Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 176

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 174Archive 175Archive 176Archive 177Archive 178→Archive 180

Is this UN document a reliable source to say the UN Security Council designated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a terrorist organisation?

The statement is " The group has been officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council" and is sourced to [1] which doesn't mention the word terrorist. The relevant sanctions list is at [2]. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say no. The document says that ISIL is associated with Al-Qaida. Unless there's some other U.N. document that says "when we say 'associated with Al-Qaida,' we mean 'terrorist,'" then this document does not support the statement that the U.N. has classified ISIL as a terrorist organization. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Darkfrog24. Kingsindian (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a well known fact at the UN, that the Islamic State (and Al Qaeda before it) is regularly referred to as a terrorist organization in U.N. communiqués. One of many reliable and verifiable sources, directly from the UN website:
7 August 2014 – As Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorists continue to overrun areas of northern Iraq...
and
“The Secretary-General is deeply appalled at today's reports of attacks by the terrorist group Islamic State (IS) in Kirkuk,...
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48439#.U-x-2Jp0y00
Worldedixor (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I would consider the UN.org news story just posted by Worldedixor a sufficient source for a statement to the effect of, "According to the U.N., the Islamic State is a terrorist organization" or "The Islamic State is referred to as a terrorist organization by the U.N." The current wording, "officially designated," might be a little too strong, but that's easily fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the problem. There is no evidence that it was "officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council" and the link certainly doesn't use the word terrorist. That claim should never have been made without an official source stating specifically that. We can say that the Secretary Geeneral has referrred to it as a terrorist organisation, I'm happy with that. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK the UN does not maintain lists of terrorist groups and has never defined terrorism.[3] While the Secretary-General called ISIL terrorists, his description is not binding on member states. I think in order to add it to an article we need to show that his comments are significant, that a third party reliable source has commented on them. TFD (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No - there's no "official designation". Need something to support the statement. Something resolved by the General Assembly and approved by the Security Council sort of thing. That's the implication, so we really need something more than a few comments by an official, no mater how highly placed. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It may not be good enough to back up a claim about the Security Council, but it can be attributed to the Secretary-General instead. That's perfectly legitimate content here, and certainly notable, although notability is not a requirement for content. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Notability is about what articles should be created. But neutrality governs what content should be in articles and if something has not been mentioned in reliable sources then it lacks significance. In this case, media coverage determines what is significant and should be included. TFD (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The idea that we'd have to wait for a fourth party to say, "And the U.N. Secretary General referred to this organization a terrorist group" seems excessive. The U.N. referred to this group as a terrorist organization in their own media outlet. That's sufficiently significant for inclusion on Wikipedia. If it were the Greenville Community Circle, then sure, wait for NYT or Guardian to deem it worthy of a mention, but this is the U.N. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want to solve the problem, directly quote and overtly attribute. Say "According to XXXXX, they stated "SO and so is blah blah blah" Never put opinion in Wikipedia's voice, put it in the voice of the person whose opinion it is, and when there is any fear of misattrubution or misrepresentation, there is no shame in directly quoting the source and naming the speaker next to the quote. --Jayron32 01:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to call "ISIL is a terrorist group" an opinion. It's better described as a conclusion. But yes, say, "According to the U.N., ISIL is a terrorist organization" or "The U.N. has described ISIL as a terrorist organization in official documents." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what I am saying. Don't paraphrase. Quote, and include enough of the quote to give it full context. And don't vaguely cite the organization. Say what person or body within the organization said it, what the name of the report was, etc, etc. give readers all the information and let them come to their own conclusions. Again, don't paraphrase and vaguely cite. Quote, and quote extensively enough to avoid misunderstanding, and comprehensively attribute. --Jayron32 04:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see "According to the U.N., ISIL is a terrorist organization" or "The U.N. has described ISIL as a terrorist organization in official documents" as all that vague. I think we've got the same principle in play, though: This article doesn't support the exact phrasing used in the document; it must be changed or removed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Then use the exact phrasing, with quote marks, and directly cite the document by name. Don't interpret, report. Don't tell us what the UN described, and don't use word "official documents". Instead, provide the exact words used by the document, name that document, and put quote marks around it. It's not that hard to do, and when you do that, you avoid all accusations of misrepresentation of sources. --Jayron32 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's excessive. If we did that, then the whole encyclopedia would be quotes. What seems to be going on in this case, however, is that someone wants to keep "United Nations" in a chart titled "Designation as a terrorist organization." I'd say that these sources do not directly support that. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but the sources offered here do not support it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think User:Jayron32 is right. We obviously don't imply that "the whole encyclopedia would be quotes". Only in controversial situations, or where precision is important, do we need to provide exact quotes, and there is nothing at Wikipedia which forbids doing so. We do encourage paraphrasing, but proper writing also includes quotes when they are preferable. Fair use allows that, and when the subject is controversial or sensitive, it prevents lots of misunderstandings and edit warring to use good attribution and quotes. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
BullRangifer is correct. No, we don't quote everything. We quote when something may be controversial, contentious, or has the potential to be misunderstood or misrepresented. This has all of that. So we quote for this one thing. What we do on any other article, or any other bit of information, will be assessed on a case by case basis, as this one is. For this one, we quote. --Jayron32 00:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the type of problem that arises when we decide what should be in articles then look for sources, instead of just reflecting what secondary sources say. We start by wanting to say that the UN considers ISIL a terrorist organization, but they do not categorize terrorists. So we turn to a quote that the media despite giving extensive coverage to the subject has failed to report. TFD (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. However, I see that this 15 August UN News Centre item says, "Expressing its 'gravest concern' that parts of Iraq and Syria are now under the control of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, the United Nations Security Council today placed six individuals affiliated with the terrorist groups on its Al-Qaida sanctions list and [...]." and "In its resolution, the Security Council deplored and condemned in the strongest terms 'the terrorist acts of ISIL [...].'" As I read that, an official UNSC news release referred to ISIL as a terrorist group, and explicitly said that ISIL was committing terrorist acts. However, though the news release says "In its resolution, ..." I don't see a matching UNSC resolution here. Perhaps it will show up there next week. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It is SC/11520, adopted 15 August 2014,[4] after this discussion thread began. I recommend taking a story about it in mainstream media and summarizing what it says. TFD (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Dee Monney featuring sarkodie and j-town finishline directed by David A. Nicol-sry

