Test pilots say it can go faster than 1,600 miles (2,575 kilometers) per hour. [mach 2.1]." For this particular source in question, I have to ask where this information came from, but they do not provide any source of their own. Zaereth (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd recommend we document the inconsistency - give the different figures and cite each one to where it came from. --GRuban (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good idea in general when dealing with these things GRuban. Lockheed themselves only state Mach 2 class and I don't think Top Tens or Air Forces Monthly (2.25) has a source for their figures. Zaereth - we do need to be careful when performing Mach conversions from TAS. 2,575kph is undoubtedly a figure achieved at high altitude where the speed of sound is only 1062kph and hence that equates to over Mach 2.4.Z07x10 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just cite Jane's All the World's Aircraft and be done with it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, iusually don't double check numbers or spelling on talk. You're right, I just typed it into my microsoft conversion program, but these are not always the best choice. (Just try to get a decent torr conversion from one.) At typical cruise altitude it would be mach 2.356. I'm fine with citing whatever Jane's says, or giving a range (ie: between mach 2.0 and 2.8, which is the largest number I've seen), or you could just put a tilde in front of the number, meaning "around," to indicate the exact figure as unknown (ie: ~ mach 2.4). My main point was to indicate that there are probably better sources than the one in question. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dodger67 - Jane's isn't really the fantastic source it's made out to be. All their data is taken from other sources, they do no independent performance testing AFAIK. Zaereth, can you source the pilot's claim of 2,575kph? My calculation was for 11,000m, which is usually around the optimum altitude for maximum speed.Z07x10 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I can neither confirm nor deny... Actually, I chose the above quote about "pilots say it can go faster than 1600 mph" out of irony. (I was hoping ypu'd check google books.) The only book which actually attributes a source (pilots say) and admits to not knowing outright, making it a believable response, is the book F22 Raptors, which is a childrens book.

The book Mass Assassinations gives this number (2.4) on page 164. The website http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89685/f-22-raptor.html also gives this number. I can't vouch for the relability of these numbers, but at least these aren't op/ed pieces.

What I can tell you is that when Lockheed was designing the F22, there was much discussion about whether it should be Mach 2.0 or Mach 2.4. At Mach 2.0 the craft's skin must be able to withstand maximum temperatures of 275 degrees F, and long-term temperatures of 220 degrees F. Increasing the speed to 2.4 would mean exposing the crft to temperatures of 400 degrees max, and 350 for long-term exposures. Going even faster produces even higher temperatures, so the material used in the airframe and hull were major deciding factors in determining the max speed. Zaereth (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Jane's is certainly better than a TV show. Jane's is a pretty well known source for things military. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy with Jane's reputation, although I don't know what it says about the F22. I think everyone seems to agree that it's above 2.0 and that only the government knows for sure, so perhaps simply putting >2.0 will suffice. (Just a thought.) Zaereth (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck - Any source is only as good as its source. I think the present source is Air Forces Monthly, which states a 1.82 supercruise and 2.25 top end. These 2 figures don't seem to tally. I would have expected re-heat to cause a much bigger difference.Z07x10 (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you the most reliable sources I can come up with. On page 16, the book United States Air Force by the United States Air Force says the top speed is "1500 mph (mach 2)." (Directly citing; no math on my part.)

The book Lockheed Stealth by Bill Sweetman says on page 96 that the top speed is between 1.8 and 2.0. He goes on to say that, although the engines have plenty of power for 2.5 "few pilots have seen 2.5 on the mach meter." He says that to achieve 2.5 they would have had to add variable inlets and increase the temperature requirements for materials used throughout the craft. (Keep in mind that in material choice max temp. is often not as critical as temperature cycling. In other words, the difference between supercruise and gate is limited by the bird's structural design rather than its engines.)

The book The Lockheed Plant by Joe Kirby on page 116 syas that Lockheed boasts a speed "in excess of mach 2.0, but the exact speed remains classified." I would probably choose this last book and follow its example, because it offers no conjecture about the unknowns but clearly states the knowns. All of these books are available of google books, and none are children's books. Zaereth (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In light of that it's probably best to do nothing, since some kind of consensus obviously exists already and it's very difficult to create a cast iron agreement on anything else due to the classification of the details.Z07x10 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reddit (IAmA)

Can a post on Reddit be considered a reliable source? Specifically, an IAmA post. I know the Reddit team verifies the authors, but is that considered sufficient for use on Wikipedia?

Specifically, I'm wondering about the suitability of this Reddit comment as a source for the following statement in Outlook.com#IMAP:

IMAP support was announced on September 12, 2013.

It seems like a WP:SPS (internet forum) to me, and I'm not sure if it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Is there any reason to even consider it as a source, given that both an official announcement ([42]) as well as numerous secondary sources ([43], [44], [45], etc.) are available?

Indrek (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Another question I have also recently become involved in a dispute over this site as a source: (see the contentious edit). I removed the comments on the grounds that it looked like a forum, but if this person is indeed Robin Williams then obviously I don't have a problem with sourcing his comments, and I don't want to be personally responsible for having inaccurate information in the article, so the bottom line is how do we confirm if a poster is real or not? Is there an official announcement somewhere which confirms identities? Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's easy: The Reddit moderators ask for proof that the person doing the AMA is the one it claims to be. Things that are considered proof are listed here. Often celebrities tweet about the AMA from an account which has been verified by Twitter (see the tick next to the account name). This has been done quite often now and Reddit is popular enough that celebrities would intervene if someone tried to impersonate them. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So, any thoughts about the original issue(s) here? Do Reddit IAmA's fall under WP:ABOUTSELF (so long as the account is verified)? What about the specific Reddit link above - does the fact that it makes claims about third parties (albeit non-exceptional claims) disqualify it for WP:ABOUTSELF and therefore as a reliable source? Is there any reason not to use secondary sources (in the form of well-established news outlets) over a Reddit post (which would be a primary source) when available? Indrek (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Treat it like any other interview. I don't see any difference here. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, one obvious difference is that Reddit is inherently a WP:SPS (being an internet forum). Hence this question. But I see what you're saying. I hadn't thought of looking at an IAmA like an interview. Thanks for your input. Indrek (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper sources for population statistics in addition to official government sources

When I added a figure from a 2013 NYT article about the number of Korean immigrants in Mexico (cited line: "CULTURE Performing Korean pop music in Mexico City. At least 12,000 Koreans are said to live in Mexico." - and page3/4 says: "Officials at a newly opened Korean cultural center here say at least 12,000 Koreans now call Mexico home,"), an IP address removed it, saying that it was pointless to state the figure because there were already 2008 South Korean government figures in the article. I believed that one should have both the 2008 and 2013 pieces of information in the article.

When I argued that there is a difference between the years 2008 and 2013 and that articles in general should cite secondary sources whenever possible, the IP argued from WP:RS "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content" and "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." - He argues that a government has a reputation for making a reliable population counts while a newspaper does not.