[5]

Are you citing the video or the text?

Ghanaian songwriter and rapper Dee Moneey has released the official music video for his track titled “Finish Line”. The song features awarding rapper Sarkodie and musician J Town. David Nicol-Sey directed the video.

What text in what article is this being used to support? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Article is David nicol-sey Bgwhite (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

See This edit to the Ethnic cleansing article and talk:Ethnic cleansing#Jews from Arab countries.


Are the following sources reliable:

From the revert edit:
  1. Jews expelled from Arab countries accuse Arab regimes of ethnic cleansing. Jerusalem Post, Jun. 25, 2003, JENNY HAZAN AND GREER FAY CASHMAN
  2. The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries
  3. Jerusalem Post - National News. Fr.jpost.com (2013-06-25). Retrieved on 2013-07-18.
  4. Ran HaCohen, "Ethnic Cleansing: Some Common Reactions"
  5. The Forgotten Narrative
  6. "Ethnic Cleansing: Some Common Reactions"
    Additional sources brought to the talk page:
  7. This article from The Middle East Quarterly

The two editor to the dispute can explain their disagreement over these sources better than I, but I will quote them which will give the gist of their positions:

...However, we are lucky enough to have [6] and [7], which explain clearly the political PR campaign on this topic launched by JJAC in 2002, and mention both Irwin Cotler's statements and Ros-Lehtinen's congress bills specifically in this context. Fischbach describes the campaign as "a tactic to help the Israeli government deflect Palestinian refugee claims in any final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal."
User:TheTimesAreAChanging, please confirm that in this context, whether you still believe any of the sources supporting the text above are WP:RS, and if so, specifically which ones and why.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
My default position is usually to assume that any sources are better than no sources. While the label of ethnic cleansing is inherently politicized, ... its worth noting that their prime targets were those Jews believed to be in "immediate danger".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You listed 7 sources. Is there any one in particular you would like us to examine? (We're all just volunteers here with limited time.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe there are three sources which refer to ethnic cleansing, which is the core issue at hand:
PBS quoted my position in the yellow box above - i.e. per Fischbach and other scholars, that (B) and (C) above are part of a tactical political PR campaign and have no basis in scholarly history. Surely if this really was "ethnic cleansing", such a claim would have been made in one of these these 50 scholarly works. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
That a few sources have referred to this as ethnic cleansing does not justify inclusion. We would need to show that books or articles on ethnic cleansing typically include it. Incidentally the article incorrectly defines ethnic cleansing as "removal of ethnic or religious groups." In fact it is only the removal of ethnic groups, hence the name "ethnic cleansing." TFD (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
TFD, I think you are being too restrictive in your understanding of the phrase "ethnic cleansing". See the definition section of the article (my emphasis):
The Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 defined ethnic cleansing as "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."
They did this because the definitions of groups that can be subject to genocide is defined in the Genocide Convention "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", and were addressing themselves to the events in Bosnia were it is not necessary to decide if the Bosnian Serbs were motivated by religious hatred or ethnical hatred of Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks, as the target group using either definition were a protected group under the meaning of the Genocide Convention. The term "ethnic cleansing" is a borrowed term in English and its meaning as per be UN and the ECHR has been expanded to mean the forcible removal of any protected group under the genocide convention. But all this is beside the point Wikipedia editors do not have to define what "ethnic cleansing" means to assess its usage in reliable sources that describe a series of evens as "ethnic cleansing". --PBS (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Few sources use that definition. Cathie Carmichael for example in "Defining and Interpreting ethnic cleansing in Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans: Nationalism and the Destruction of Tradition uses the a definition from the commission in 1993, "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogeneous."[8] In The Dark Side of Nation-States: Ethnic Cleansing in Modern Europe, Philipp Ther, referencing Carmichael's book, says, "In keeping with the United Nations (UN) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, ethnic cleansing is defined here as the systematically organized, enforced removal, by violent means and usually permanently of a group defined by ethnicity or nationality."[9]
Of course when the term was coined, the victims of ethnic cleansing were both an ethnic and religious minority. But I do not see any literature where the term is used to refer to solely religious grounds, such as the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome, Dissenters in England, protestants in France, and heretics in Spain, Geneva, or colonial Massachusetts.
TFD (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
See Cromwellian "Ethnic cleansing" Catholic, "Bartholomew's Day Massacre" "ethnic cleansing" and "Edward I" Jews "Ethnic cleansing". Wikipedia editors do not have to define what "ethnic cleansing" means to assess its usage in reliable sources that describe a series of evens as "ethnic cleansing". -- PBS (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What am I supposed to make of the Google search for ""Bartholomew's Day Massacre" "ethnic cleansing""? Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything says, "European history is a chronicle of faith-based slaughter, from the Crusades through the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre to the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia."[10] Is your argument that because the same source can talk about the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia that the massacre was ethnic cleansing? I can find books that talk about both Joe McCarthy and Communism - that does not prove that Joe McCarthy was a Communist. TFD (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course a Google search just matches phrases and as such some/most/all of the returns may not support a hypothesis. However to cherry pick the returns to support a hypothesis ("But I do not see any literature where the term is used to refer to solely religious grounds, such as ... protestants in France") while ignoring others that refute it is I think unhelpful. You chose the second book returned in the list, yet the first the third and the fourth, fifth, sixth, all demonstrate different authors using ethic cleansing to describe religious persecutions (the remainder are not supportive for one reason or another: seventh n/a -- novel; eight uses separate terms; nine an index page; ten grouped together in a meaning for atrocity). See also talk:Ethnic cleansing#Definitions. Wikipedia editors do not have to define what "ethnic cleansing" means to assess its usage in reliable sources that describe a series of evens as "ethnic cleansing".-- PBS (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You will find few sources that refer to the St, Bartholomew's Day massacre as ethnic cleansing. Your Google book search for ""Bartholomew's Day Massacre" "ethnic cleansing"" returns 131 hits,[11] not all of which describe the massacre as ethnic cleansing. But search "Bartholomew's Day Massacre" without "ethnic cleansing" and you get 276,000 hits.[12] Cromwell of course ethnically cleansed the Irish who were and are a distinct ethnic group. As I pointed out and sources support, few sources use the term ethnic cleansing to describe religious persecution. TFD (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Like Bosnia it is difficult to distinguish Catholic and native Irish in the 1650 clearances, particularity as it was primarily a land confiscation from landlords and what was done the the tenants on the land varied, but the page returned by the search Cromwellian "Ethnic cleansing" Catholic (I included the term Catholic to emphasise that point) clearly show that the authors are using the term ethnic cleansing to refer to Catholics in Ireland. Take for example page 51 of the first book returned by the search which comments that "The entire tone of the document suggests that [Cromwell] would eliminate Catholicism from Ireland by any means possible". -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I see that you have changed your position from "But I do not see any literature" to "will find few sources"! Your search that retuned an estimated "276,000 books" includes many books published before "Ethnic cleansing" entered the English lexicon. If one searches from 1994 the earliest the term would have been used in a book the number is about 500 and by the last page of less than 10 returned includes titles like "Children of the Vampire" by Jeanne Kalogridis "The story begun in the acclaimed first novel in the trilogy...". Also I provided above a link to talk:Ethnic cleansing#Definitions which includes Shaw, Martin (2013). What is Genocide. John Wiley & Sons. p. 50. ISBN 9780745674667.(Shaw is an academic who has published a lot about genocide), that explicitly support the broader definition of ethnic cleansing in academic usage, by citing various definitions and making the claim. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Auke Visser's International Super Tankers Suggestion

[13] Clearly a WP:SPS but wondered if the expert exception would apply here. Appears to be a source of information I can't find anywhere else. WCMemail 12:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't listed what claim it is intended to support. This is interesting, apparently amateur ship-spotting, but the expert exception probably requires some basic threshold evidence that an expert is involved. The web page doesn't seem to have a bio and the figures have no citations for whether they're estimated, referenced, or otherwise validated.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is MSN Entertainment a reliable source

is this as a reliable source? http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?cp-documentid=23657306 OSLJA (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Per this page's header, you should specify the content in question. The article is an interview that appears to have originally been published by The Canadian Press, so it appears to be reliable. Location (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable source list

I am looking for a list of Wikipedia-recognized unreliable sources. I've seen the big 4, including cautions on YouTube, etc.. I've also seen the blacklist for spam. A while ago, I saw a list of unreliable sources. I though it was on Wikipedia, and the Help desk pointed me to RationalWiki. I have not found this list again. Question 1: Is there such a list on Wikipedia. I remember Mercola being on it. Question 2: If such a list does not exist, what about starting one, like the spam blacklist?