Would these arguments be always correct, or are do publications have reputations for being very high quality on the matter?

Please see the page at Talk:Korean immigration to Mexico WhisperToMe (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times is a highly reliable source but of course in this case it is quoting people who might not be well-informed themselves. However, given that the thrust of the section in the article is to illustrate the disparity in estimates of the Korean-Mexican population, rather than to dogmatically give an absolute figure, I don't think that poses a problem. The NYT reporter is likely to have chosen their sources with some consideration of their reliability. Barnabypage (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

GayStarNews.com

[46] has been presented on a sandbox page User:Jenova20/Criticism_of_the_Daily_Mail_and_Mail_Online as a proposed addition to the Daily Mail article. Is this a reliable source for claims that the Daily Mail has "Trans issues and reputation of homophobia" Is the proposed section something which should be added to the main article? Collect (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable for the experiences of one journalist. Whether it is worth including in the article is a matter of weight. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is an opinion piece so I think the question really comes down to the reliability and authority of Jane Fae rather than Gaystarnews, which in itself seems reliable enough to not have made up her article from thin air. She's an established journalist on issues related to transgender etc., but on the other hand she's not (as far as I can see) particularly an authority on media or media history. I'd say on balance that the source is just about okay but not great. I'm sure there must be better ones around to support the same point. Barnabypage (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The journalist actually praises the DM in the editorial article -- which is not the claim being made in the first place <g>, but you feel "gaystarnews" meets WP:RS? How? Collect (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This piece is an interview with a journalist, so should be reliable for the views of that journalist. If the journalist has retracted her views then please disregard the source. Of course if it is felt to be relevant it needs to be accurately represented. I did not look at whether she praised or criticised the DM. I only looked to see whether the source was usable in the WP article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Zheng He, a school teacher's website and a source that doesn't seem to back the claim

A minor edit war at Zheng he (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with an editor removing what appears to be well cited information and replacing it with material sourced to a website [47] by a school teacher[48] and a source [49] which clearly only says he was born a Muslim, not "He also remained a Muslim throughout his life, while being tolerant and accepting to other religions and customs". There's probably an NPOV issue about the original text as there are plenty of RS which call him a Muslim, but he clearly worshiped Mazu (goddess) - maybe as well - (seach for Tianfei or Tian Fei). Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor ignoring any request, just forcing it back in. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Prayway.com

I'm finding this used in a number of articles for factual statements, mainly population figures. I've been removing it but would like other comments. Currently the figure is [50]. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Prayway.com is definitely non-RS. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a site for prayer requests that doesn't even purport to be a source of information about anything else. It couldn't possibly be a RS except for narrow questions relating to itself. Barnabypage (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Comics Forum and Ulysses Press - re Aklo

I am working on the article about the fictional language Aklo and the most "academic" analysis I have come up with so far is from The Comics Forum from google scholar, particularly this and this one. Is the content there being appropriately vetted?

I also have a question about this book it is published by ulysses press with the authors credited as listverse.com.

i appreciate any insight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The first source meets WP:SELFPUBLISH as the author has been published on comic analysis. Unfortunately, on a side note, I question the statement in the article that Aklo is pictographic, even though that is what the source says. The Haunter of the Dark, which is what is referred to, says: "The manuscript writing consisted of the common traditional symbols used today in astronomy and anciently in alchemy, astrology, and other dubious arts- the devices of the sun, moon, planets, aspects, and zodiacal signs- here massed in solid pages of text, with divisions and paragraphings suggesting that each symbol answered to some alphabetical letter.... The cipher, he soon saw, was no simple one; and after a long period of endeavour he felt sure that its language could not be English, Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, or German ... The text was, he found, in the dark Aklo language used by certain cults of evil antiquity, and known to him in a halting way through previous researches." In other words, the cipher used was pictographic. Not the Aklo language. The Aklo language uses "alphabetical letters". Stephen Cain misread the story. --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the University College London reliable?

I know that this might look like an unnecessary question, but I'm currently having a discussion with an user called Tobus2 (detailed discussion here [51]) and he insists on the institution being unreliable until proven otherwise here, I told him repeated times that on the case of recognized universities it isn't necessary, but he insists. So well, what do people here think? My intention is that of use the university as a source for crediting an investigator called Jonathan Hagos as an expert on cartography (he was featured in a seminar hosted by The Bartlett Development Unit [52] (citing the site of the exhibition) The exhibit will be public and will be displayed during the London Mapping seminar on the 20th and 21th September 2012 at UCL. As well as receiving a certificate, the chosen posters will be consider for a future publication and will be featured in the website, The confirmation of Hagos being featured on the 2012 seminar as well as the the proof of him having multiple publications in the field and being recognized by the Oxford brookes University is here [53]). I believe that is rather unnecessary and that his behavoir breachs a bit the codes of conduct of wikipedia, but if this is what it takes to end the discussion so be it. Another thing that must be remarked is that i was involved on a discussion some time ago regarding this investigator and on it's due time I accepted the resolution of the past discussion, which is already on the past. I say this so the old issues don't be taken up again and this discussion get extended too much. This is a completely different issue, on a different topic, and I base my posture today on what is written at the top of this noticeboard: Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y" though to be more precise, on this case it would be Many sources are unreliable for statement "X," but reliable for statement "Y". Thanks in advance. Czixhc (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Here you add [[54]] the map. Tobus2 removes it [55]. You add it again [56], and Tobus2 removes it again [57]. But this is the same map which was debated in the last discussion at [[58]]. And this is the dispute you are discussing on Tobus2's discussion page. So how is this a completely different issue? It seems like the exact same issue. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I know this is a complex issue because we're not just talking about a straightforward case of a cartographer doing a bit of cartography. I'll repeat the point I think I made on the article page a while back, that although Hagos may be an expert in the visualisation of information (or somesuch phrase), that doesn't make him an expert in the data underlying the information.

However, in answer to your specific question here - yes, UCL is clearly a reliable institution (usually featuring in the top 10 or top 20 lists of worldwide institutions of higher education) and that speaks to the reliability of its staff and its publications.