ThanksAlrich44 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a very sensible idea, in my opinion. Any such list could never be complete, and people might get the idea that sources not on it were reliable by default. And for much the same reasons, a list of 'reliable' sources isn't viable either. Instead, where there are questions over reliability, we expect contributors to assess the reliability of a source for a particular statement according to the criteria laid out in WP:RS, and where there is doubt, raise it at this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
It would just be an invitation to pointless debate. Also, sources are reliable/unreliable for the content they are supposed to support. Mercola for example is reliable for what its authors say, but clearly does not meet WP:MEDRS guidelines, but neither do many otherwise reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no such list and it would be virtually impossible to create such a list since reliability heavily depends on context. A source may be reliable in one context but not in another. For example Cosmopolitan magazine might be a great source for women's fashion but a terrible source for quantum physics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I will note, however, that we have some general guidance on a very few very popular sites at WP:ELPEREN. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:RS is different from WP:EL. We have a separate noticeboard for WP:ELN issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, RS are different than EL, but you will note that ELPEREN, if you read it, provides guidance on both usages. This is spectacularly helpful at AfC, where people are struggling with the simplest principles of reliable sourcing, and I think we could go a bit farther in this direction to good effect. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I had the same question, but how about we frame it differently: Can we make an FAQ page that addresses commonly asked questions about sources? Thinking of HuffPo and similar pages here. The goal would not be to create a complete list, just one for commonly asked questions. WP:ELPEREN could be a model. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I would very much support the idea expressed by User:EvergreenFir above. N2e (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, there is a related discussion going on right now over here, at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Is_there_a_list_of_unreliable_sources.3F. It includes one example, with links, of a source I did not previously know was unreliable, and would therefore be quite helpful if such a list existed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
A while back, I did try to create a FAQ for RSN[14] but there didn't seem to be much enthusiasm for it so I abandoned the effort. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: It's been 3.5 years so maybe there's new support for it? I'd love to see one to be honest. I understand that adding an entry to the FAQ might take some tedious discussion, but it seems doable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge:, and agreeing with User talk:EvergreenFir: As I said in a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Is_there_a_list_of_unreliable_sources.3F, I certainly think a repository of consensus(es) reached on some of these sources would be VERY helpful in avoiding the use of such websites for citing material in the encyclopedia. If it has been 3.5 years, then certainly another discussion and attempt to reach consensus should be attempted. N2e (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone decides to pursue and community discussion, please invite those of us who commented on this Talk page item. Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrecksite

Wreckiste includes a rather large database of wreck sites. Appears to be a largely self-published site, I would like to use some information from this article but not sure this site would be considered reliable for a cite. From what I can see, there doesn't appear to be any fact checking, though there is an extensive list of sources used. WCMemail 12:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't listed what claim it is intended to support. But if it's material found in a usable source, use that. If it's not also in another source, it's probably a claim involving Original Research.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You might want to consult WP:USERG for a site like this. There are specific circumstances under which a self-published site is acceptable, but as Elaqueate says, it does matter what content it's supporting—even more if you try to apply the USERG exception.
Wrecksite also posts a page full of its references, many of which meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria [15]. Would it be possible to source the content in question from one of those? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Pusoy Dos

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both the organization (Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana) and the source (Organiser) are affiliated to RSS. On the other hand, since it is talking about itself and describing its vision statement, it is not unreliable in this context. On the third hand, it is better to directly quote the organization (ABISY) about its vision statement, if possible. There might be other concerns like WP:UNDUE and so on, which are separate concerns. Kingsindian (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Organiser just looks like a newspaper. Is there a reason why it wouldn't be reliable? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Darkfrog24, that is my opinion too. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The Organiser is the official organ of the RSS, an Indian Hindu Nationalist organization. It can be reliable in certain contexts. The perception of unreliability here comes from the fact that the organization (ABISY) is said to be an organization rewriting or reinterpreting history in terms of an ideology (which it shares with the RSS). However, as I mentioned above, for it's own vision statement, such a source can probably be reliable. Kingsindian (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian, thanks. It is in line with the vision statement of ABISY as given on their website. Another newspaper article in The Hindu also gives the same vision statement. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you really start a discussion here without notifying the involved editors? And mis-state the dispute as well, into the bargain? Unbelievable. For anybody who is still looking at this; the dispute is not about whether the Organizer is reliable enough to present the RSS view; it is whether is it reliable enough to be presented in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution. In other words, everybody involved agrees that it can be used to say "the organisation says its objective is...." while Amritasya is trying to claim that it is good enough to say "The objective of the organisation...." without mentioning who says that. In any case, there is now also a discussion at the India Noticeboard, started by myself, because I was unaware of this posting. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, calm down. I did not use this at all anywhere. And we all, including me, agreed on the article talk page discussion without this. Why are you trying to create a deliberate outrage here now? Do you forget you said, and I quote you, This is a VHP publication. WP:BURDEN says you must take it to RSN. You were wrong that it is VHP publication. You are making false claims when you say the question I posted here is, and I quote you again, whether the Organizer is reliable enough to present the RSS view, what I asked is available here and is quite specific and definitely not this. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Vanamonde93 that the quote should be rephrased so as to say "ABISY states that its objective is..." rather than presenting in Wikipedia's voice. This is separate from using Organiser as source or not. Obviously a vision statement can be as grandiose as one chooses. It should be attributed to the organization, not stated in Wikipedia's voice as fact. Kingsindian (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation Museum