I will also add, just having seen some of your discussion with Tobus2, that the guy under discussion doesn't need a formal qualification in cartography to be an expert in the subject. (John Maynard Keynes did not have a qualification in economics, to take a random example.) At an academic level there is an awful lot of cross-over between architecture and other disciplines, with cartography having an obvious relationship. Barnabypage (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am getting past fed up with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from this editor. The repeated claim of "being recognized by the Oxford brookes University is here [59]" is simply wrong, but he ignores any response to this. The page in question is Hagos's personal page, where he wrote "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." This is not the unversity saying that Hagos is an expert in anything. And it really doesn't matter if Hagos is an expert in drawing maps, as the editor wishes to use him as an expert for the data in those maps. If there is any "breach of conduct" is it by Czixhc for not dropping this and continuing with the same rejected arguments. As for not using it for migration at Czixhc claims, see [60] where he's added the same map which is about skin color and migration and has been talked to death I would have thought. Perhaps time to go back to ANI, see the earlier threat at [61]. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The link to the 2012 seminar clearly says "Anyone can enter!" and that submissions were in the form of an A1 poster and a 300 word abstract. There was no CV, qualifications or formal written application required and the "featured" applicants didn't give talks, their work was just included in an exhibition - this wasn't a "seminar" in the usual sense with lectures and presentations by qualified professionals, it was an exhibition of visual works open to anybody who felt like entering. There's nothing on the page that indicates successful applications were selected on anything other than aesthetics. Despite Czixhc's choice of title and misrepresentation of my arguments, I'm not questioning the reliability of University College London - it's just that being in this "seminar" doesn't mean that UCL credits Hagos an expert in cartography. Tobus2 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC

While a publisher may in general be a reliable source, that is not a blanket coverage for all topics and in all situations. Just because University College London is a respected academic institution, that does not give everything on any page on the University College London webpages universal credence as "being unquestionably reliable" . In addition, there is the aspect of being a reliably published source, rather than merely being content posted or hosted on a website. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)`

(edit conflict) This is a confusing RSN posting. I see it is about the reliability of a certain map, right? Or, more correctly, about the information displayed on the map, since the map is being used to present the information. However, the question asked is about the reliability of UCL. How is that relevant? Universities don't generally certify information other than about themselves. Where can we read that UCL has spoken about the reliability of the map? Please, oh please, don't tell us that the map must be reliable because it was displayed at a seminar at UCL; that would be just too much of a misconception about how universities work. Zero^talk 12:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, I just realised that Czixhc added the map on the 24th, despite the earlier discussions at ANI and here. Here[62], a week before he added the map again to an article, he says he is desisting. I'll give him a chance to drop this entirely, but if he continues I don't see any reason to let him waste our time and will take it to ANI. I agree that the editor doesn't seem to understand how universities work. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth looking at Talk:World map as there are serious questions as to why this particular map should be included in this article. Originally he wanted it at Human skin color. Having failed there, he's tried a different article. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - we have already been through this, and there is no reason whatsoever to go through it all again. The data in Hagos's map is not reliable - because (a) Hagos isn't qualified in the field of human skin colouration (a subject for physical anthropologists, not cartographers), and (b) more importantly, he doesn't claim that his map represents any particular data anyway. It is a work of art, not science. If Czixhc won't drop the matter, take it to WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to say that because someone is an expert on something that every single thing they produce may be relied upon. You need to consider where the map was published. If it was published in an academic journal that would indicate that it had been peer-reviewed, and we could see where he got his data and determine its general acceptance. TFD (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hagos doesn't claim that the colours on his map are based on objective 'data'. [63] He describes it as based on a "von Luschan scale" which was "considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent". He goes on to say that "In this project I utilize [the map] as a way of highlighting (when compared to maps utilizing population data from earlier centuries) the effects of colonisation as well as migratory trends in the last century. The question of 'the indigenous' is raised as well as a closer look at multicultural ideals". It clearly isn't intended as any sort of objective depiction of 'skin colouration' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

time to close as another overwhelming rejection in this WP:FORUMSHOPing spree?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Note. Given the grossly misleading title given the image by Czixhc, I have asked that it be renamed. [64] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like there have been a true debate over here, I appreciate the contributions of you all. Just some clarifications: this goes mainly for Dougweller: This is not "I didn't hear that" or anything, the topic on which I want to use the map is different, and i'm using a different source. That's it. This one goes for Tobus2 for stating that "Anyone can enter" on the seminary, well, maybe anyone can enter but not anybody will be featured on the final seminary. Looks like there is some indecision wheter if the recognizement of an university might make somebody reliable or not (I agree with Barnabypage: it does), well, lets focus on that for now, whatever the outcome turns out to be i'm ok with it. Czixhc (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that Czixhc has just deleted, without prior discussion, my rename proposal on Commons. At this point, I have to suggest that his/her self-evident inability to demonstrate even the faintest ability to drop the stick is solid grounds for an indefinite block per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guidelines. Enough is enough, and I don't see why we should have to put up with this any more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• You are really dramatic aren't you? I already explained why the rename request that you made up was incorrect, what do you want? to have two rename requests: one mine and yours? I'm more tired than you of discussing this and i'm just waiting for a consensus on the reliability of the recognizement of an university, i'm not like you, if the consensus doesn't favor me again it's not the end of the world, chill out. Czixhc (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "explanation" is just the same old bullshit you have repeatedly been told is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I accepted that was my mystake in the old discussion, right now the sources and the topics are different, as i told before, i have no problem with the final resolution, i just want to be sure about the sources to know if i wil need more in the future, and if so, which ones so this don't happens again. Czixhc (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you have accepted that you were mistaken, why are you still asserting that the image should be entitled a "World map by skin color for modern populations" despite the fact that the source makes no assertion to that effect whatsoever? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Stop mixing unrelated issues, this is no place to discuss this, i said well at the beginning that i didn't wanted this discussion to enlong itself and go off-topic, the title of the image and the discussion taking place right now have nothing to do with eachother. Czixhc (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

By all appearances you are still trying to include the map, on the basis of Hagos' work. The fact that Hagos' work was part of this seminar was known in the last discussion as well. The problem with the map that was identified in the last discussion wasn't that it was being used on a page about a migration and not a page about world maps, the problem was that it makes certain claims about human skin colour and that Hagos' work was not a reliable source for these claims. You've produced documents of the seminar. But these documents include no claims concerning human skin colour, apart from Hagos' map. There doesn't appear to be anything new to judge. If you do indeed have something new, my suggestion would be to follow the regular procedure of this board, as given with Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Just simply write: 1. The sources you mean to use. 2. The article to which you mean to add content. 3. The content you wish to add to that article." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, my basis was that self-published sources are reliable if produced by somebody with recognizement on the field which would be cartography, so while UCL does not specify issues related to skin color, the idea is the map being used in cartography articles as a way to exemplify all that can be done with map. What if we state on the footnote where it could be used that it is a "representation" or an "exemplification" to make clear that it doesn't intends to have extraordinary scientific accuracy? This is something i wanted to ask you since the last discussion. Czixhc (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hagos's original is artwork, not scientific data. Czixhc's image is nothing but a partial copy, missing much of the detail, and all of the context. It doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Using Czixhc's map as an example of cartography isn't an RS question, it's a WP:WEIGHT issue - why should this map be used as an example over the thousands of other maps that are available to use as examples? As explained by User:Strebe at the World map talk page[65], it isn't suitable there.

If you think about it, using a map as an example means we're using the expression of the ideas (the execution), not the ideas themselves (the content). If we were going to use Czixhc's map as an example of cartography, then it would have to be Czixhc who has the recognition/expertise in cartography - we wouldn't use a copy of the Mona Lisa as an example of oil painting and claim it's OK because da Vinci is an expert, we'd use the real thing (under WP:Fair use if needs be). So even if there were an article where such a map would be a good example, then we'd use Hagos's original map and not this version anyway. I think AndyTheGrump is right, there's nowhere this map can be used on WP - it's not reliably sourced so can't be used in any factual articles and if it were ever warranted we'd use the original as an example, not Czixhc's "copy".

Tobus2 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Judging for the reponses of the users above me this is starting to lean to a remarkably subjetive area. For example: Andythegrump says that is artwork, however in the site of the original image that is never stated; and Tobus2 is bringing a tiring argument regarding copyrights again, despite that the map has been proven to not violate any copyright two times before. I'd rather wait to see what users Barnabypage and Atethnekos have to say about the issue and the questions i've asked to them, i have no intention neither time to extend this discussion once more answering the same questions from the same users again. Czixhc (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me Czixhc, I didn't say anything about copyright. My point is that your map wasn't executed by Hagos, it was executed by you - any skill, reputation or credentials that Hagos might have in making maps would only apply to his original map, not to yours.

The site of the original image clearly states that the data in Hagos's map is not reliable (as AndyTheGrump pointed out earlier). Whether it's "artwork" or not doesn't matter so much as the fact that it's definitely not "scientific data".

Tobus2 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with AndyTheGrump, I will endulge Czixhc's request to stick to his specific narrow question, which I am basing on the title of the thread- Yes, in general, material published (and a website is considered for Wikipedia purposes to be "published" material), by that university, having gone through some sort of peer-review, fact-checking process, it is considered to be reliable, with the obvious caveat that- it must be true. If a book published by the university says the capital of Iceland is Dublin and the capital of Ireland is Reykjavik then no, those statements are not reliable and the source cant be used to state that those statements are true, however being wrong in that one instance does not invalidate the entire book from being a source on something else (though enough wrong statements and one would be better off sourcing a correct statement to a different source than one that is wrong too many times). So, Czixhc, your intentionally narrow question has been answered regarding the reliability of material published by that specific university with no mention to whether the map is accepted or not. Now, personally- I believe you should be topic banned.Camelbinky (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The image in question wasn't published by UCL anyway. It was 'published' by Czixhc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case- we're in the wrong forum. This is not the OR/N; if he wishes to expand his question to the map in particular and not generically about the university's reliable publishing ability he'll have to start a thread over there. This should be closed per- wrong forum. Camelbinky (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tobus2, Your statement is non-sense, by your logic 90% of the maps used on wikipedia aren't reliable, because the information have been replicated by wikipedia users from their respective source sites in order to not violate any copyright, And the map being based on the Von Luschan chromatic scale shouldn't be an impediment for it's use as an informative source, there is another maps and articles based on it being used on wikipedia right now. Camelbinky: I really don't think that a publication by any University will ever switch the capitals of Iceland and Ireland, these institutions have a strong editorial control. And to answer your question, I ask about the reliability of the UCL because that university accepts Hagos as a cartographer and published his work before (i mention this on my first paragraph in this discussion). Per wikipedia's self published sources policy [66]: "A self published work (which would be the original map on which the file i made is based upon) might be reliable if the creator has recognizement and works in the relevant field" Thus The claim of the UCL don't publishing this exact map per the policy afore mentioned is void, because the requeriments for a self-published work to be included on wiki are the creator to third party back up in the field, not on the exact work. If the UCL is reliable Hagos is a reliable cartographer, that's why the focus point of this discussion is the UCL. This is really going on circles, I'll wait to see if Atethnekos and Barnabypage (he agreed on Hagos being a reliable cartographist) appear again. I have no intention of going on circles here again. Czixhc (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"If the UCL is reliable Hagos is a reliable cartographer". No. That is not what it would take to make the map properly sourced. A connection to UCL does not automatically mean that anything produced by Hagos is accurate & neutral, least of all considering the concerns raised above. Please stop this and move on to something else more productive. bobrayner (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, i believe is that way because the policy for reliable sources states such, but well, looks like somehow it's not that way how it works, for now i take your insight as adecuate for the resolution of this discussion, though i sugest to wait and see what the other users mentioned have to say. If they don't appear then it's seetled for now (I say for now because the reputiation of Hagos or his work might change in the future, when more sources that favor him get published as one of much examples, and when that happens i'll try again). Czixhc (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To prevent future arguments, please note that you've misquoted the WP:SPS policy - it doesn't say an SPS can be used "if the creator has recognizement and works in the relevant field", it says they may be used if "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This means the author must be an established expert in the subject matter (not just have "recognizement" in it), and must have been published in the field by a reliable publisher (not just have works in it, and not just have a job in it). If you do decide to "try again", please make sure to asses your source against the actual policy. Tobus2 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• What makes somebody a recognized expert if not to have his work published by on a seminary hosted by one of the most notorious universities in the world? What third party publications are more reliable than the aforementioned university itself? Czixhc (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• uhhh, how about actual publishing and not just posting on your personal employee space on the college website. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• But he was featured on the seminary, it's not just something he made up. Czixhc (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it is self-evident that Czixhc has no intention whatsoever of accepting an overwhelming consensus that his image should not be used on Wikipedia, I shall shortly be raising the matter at WP:ANI, where I shall propose an indefinite topic ban for Czixhc on any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be good if you try for once to read carefully what is written, and analize it before writting plain non-sense . I said various replies above that as of now i accept the resolution of this issue. I just asked to tobus what does the sefl published sources policy mean to him. Your behavoir through this issue is shrug inducing. Czixhc (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since "work published by on a seminary hosted by one of the most notorious universities in the world" really means he was in an art exhibition that anybody could enter into then no, that doesn't make him an recognised expert in the field. It just means he's good at drawing things. Tobus2 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Anybody could enter, but not anybody would be featured on the final cut. It is called a seminary for a reason. Czixhc (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note. I have now raised Czixhc's tendentious behaviour at WP:ANI, proposing a topic ban. [67] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• But i accepted the consensus of the comunity two hours ago. How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously. Czixhc (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And continued to argue. By the way, a seminar is not the same thing as a seminary, and 'notorious' doesn't mean what you think it means. You should not be calling other people clueless if you don't understand the words that you are using. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm comenting here because i want to be sure about what every thing means to this comunity, so this discussions don't happen again. I have an understanding of what these things mean, but looks like the definitions of the comunity are different, that's why i want to learn them. Czixhc (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

United States Olympic Hall of Fame List

The website for the United States Olympic Committee does not have a current list available of all members of the United States Olympic Hall of Fame. In an attempt to find a verifiable list, I e-mailed the webmaster of the site and inquired if it was available. I received an e-mail several days later with a PDF listing of the members, current as of 2013. I wish to cite this somehow, as it's verifiable (I have the e-mail from the USOC), but I don't know what format to use, or how to prove it to other people. Any advice on this would be most helpful, thanks. Anthony (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

a pdf that was mailed to you is not a reliably published source and so it is not usable as a source for Wikipedia content. You could use it to do google news and googlebooks and other searches to find reliably published sources that identify team members. If they put it up on their website, then it would be acceptable as a primary source document. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