Contains a Vanity Fair ref by A. A. Gill

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

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


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

  1. [16] Recently, A.A. Gill (notorious baboon slayer and the restaurant critic at the Times of London) visited three New York eateries (Momofuku Bakery and Milk Bar, the Breslin, and DBGB) and came away with the impression that right now in New York, there is an infantile-regression recession.
  1. [17] Britain’s most notorious restaurant critic is one of the stars of the Auckland Writers & Readers Festival, which runs May 11-15. Nervous fellow journalists, acutely aware they are not in his league because almost no one is, are despatched to watch him toy with a croissant and catch the astringent aphorisms as they fall from lips that, in his writing, seem set in a perpetual cruel and wintry smile.
  1. [18] However, bleeding heart is not his natural vein - he is better at blistering rage. This book includes his two most notorious rants - "Hunforgiven", which led to complaints from the German ambassador, and "Mad in Japan", which takes a bovver boy's boot to Japanese culture.
  1. [19] AA Gill may be the most notorious restaurant critic in the Western hemisphere. Among the many vicious critics who fling lacerating insults at London's eateries, Gill of the Sunday Times cuts deepest. In the States, he is perhaps best known as the critic who, in Vanity Fair, compared star chef Jean-George Vongeritchen's dumplings at his New York restaurant 66 to "fishy, liver-filled condoms."
  1. [20] Gill is notorious for his acerbic, provocative style, on one occasion in 1997 damaging his career by describing the Welsh as: "loquacious dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls,"
  1. [21] achieved a feat few people thought possible by landing a rave review from the notorious Sunday Times scribe. Gill once infamously claimed ``you can easily travel from Cardiff to Anglesey without ever stimulating a taste bud
  1. [22] This volume is a best-of notorious British critic Gill’s restaurant reviews and general food writing
  1. [23] Vanity Fair magazine gives us the back of its white-gloved hand. For its October issue, VF unleashed notorious hitman A.A. Gill to deliver the smackdown. Gill dutifully throws every vile adjective he can think of into a bitter stew of rhetorical nastiness. Hoover Dam gets the only ounce of praise Gill can muster.
  1. [24] Further along in his notorious reportage, Mr. Gill claims that Albania is so backward, that it can be likened to "Europe in the 16th century" (!).
  1. [25] Gill is also the notorious critic for the Sunday Times, and a writer for Vanity Fair.
  1. [26] often the case when notorious critic AA Gill darkens the door of many establishments. Indeed...

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

Why are you starting a thread here when this is already being discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard? [27] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I concur with the Grump. If the issue is a single word and that word is descriptive rather than factual, then this might not be an RS issue. However, I'd agree that the sources offered here are sufficient for a full sentence, "A.A. Gil is often referred to as 'notorious' in the media." (I do not feel that just putting quotes around the word, as in "A.A. Gil, the 'notorious' this-and-that" makes it sufficiently clear that the "notorious" is the media's and not Wikipedia's.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The idea was "notorious" (insert refs) critic would make it clear that the term was not in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes @Collect:, I understood that that was the proposed idea. I do not believe this idea is accurate. My take on the matter is that quotes alone are not sufficient to establish this. It would only make it look like a craven attempt to use a word without owning it. Far better to establish the word's true owner. Also, refs are very awkward when used mid-clause. EDIT: Okay, I think you're trying to say, "If we use the reference tags, they will establish that the word in quotes is from those sources." Yeah, I see where you're going with that, but a full sentence is better, both for content delivery and for writing style. Again, ref tags don't belong mid-clause. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone used the word 'notorious' in relation to what Gill said regarding the Creation Museum? If not, I can't see the justification for Wikipedia using an out-of-context characterisation (a subjective judgement), regardless of how often it has been applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
He is called "notorious" in literally hundreds of sources -- the Vanity Fair article does not call him "notorious" but I rather suspect that few magazines call their own writers "notorious" so that is a non-starter as a requirement. The NPOV discussion is a tad different in focus, though the real problem is that I suspect the article is not a fair representation of the mainstream media in the case at hand. With the multiple refs immediately following the adjective, I do not think anyone would have a problem then? Collect (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest raising this question at BLPN. We might get some interesting responses as to whether your desired edit meets the requirements of BLP. Which after all is absolute policy AFAICT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it is -- though self-identification may be an issue. [28] Yesterday The Guardian will have said: AA Gill, critic and baboon-murdering bastard, 60. Collect (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, what? Gill suggests that the Guardian may describe him as a 'baboon-murdering bastard' and that makes it self-identification? A novel argument, but hardly a convincing one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears to indicate that he considers himself widely criticized. That an editor may misapprise what I wrote is intriguing. Collect (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The sources provided would be sufficient to mention in Gill's biography that he is "widely described as 'notorious'". But that's apparently not what Collect is after here. The question of whether Gill should be labeled "notorious" in the context of his writings about a creationist museum is outside the scope of this noticeboard. MastCell Talk 01:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for remarking snarkily. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
My response wasn't meant to be snarky, and even upon re-reading it I am unsure why you interpreted it that way. You want to affix the adjective "notorious" to Gill's name in the context of his writings about a creationist museum. Even assuming that the sources supporting such an adjective are reliable, that's a matter of editorial judgement outside the scope of this board. MastCell Talk 23:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Um -- the query was about using the word "notorious" as an adjective to "critic" and not about person "notoriety" as I trust the sources make clear. Nor did I ever aver that Gill is "notorious" as a person, nor do the sources support calling him "notorious" as a person. The article initially had "outspoken" which I did not find to be reliably sourced, so that cavil seems remarkably ill-firmed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Pointing to anonymous message board banter like this is seriously time-wasting nonsense. And you provide this crowd-sourced review site as a reliable source about a living person? You put these on a list of "reliable sources". Anonymous comments on a message board! You also include sources where he isn't even called notorious. You should know better and you've wasted other editor's time. And it all just seems like an effort at rationalizing an implied ad hominem attack; I can't see how a good or bad reputation as a restaurant critic has anything to do with anything related to the Creation Museum.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Um-- the source you aver is "anonymous" is by "Frank Camel", identified as a pseudonymous "travel professional". The ilxor quotes are actually found on many sites. And calling him a "notorious critic" is not exactly a level one attack on him by any means. But heck -- if a restaurant and travel critic is the best source available on the topic of museums, I would be a tad amazed. It is a tad akin to having a farmer write about nuclear physics. Collect (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Pointing to anonymous message board banter from 2006 like this is seriously time-wasting nonsense. And, of course I aver that a completely unverifiable poster using a self-described pseudonym on a open crowd-sourced review site is anonymous. Find me a single other editor who agrees with you that these anonymous comment board messages equate to "reliable sources".__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
And are untraceable pseudonyms reliable indicators of real-life identity just for these specific sites? Or do you believe pseudonymous user names on things like Yelp or Youtube comments are adequate for us to consider someone non-anonymous?__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous source