May I inquire why it is not reliable? I thought I'd seen e-mails considered reliable sources if you're able to verify the source of the e-mail. The e-mail originates from the USOC.org domain name, and the author identifies herself as an employee (archivist, actually) of the USOC. The problem is, I've done a search and cannot find any other sites or citations for this information. Not being snippy, but I fail to see how something stated straight from the source cannot be considered reliable. Anthony (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

all that is verifiable is that you say it came from them. I could say that I got a telegram from the Pope that says he owns 7,439 cats and so since I have confirmation from the Pope, I should add that to his article. I am not saying that you are not being truthful, but your claims are not verifiable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The USOHF must actually publish the list, not send it out privately. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I e-mailed her back asking her to post it on the USOC website somewhere. We'll see what happens. Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians is a book in eight volumes written by H. M. Elliot and edited by John Dowson and praised by English historian Stanley Lane-Poole. This historical book has been reprinted several times and still available both online and paperback editions. Currently, there is a discussion on Talk:Manda_clan and Talk:The_History_of_India,_as_Told_by_Its_Own_Historians about using this book for citation. Is this a reliable source or not? Thanks, --Tartarrman (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable, and that is absolutely clear. Much too old. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article itself raises some questions as to the book's quality. It might be a reliable source as to the contents of those medieval Persian chronicles but I wouldn't consider it reliable on the subject of the history of India in general. And that is hardly an unresearched subject - there must be countless more recent and more authoritative publications that you could use instead. Barnabypage (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The precise point that Tartarrman wishes to use this source for is in any event a violation of WP:OR. One of the medieval texts contained within it refers to a groups of people called Mands and Tatarrman wants to assert that these are the same people as the present-day Manda clan. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for the history of India, and certainly not for the purpose Tartarrman wants to use it for. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare Controversies

OK, so I've been trying to find sources that meet wikipedia's reliability standards for BLP for the Cassandra Clare article regarding plagiarism accusations, and after a lengthy discussion in the talk page, Binksternet verified that a certain Daily Dot article, which discusses CC's murky fandom past, including accusations of flamewars, cyberbullying & plagiarism, was good enough to meet the criteria for reliable sources. However, about a day later or so, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disputed this, claiming that the source was a "gross" BLP violation in the page log, and reverted the edit, as well as my reversion of that revert. Here's the diff.

So far, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has not bothered to back up any of their claims regarding the supposed inappropriateness of the source with anything from the wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the guidelines (as mentioned by Binksternet) seem to support the use of this source. For example, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that the piece is a "blog" and so not strong enough for BLP. However, not only does the Daily Dot not present the piece as a blog, but just another article held to the same standards as all their others (including rigorous fact-checking), but the Daily Dot presents itself as an actual online newspaper, and by extension all its articles not marked as "blogs" (including this source) are essentially newspaper articles (to further strengthen this demarcation, the Daily Dot does have an actual blog, and that piece was still not hosted in that section, but in its main news section). And aside from that, WP:NEWSBLOG would seem to support the use of this source even if it was from the blog of a newspaper anyway (even though it would be better classified as an opinion piece from a newspaper).

Therefore, I come for a consensus to end this debate once and for all. Again, I stress, there is no reason to believe this article in particular is held to any different standard than any of the other journalistic articles published by the Daily Dot, and even the most basic research will show that the facts have been very well checked, as the Daily Dot's Ethical Policy promises, and this piece essentially constitutes a newspaper article.

As I said on the talk page:

"According to WP:NEWSBLOG, the guidelines clearly state that they should be used with caution as "the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process".

Not only has Gavia Baker-Whitelaw clearly checked their facts (something which you can verify yourself by cross-referencing the multitude of links I posted above), but the Daily Dot, in its ethical policy, clearly states that their reporters (which includes Baker-Whitelaw) are required to do a significant degree of fact-checking. Specifically, I thinking of this section:

The Daily Dot’s first and most important responsibility is accuracy. We make reasonable efforts to verify information by publication time and we disclose to readers transparently what we do and do not know to be a fact.

This clearly applies to individual reporters like Baker-Whitelaw in the following section:

Individual employees will never manipulate the facts for any kind of personal relationship, and they will not put themselves in a position to profit, financially or otherwise, by their reporting."

So: is this Daily Dot article reliable, and can the edit therefore be reinstated?The Talking Toaster (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"applying tried-and-true principles drawn from community journalism" "Like traditional community newspapers, we are tribunes, " If this is the only and most "reliable" source that you can find covering very controversial content about a living person, no it is not acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And a source isn't reliable just because it says it's reliable. Of course, there are other major BLP issues here, beginning with why an internet kerfluffle over a now-successful writer's not-really-published amateur work belongs in an encyclopedia at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have found two other sources which discuss Cassie's plagiarism allegations:

• Christian Science Monitor, which despite its name, purports to be a secular, fully fledged news organisation.
• An article in Paper Droids, which discusses the plagiarism debate more fully. This one also presents itself as a magazine, which according to WP: SOURCE, seems very much to fit the mould of a reliable source.

All of these sources back up each others' stories as far as I can tell, and hence support each other--are these three together reliable enough?

Also, could you clarify your point in selecting those two quotes to repeat, please?The Talking Toaster (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what they mean when they say "community journalism" but it sounds like crowd sourcing and/or activism. And when they talk about "we are tribune" sounds even more like activism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

But the CS Monitor is in fact a very respected source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

However, what the CS Monitor says is: "blog posts filled with vitriol abound, alleging " - we dont repeat allegations made in blogs, which is all the CS Monitor says.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And what of the paper droids source?

Also, regarding the allegations, I understand that it wouldn't be a good idea to harbour any and every allegation someone makes about an author (or other living person), but this is more than just a random, single claim with no evidence, or a persistent rumour that is actually false. On the contrary, these claims have followed Clare since the original story broke over the Draco trilogy (over a decade ago). The original story was very well sourced, with a lot of evidence (see the Clare talk page for an extensive list of links, particularly the one to the Cassandra Clare Plagiarism Debacle by Avocado, which is also mentioned in the paper droids article), and new claims have since arisen--and also continued to follow Clare, and again with a lot of evidence--since her professional break. At this point, a significant chunk of Clare's fame consists of the plagiarism (and to a lesser extent, cyberbullying) aspects, and should be covered, especially since her fanfic past is included in the article. At the very least, I--and clearly several other users on the talk pahge--feel that the fact that she has been consistently accused of the same plagiarism claims for ~12 years should be addressed, even if the question as to whether or not she did plagiarise is left open ended.

That said, the Daily Dot article supports the multitude of claims I linked in the talk page, and the paper droids one supports that. The CS monitor, though apparently unconvinced, does also at least acknowledge that these claims exist also, and so I feel that could still be used in the article as well.

Furthermore, regarding your comment about undue weight, again, given the length of time these claims have persisted, and the fact that so many people espouse them, and that there is so much evidence for them (even if a good deal of that evidence may not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards) clearly shows that this opinion of Clare is not, at the very least, a minority one, and does seems to be one followed by a significant number of people.The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that you cannot produce one reliable source which backs the claims, WP:UNDUE. Interwebs "controversies" are a dime a gajillion and we dont cover them unless the reliable sources do. Particularly when they run afoul of WP:BLP-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but I must ask again: what of the paper droids source? As far as I can tell, that does seem to be the most reliable bar the CS monitor one--does it not count? If it does, that would at least be one reliable source, and could back up the Daily Dot article (and possibly the CS one?)The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The redlink for Paper Droids says all that needs to be said about its standing in the way of being a reputable press. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

How? As far as I can tell, there's no stipulation on WP:SOURCE that a source needs to be covered on wikipedia before it can be classed as reputable. I understand if it's something to do with being BLP, but if we really can't use, I would appreciate a fuller & better cited explanation than that i.e. something that actually refers to wikipedia's rules, or somethingThe Talking Toaster (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is based on having a reputation of fact checking and accuracy. Paper Droid has no reputation at all, let alone one that qualifies it as a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, thinking about the Daily Dot source again, why is the thing about (potential) activism and community journalism a bad thing? I would appreciate some clarification, if only for future referenceThe Talking Toaster (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Activists have a goal of changing something- not a goal of reporting the facts as facts irrespective of whether or not they will change something or particularly change something in the direction that you want it to change. Reliable sources have as their primary goal presenting the facts, all of the facts, in a neutral manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Paper Droids is plainly an unacceptable source. It's essentially a collection of self-published blogging, aggregated to generate advertising revenue. And when you actually look at the page you want to cite, it's simply atrocious. Most of it is, explicitly, "sourced" to pseudonymous postings with no meaningful verifiability. The site's non-existent commitment to fact-checking is demonstrated by the fact that the page's author uncritically accepted a commenter's claims as factual and incorporated them into the main text (with attribution but without any disclaimer). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly, Hulla, does Paper Droids reveal itself to be a blog, as opposed to the magazine they present themselves as? Also, if you're referring to the commenter's observation at the bottom, was merely presently as a "fantastic observation" by the commenters, similar to the Guardian's comment of the week thing.

I also found this source, btw, which seems like it could count as a reliable source. It's from The Tartan, an online student newspaper that's been around since 1906, was published by a staff writer (and so is not, as far as I can tell, user-generated content) and supports the claims discussed so far. It seems quite reputable, as such--yes/no, and why if not?The Talking Toaster (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Which says, plain as day, at the top, before the text, "Editorials featured in the Forum section are solely the opinions of their individual authors". The opinion of a college student is not a reliable source for a BLP. This discussion is slipping into absurdity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, I would appreciate it if you didn't call "absurd" and such whilst I'm trying to engage in reasoned discourse with you. I'm making the effort to be fair & work within the system, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect you to either.

Secondly, wouldn't that just make it an opinion piece, and hence a WP:NEWSBLOG at worst? The Talking Toaster (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Which part of "The opinion of a college student is not a reliable source for a BLP" isn't clear to you?

I spent some time searching for information about Clare on news sources. There are lots of articles about movies made from her books, fewer articles on her books, and a couple of interviews. But as far as plagiarism, I could only find that Daily Dot article.
As far as my opinion on DD, they truly have their finger on the pulse of social media and what people are talking about online. And on that subject (what people are talking about), I think they are a reliable source but they shouldn't be given too much weight...they are going after "stories" so will search out conflict (like most journalism). But social media chatter is the very definition of rumor, meaning, it might end up being true but it is unverifiable and, so far, no news reporter has made an investigation into Clare's work a pursuit. I don't think Wikipedia should include mention of this controversy until there are more reliable sources for actual, investigated claims of plagiarism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Source: "Free Advice: The personal blog of economist Robert P. Murphy": "In Defense of the Mises Institute" [68].
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.[37][38] [39][40] In the opinion of former Mises Institute Scholar Gene Callahan, "I think the truly racist time at LVMI had passed by the time Bob [Murphy] 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.[41]

• Content (updated, as material from Callahan removed per RSN):

  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.[40][41][42][43]

• 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: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. 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. [Emphasis added.]" 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)