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

According to a CNN source[1][2], Wilson rolled down his window to tell Brown to stop walking in the street. When Wilson tried to get out of his cruiser, Brown first tried to push the officer back into the car, then punched him in the face and grabbed for his gun before breaking free after the gun went off once. Wilson pursued Brown, ordering him to freeze. When he turned around, Brown began taunting Wilson, saying he would not arrest them, then ran at the officer at full speed. Wilson then began shooting. The final shot was to Brown's forehead.

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

[2] "Cite News" template for [29] reference.

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

For one thing, you can't have not-clearly-attributed sentences that flatly say "Brown did this" in Wikipedia's voice, if it's actually only "Unidentified phone caller says Wilson says that Brown did this." It's a little early to summarize history in the words of an untested account from an unknown caller. I'll also point out that the CNN report has that in a section called "Duelling Narratives" it's probably inappropriate to summarize any single view from a source that gives equal space to other competing views.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
In general, CNN is RS, but if they aren't treating the source as concrete (and that's what news orgs usually mean with their "unconfirmed" and "anonymous" and "this-just-ins") then we shouldn't either. I'd go so far as to phrase this as, "An anonymous contributor to CNN said" or "According to an anonymous CNN source," but yes I'd agree that the content itself is okay for inclusion. As Elaqueate says, given the different narratives, this is probably one time when "teach the controversy" is actually appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
CNN is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that the anonymous caller relating this account is reliable, or that we should include such hearsay. We're not obligated to include something in an article just because it appears in a reliable source. Unless other reliable sources are also reporting it, it probably doesn't merit inclusion. From WP:DUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."- MrX 03:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as an unfolding story, this seems like the most thinly sourced of all accounts, and I wouldn't suggest giving it the same weight (if any) of accounts that are confirmed to have been given by actual people. It's probably just too early to elevate a possible fourth-hand account filtered through a political radio show over a more neutral summary more widely sourced to reliable sources at this point. It's a weight and OR issue.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

You can't jump to "CNN solidly believes that anonymous source knows what Wilson said," based on that article alone. They don't quite make that jump in the article you provided. If they felt it was confirmed in the way you're suggesting, then they would have written it a less roundabout way. Relying on assumptions of how certain they are is adding a layer of analysis that isn't in the source itself. I think it's stretching to say that anything about the overall accuracies if we were to remove parts of the attribution. The account may match Wilson's in broad strokes, but could still be distorted or misleadingly incomplete in unknowable ways.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact that a media outlet uses an anonymous source is not necessarily unreliable (for example, The Washington Post's use of "Deep Throat" during the Watergate Scandal). However, in this case, I agree with Elaqueat. CNN puts all sorts of hedges in their report to indicate that they are not completely trusting of what the source says.
I would also (temporarily) omit mentioning it on WP:NOTNEWS grounds.... once/if other news media start to pick up on the CNN story (reporting and commenting on what the caller has told CNN, and trying to confirm her account) then it might be appropriate for Wikipedia to discuss it. But until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The NY Post, MSNBC, Washington Post and over 9600 more (Google page-count) have commented on the story about the caller to KFTK's Dana Show. They just haven't confirmed it like CNN. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Whoops. It may have been slightly less than 400 page-counts. Google reports 394 (in 0.17 secs) in one place and 9625 in another. My search is: Ferguson KFTK Wilson. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished (but circulated) manuscripts