This paragraph describing a kerfuffle between warring camps of libertarian economists (between the "GMU Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians") is a tempest in a teapot if all we have on it are blog-sourced salvos sent at each other across no man's land. Why do we care what the bloggers are saying to each other? This stuff should be sourced to mainstream journals and books, not blogs, and it should be described neutrally rather than in the voices of the involved. The text shown at the top of this thread as "content" is clearly using Murphy's blog post as a coatrack to introduce the intended post by Callahan who is given five sentences versus the one sentence offered to Murphy. It is clear from this addition by Steeletrap in mid-August is the basis for the current RSN discussion; Steeletrap writes that Callahan "implies" that LvMI is a cult akin to Scientology. It is only later that Murphy is added by SPECIFICO in a false attempt to provide balance, when it is obvious that the only reason Murphy is added is so that the bit by Callahan can better survive deletion. The much greater weight given to Callahan is revealing. I think the whole paragraph should be struck as undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flick, Binksternet. This has nothing to do with the Cato/Mises rift. Murphy and Callahan were colleagues at Mises. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where I linked to the same Murphy blog that you used as a reference. It's the same game. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be directing your efforts to an area beyond your expertise with these libertarian and Austrian economics articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really good at recognizing activist editors who are here to slant the encyclopedia their way. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this noticeboard is Reliable Sources, and so far you haven't shown much understanding of the sources, their contexts, or the WP policies that would apply to them. But I'd love to have you prove me wrong and see some on-topic policy-based writings from you. SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of my "understanding" is not worth comment. There is a larger picture here; larger than RSN's purview. This context should not be absent from the discussion, as it bears strongly on the matter. The various blogs from Murphy and Callahan are not useful on Wikipedia unless they are 1) on topic, 2) founded on the writer's widely acknowledged expertise, and 3) relevant to a summary style encyclopedia article on the topic. In this case, the relevance is severely lacking. Murphy argues against unnamed critics of LvMI-as-a-cult and then Callahan responds saying LvMI is indeed a cult, in his opinion. Who cares? This back-and-forth by bloggers is not mainstream news. I say delete the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. As well, neither Callahan nor Murphy are expert cult researchers, so they are out of their element. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, just about nothing regarding the Mises Institute is "mainstream news." Please read all the source material. Murphy says that no group which solicits dissent could possibly be a cult. Callahan, in order to refute him, gives a counterexample. It's a matter of logic. One needn't be an "expert cult researcher" whatever that means, or call Ghostbusters, to figure out that Callahan has refuted Murphy in this narrow clearly stated matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The more I look at Rich's and Blinksternet's hardline refusal to accept either of these sources, the more I realize that neither of them has even an excuse. Neither one can point at a rule that's even relevant, much less on their side. Neither one has anything substantive to object to; it's all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I also realize that, since we can't quote Callahan without Murphy or vice versa, we can't talk about how reliable they are separately. We need a single thread, which means this one is dead in the water. Let's close both of these threads, burying the mess, and let them open up one where they actually stay on topic and don't misapply the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Callahan blog RSN is getting plenty of comment, and each RSN thread has a notice about the other. Combining them will not work for two reasons: 1. Combing would not change the basic RS analysis (for either blog) and would only complicate a thread that is quite long as is. 2. What you say about the fate of Murphy's blog vs. Callahan's is true to a certain extent. If Murphy's blog is non-RS, then Callahan's comments about Murphy's blog get kicked out because of WP:UNDUE. I opened the Callahan blog RSN first because some editors claim other RS supports the idea that LvMI is a cult. Callahan's blog might be non-RS in this regard, but the other sources might support a cult description. But since Callahan's blog talks about Murphy's blog, I felt it necessary/helpful to open this RSN as a separate issue. Again, I remind readers that each thread provides notice about the other. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not saying that LvMI is a cult. For that, we'd need considerably stronger sources. All we're saying is the obvious and uncontroversial fact that the controversy exists, that members of the LvMI argue publicly about whether it's a cult. I'm just not going to let you misinform people by spinning the issue this way. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As the RSN regarding the Callahan blog is now closed with a non-RS determination ([75]), I propose that we give equal treatment to the Murphy blog and consider it non-RS as well. It would be unbalanced for us to leave the Murphy comments in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic here is whether it's RS, not the balance of the article. You may withdraw this at your option but if not, let the discussion proceed to a conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The closing of the related Callahan blog RSN said: [inserted closing text curiously omitted by OP: "consensus was that comments from Callahan's blog in re: the institute as a cult should not be included in the article.] The basis for this consensus was that, as a self-published source, the content is generally considered unacceptable for use. [Emphasis added.]" I cannot see how we might consider Murphy's blog as RS. It is specifically self-labeled as a "personal blog". It would be incredibly inconsistent to allow one blog in, yet exclude the other. – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC) [omitted text inserted SPECIFICO talk 13:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)]

A request to close this RSN has been posted at WP:ANRFC. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The two RSN threads are about different issues and Srich's insistence that, because the Callahan/cult text was rejected, the closing Admin must reject the Murphy defense of Mises Institute is unfounded. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There may be two different personal blogs involved with the two RSNs, but the WP editing issues involved match. Each blog is WP:SPS. Each goes beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because each blog talks about third parties. Each is WP:QS. Each is WP:PRIMARY because they ruminate on their personal experiences at LvMI. Each involves blogging about material that is not within their areas of expertise – economics. Specifico has not advanced any WP policy, guideline, or argument to overcome this fact. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems as if you feel that there's more to say in this discussion. If so, I suggest you withdraw your request for closure. If not, I'm sure the closing Admin will bring the matter to the right conclusion without needing special instructions. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't have anything to add. The arguments are well laid out above and, by connection, in the closed Callahan blog RSN. I would not presume to instruct an Admin on how to close. (And they'd probably ignore any such proffered instruction.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Content related to Murphy's blog now updated per removal of Callahan quote. Basically the material after the footnotes. – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In light of this update, the discussion in the current thread no longer reflects the current article content and sources. This thread should be withdrawn. Please start a new thread which states whatever issues remain in the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Callahan material was found non-RS was posted a few days ago. Perhaps "Clarify" would be a better term. No matter, the issue remain the same – Murphy's material is a personal blog and does not serve as proper RS. (How does the removal of the Callahan blog change that factor?) – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Stale

 – The article text and supporting references have changed since this thread was begun and the comments may no longer apply to current article content or sources

SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please state the question for which you are soliciting discussion. Please be specific and state any outstanding concerns and their relationship to the current article text. If you are requesting further editor comment here, please withdraw your closure request so that all editors will have a chance to comment and help move the discussion to a resolution and consensus. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How does the removal of the Callahan blog (from the article text) change the fact that Murphy's personal blog is SPS and thereby is not acceptable RS? An answer might start off saying "Murphy's personal blog is acceptable as RS in the article because......" – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think what you meant to write was, "Does the removal of the Callahan text change the fact that Murphy's statements are acceptable RS?" I would say it doesn't change things. Murphy is still RS for the text attributed to it. Please withdraw your request for closure so that discussion can resume. Otherwise, this thread is going to remain stale and stuck. The alternative would be to withdraw this thread and start anew with a more clearly stated issue which relates to the current article text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate the value of anchoring. (And my framing of the question/s was quite deliberate.) So, I will await fulfillment of this inquiry:

"The removal of the Callahan material changes the analysis of the Murphy material because..... and the Murphy material is RS because.........."

Please provide rationale for the missing portions. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I restated the question, and no reply has been forthcoming. Accordingly, I've removed the "awaiting" tags and the duplicate "stale" tag. As the WP:BURDEN for keeping the Murphy personal blog in the article has not been meet, this RSN is ready for a decision and closing. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What kind of source do we need for a statement "Some historians speculate"

I've been trying to deal with Kourgm22 (talk · contribs) about this. I put what I thought were useful comments on their talk page, they replied to me on their talk page and then reverted the discussion. The current statement is "Some historians speculate that the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon in order to obtain his consent to travel her caravans through Jordan, which at the time, Solomon controlled", sourced to Fisher, Eugene M., and M. Cherif Bassiouni. Storm Over the Arab World. This is better than "historians believe" which was the original edit. M. Cherif Bassiouni is a notable legal scholar, I don't know anything about Fisher, and the book is about the colonial and post-colonial Arab world. In the deleted edit the editor states that " it clearly says that some historians speculated on why the Queen of Sheba wanted to visit Solomon" but without the context it doesn't actually tell me much, and isn't what the Bible says. And of course no page number despite my request, possibly because the student wrote a paper for college (as he/she says) but didn't put the page number in and no longer has the book. At the moment it seems that if I remove it again it will be replaced, and I've got no good reason to think that we can accept it at face value and I don't think we can word it this way. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Page 200 of the 1972 edition. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Fisher is/was a member of the Indian Bar - see this. I'm not sure that two legal types are going to be great authorities for such a book. I note that the foreword was provided by Arnold Toynbee, which might nowadays be considered a kiss of death. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, given the dates it would seem that should link to Arnold J. Toynbee. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I gather the diff is at [76]. The source, St. John's University School of Law, is RS. I suggest a quote from the law review article to put the material in context will help. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused now - the publisher is Follett. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm the one who's confused. You linked the bar review article, and that got me diverted. I'll guess that the bar review piece (1970) served as the precursor for Follett. Either way, would a quote help? (Also, Fisher is listed as a member of the Indiana Bar, not Indian Bar. ) – S. Rich (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