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

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

Since it's unpublished it's not going to be useful as a means to verify any claims in an article. If it were published it could (at least) be a reliable source as to what the author thought of the former Congressman. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:V says that Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form", with a footnote that says "This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see." So it certainly meets the minimum definition of a published source. Guettarda (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Next question: How did you obtain a copy, and in what way was it made available to the public? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Bay City public library has a copy that's available in their reading room, but which does not circulate. I have a photocopy of their copy, which was either made by library staff or by my father-in-law himself (I didn't ask who actually made the photocopy). Technically, I suppose I obtained the document by picking it up from a side table in my father-in-law's house where it sat alongside a collection of Crump-related memorabilia. Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
At best, it's WP:SPS, which means the main problems are probably arguing that there's due weight for any original material found in it. The fact that it's in an archive helps verify authorship, in the same way as a person-of-note's papers, or accounts recorded in a family bible. That article, Rousseau Owen Crump, already looks fairly well-sourced already. What material is the source being proposed as the citation for?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that was about my take on it as a source, but I wanted to see what other people, who think about this kind of thing more than me, had to think. I don't actually have a lot of specific information I wanted to source from the manuscript at this point in time - it's more a matter of trying to figure out what I have to work with. To begin with, I want to work through the article and add inline sources. Since Killick's manuscript is among the sources currently listed I figured I should sort out whether it was an appropriate source or not before I added inline attribution. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The book itself—the actual copy in the library—is pretty cleanly along the border of "available to the public." If, as I'm assuming, the photocopy includes the title and page numbers etc. so that you can see that it really does come from this book (which would address the possibility that your father-in-law got his Bay City book photocopies mixed up with others), I'd say we can be reasonably confident that it is what it seems to be. I'd call it reliable for most non-extreme claims. When in doubt, attribute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest caution to the idea you would add it to as a sole in-line citation for that existing material. It might make the material presumably taken from more reliable sources look like it was only taken from the family biography, Citations should give people greater confidence in the material, not less. If the article started looking like it was mostly backed up by the SPS, then I could see material being challenged or removed on that basis, which is the opposite of what you're intending.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Basically, if the existing article material came from non-self-published reliable sources, be careful not to add a mass of citations that might confuse readers about whether it was only found in that family-written self-published source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I'm sorry if I was unclear. My goal is to cite material to the best source available (which obviously isn't Killick, unless there's nothing better). And if I end up citing Killick, I will make sure that it's obvious that it's "according to Killick" (in some shape or form). Guettarda (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Long River Press

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

I've been unable to find much useful information on Long River Press, beyond what is clearly promotional material: "Founded in 2002, Long River Press is an independent small press publishing fiction and nonfiction on all aspects of Chinese history, culture, and society. With editorial offices located in the San Francisco Bay Area and production facilities located in China, Long River Press draws upon the best editorial and technical resources of American and Chinese publishers to produce books of enduring quality for the publishing trade, museum stores, and both a general and academic readership. With an emphasis on fiction, history, art, philosophy, and language, the goal of Long River Press is to broaden its ever-widening audience of individuals developing or cultivating an interest in China." [30] As to whether material published by them is RS, we'd need more specific information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Long River Press is an established publisher and part of the Perseus Books group, specifically their academic division. They're almost certainly a reliable source where used. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Perseus Academic distributes some Long River Press books, specifically academic books about China.[31] Consortium Book Sales & Distribution, which is a division of Perseus, also distributes their books.[32] So I think the reliability of their books should be the same as whichever division of Perseus distributes them. TFD (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

whowhatwhy.com

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

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

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

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

whowhatwhy.com is no way a reliable source for anything non-trivial (and even then ...). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Whowhatwhy.com is not a reliable or objective source. We'd need a WP:FRIND source to report what a fringe source claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd consider this a self-published source run by an expert, former investigative journalist Russ Baker. Remove the words "some researchers" and attribute the content directly to him. (Also, you don't need to put "Umbrella Man" in quotes like that.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Self-published sources can't be used for claims about living people, even if they are thought to be experts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nepalese American

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

I would be cautious about removal, even though the two Bhutan sources look weak. One issue is that a big chunk of that material seems to be primarily supported by CNN rather than the sources you're questioning. It could probably be reworked to more directly reflect the claims made in the CNN source, rather than outright removal, which would probably be seen as contentious. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! While we've got fresh eyes on the page is everyculture.com a reliable source? They are published by Advameg, and their articles have bibliographies, but I am not seeing any footnotes stating what content is verified by what source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Government Sources

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

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

No, not all government sources are per se reliable or unreliable. It depends on the concrete context, that is which (type of) government, which source and about what. Even for the same government the reliability of a source can vary greatly. For instance using Nasa to source various astronomical or geographical stuff is fine, various EPA publications on pollution might be become slightly iffy already and a US government source for people killed during the Iraq war is already rather questionable. However it also depends whether you want to describe something like (undisputed) fact or attribute it as opinion or partisan source. In Nasa case you probably use it for (undisputed) factual description, in the EPA case an explicit attribution (according to EPA) might be required already and for US government source on the deaths in Iraq it certainly is.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
In general, most government sources are good for straight facts. The U.S. State Department's web site is often cited on Wikipedia. But yes, if there's information in which any of these governments would have incentive to lie or fudge the numbers, like Kmhkmh's example of the U.S. government and Iraqi casualties, then yes, question it. I'd include something like that in an article as, "According to the U.S. government there were X casualties but according to Other Source, there were Y" or in some other form that acknowledges the possibility that the content is inaccurate, treating it almost like an SPS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That really helps. I notice though that Kmhkmh said that it also depends on the type of government. Personally, I would consider something published by a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy to be unreliable and something published by a democratic state to generally be reliable dependent on the context - is that what you mean? Also, my local library has a lot of reports published by South Lanarkshire Council, Clydesdale District Council, Strathclyde Regional Council and the County of Lanark. They mostly cover things like public spending, education and election results but there's also a lot of interesting information about listed buildings, public figures and local customs that could be used to flesh out several wikipedia articles. Would those reports be considered reliable? --Adam Black talk • contribs • uploads • logs 20:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Depending on the material you want to add, they could be perfectly reliable. Depends on the actual article material. They are generally considered primary sources, so an article shouldn't rely too heavily on them, for WP:DUEWEIGHT reasons. They also generally shouldn't be used by themselves for claims about living people.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Blogspot: duggarsblog