S. Rich, the source would clearly be reliable for the politics, etc of the modern Arab world. But sources aren't reliable necessarily for everything. How can they be a reliable source for what historians say? I also see that the Law Review article states the biblical stories as fact, which gives me more concerns than I had before. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor's talk page quotes the source as saying "Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate that Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem to win Solomon's consent for the travel of her caravans through Jordan, which then he ruled." It's my opinion that even quoting and attributing this doesn't help much as we have no idea what they are referring to. It begs the question 'what historians" and gives the reader no way to find out. As I've said, we should have academically recognized historians commenting on what historians say. Til, while arguing that we have no definition for historians, has found this [77] from the Cambridge Ancient History by Otto Eissfeldt which is the sort of source we should be considering.

(edit conflict) My apologies for the typo - I'm making a lot of those at the moment and yesterday even tried changing keyboard mid-edit to resolve the problem. Still, a member of a Bar is a member of a Bar. From the introduction to the 1970 paper, neither appear to have any qualification in a theological or history-based subject, unless you count law as history-based due to research/reliance on past rulings etc. Furthermore, it seems likely that the Sheba comment in the book is in the nature of an aside to their main thesis.

Page 200 is the first page of a chapter titled "Yemen the Land of the Queen of Sheba". All I can see of it is first first paragraph, reconstructed from searching the snippet views: "In biblical history the lady has long been known as the queen of Sheba. Secular historians often call her ancient realm Saba. She traveled from this country in the southwestern region of the Arabian peninsular northward along the Red Sea to visit Solomon in Jerusalem, and there, the scribe reports, "she communed with him of all that was in her heart". Of this communion, tradition has it, was born a son who became King Menelik. Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate that Sheba made her journey to Jerusalem to win Solomon's consent for the travel of her caravans through Jordan, when he then ruled. When one takes into account the Hebrew king's seeming obsession with sex, it is possible to imagine that the use of her body was part of the price she paid." There are no footnotes to that paragraph. I know almost nothing of the Bible and definitely nothing of this, but the wording all seems a bit fluffy to me. I think I would prefer to see the words of the "historians who concern themselves with the long ago" - if there are a few then presumably it should be possible for someone to track them down ... eventually. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with others above: we would need to quote or cite the historians concerned. Moreover, we would only do so if those historians are experts in the field (or highly notable for some other reason). If those conditions aren't met, the speculation isn't worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole page needs a copyedit, since it is written by someone without a native knowledge of English.

Its neutrality is flawed, also as a consequence. I.e. for example:

Among other things it was the home of the biblical "Queen of Sheba"

No one here surely needs to be told that the 'Queen of Sheba' story is almost unanimously considered legendary, and therefore 'she' cannot have an historical home. The tale of course, like many legends, probably contains traces of ancient trade information, the spice route etc. There is no evidence for Solomon's vaunted kingdom, and this is a post-Persian era fairy tale, grounded on the historicization of semi-legendary moral tale, much as occurs in Early Roman history.

the article by Otto Eissfeldt in the the Cambridge Ancient History is encyclopedically useless. A fine scholar of course, but that edition came out in 1973, and the whole Eissefeldt piece was written much earlier, and smacks of the 1930s. The assumptions made throughout it are simply not shared by archeologists anymore.

'Historians who concern themselves with the long ago speculate'. That is horrific writing at any level (a) all historians deal with what the writer ineptly calls 'the long ago', which sounds like a fumbling attempt to imitate in an English country vernacular the Braudelian longue durée. One writes, if one must, the 'deep past'. (b) It is grammatically untrue: since the class of historians who study the deep past is a huge one, whereas its subset, historians of Sheba, is a very small, restricted field. 'who' here confuses the subclass with the main class. (c) When 'some' is used one must have a good specialist source that uses it, or name at least two specialist historians.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani. I'm a bit embarrassed by the Eissefeldt gaffe, especially as I'd already commented on the original editor's talk page about using old sources that have since been shown to be wrong. I hope you'll make an attempt to deal with the neutrality issues. Andre Dalby is also right - we can't use 'historians' in general, as you both say we need current specialists who are known in their fields. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Otto E. point, the linked edition is dated 2000, although the first edition was 1973. This footnote says that the first four sections were originally published as a "fasicle" (?) in 1965. Do Cambridge regularly reprint without amending for modern research? - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Til Eulenspiegel seems to be encouraging the original editor to use Eissfeldt and doesn't seem to want to participate here - see User talk:Kourgm22. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Where he's dismissed RSN, saying "That's how I remember the place. If they are now instead telling people - "No - any source that doesn't pass our POV litmus test xyz cannot even be mentioned on wikipedia", then the wrong people are now lurking around there". He's been edit-warring at the article and made it clear at Talk:Sheba he rejects anything coming from here. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, there are multiple questions here. One, about how and where to present material relating to the Kebra Nagast and other material which is supported by a few religious groups relating to the alleged prehistory of Abyssinians/Ethiopians. It might, I don't know, present a basically similar story. It is accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Rastafarians, and a few other groups which arose out of a broad "Ethiopianness" of the mid 20th century, and I assume any historians affiliated with those groups officially or otherwise would support it, thus qualifying as "some" historians. I don't know how broadly such stories are credited in outside sources. I've also seen sources saying that these beliefs tend to be supported primarily by two ethnic groups in Ethiopia, who according to some sources I think I might have mentioned to Doug earlier apparently use the Kebra Nagast and related works to give themselves a basis to assume a higher position in society than other groups. Certainly, the belief is held by the EOC, Rastafarians, and whoever else, and it should be somewhere. The question is how much and where.

I also remember, some years ago, a report on the BBC about how someone claimed to have found some archaeological remains in Yemen (I think) which were taken as indicative of the Queen of Sheba being ruler there. Unfortunately, don't know anything other than this kinda vague memory of an old news story.

At this point, I could see, somewhere, content saying that these groups believe the story, but I would have serious reservations about including anything about "historians". There are a freaking huge number of reference works, encyclopedias and the like, on religion in general and Christianity in particular, including at least a few on the Coptic-Ethiopic Christians. I think the best way to proceed would be to check the basic reference books on the local history first, see what they say, and then the religion based reference books. But, based on at least what I know from having gone over a few reference books in the various fields, I don't myself see that this topic necessarily merits much weight in any overview articles, at least content about what "historians" say, until content from historians who haven't been counted as tied to the believing religious groups is presented. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of an Ethiopian connection. It perhaps explains a couple of things. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)