Source: http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com, specifically birthday page and this article.
Article: 19 Kids and Counting
Content: Birthday page is being used to source the majority of table, specifically the middle names and birthdays. The article is being argued as a source for the home births of Jinger and Joseph (unsourced in this diff).

Scope: The scope of this posting is only to discuss if this blog is considered a reliable source. Other disagreement between IP-65 and myself has spanned multiple pages, including: article, talk page, user pages, SPI, AN3, and DRN. I bring discussion to this page only to conclude if blog can be used as a source, not for any other issues.

Details/Discussion:

On 23 June 2014, I noticed blog is being used as the primary source for the table of names and birthdays. After a little bit of research, I found that the blogspot page is ran by two fans who list no journalism experience and have no editorial team (see Contact Us page). Another words, the two fans were self-publishing their blog. Furthmore, this issue falls under WP:BLP because source is being used to give information on 19 living people. Per WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" (emphasis from page). I easily found the given names and birthdays on other websites, but didn't have that luck with the middle names. However, instead of removal, I decided to use the {{Better source}} tag (diff), hoping someone would be able to locate a better source.

Nothing further happened regarding this source for almost two months until 20 August. IP-72 removed the tag, claiming in the edit summary "If it's the Duggar's own blog (and thus coming straight from the horse's mouth) I don't think you can get a better source than that." I reconfirmed my previous research showing that blog was not run by the family. I then reverted the change with edit summary "... no- it's not the family's blog - it's an unofficial blog ran by two Canadian women unrelated to the family". As of right now, IP-72 has not come back to this article.

However, IP-65, who's disagreed with me multiple times, decided to challenge my edit. Diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4 – each time inserting the note: "<!--- This blog is sanctioned by Duggar Family. They have given exclusive interviews to owners Lily/Ellie. L/E were both invited to and attended Jill's wedding. See this http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/on-our-way-to-arkansas.html and http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/exclusive-duggar-wedding-details-part-1.html --->".
Various justifications in the edit summaries included: 1) "'duggarsblog' is sanctioned by family. they give it interviews. they were invited to jill's wedding." 2) "... i put the note in to let public know. the site does have exclusives and affiliation w duggars. ..." 3) "... leave the notation. ididnot delte the 'better source ' tag you added. thisnote lets it be known that this is not just a random fansite."
I considered IP-65's justifications a bit odd since the 'public' would not see this note because "<!--- --->" makes it only visible to editors. In fact the note look like it's something that may belong on a talk page and not in the actual article. In subsequent revert, I stated: "if you want to discuss, do so on the talk pages - not invisible comments on the article". IP-65 and I are still in disagreement on this.

The second page from the blog came up on DRN when Kkj11210 requested IP-65 to provide sources for various additions. The source IP-65 provided for the home births of Jinger and Joseph was the blog article (there might be other sources, but for this page, question is only about the blog). I stated the blog can't be used. IP-65 has given the following justifications: 01:44, 23 August – "duggarsblog is sanctioned by the duggar family. They have given multiple interviews to teh blog owners ellie/lily and invited ellie/lily to jill's wedding." 03:33, 23 August – "From the books and the tv show is where ellie/lily got the information that jinger/joseph were homebirths. In addition Michelle was interviewed by ellie/lily and tolf them this. Duggarsblog is sanctioned by the Duggar Family that is why I feel it is beyond WPSPS. They Duggar Family gives interviews and pictures to the owners ellie/lily ." 00:40, 24 August – "The blog is sanctioned by the family and the family gives it exclusives, pictures, and interviews. The blog needs to be used."

To me it seems like a simple case of self-published blog regarding WP:BLP is not allowed. But IP-65 disagrees and has stated "The blog needs to be used." So thus, posting here to hopefully decide, once and for all, if the blog is a reliable source or not.

Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Be bold! Include it and attribute it clearly. Also for balance since there are two from the HuffPo, find another non-liberal source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions properly sourced and cited as opinions are not related to "bad news source" or "good news source" - they stand on their own. Collect (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.info-buddhism.com/Dorje_Shugden_Conflict_Dalai_Lama_protests_Thierry_Dodin.html

This is being used at Dorje Shugden Controversy

The quote is

Dodin also states that The NKT can be described typologically as a cult on the basis of its organisational form, its excessive group pressure and blind obedience to its founder. The organisation’s extreme fanaticism and aggressive missionary drive are typical cult features too

The question is about Dodin in general, the assertion, and the website in particular. Any help? Prasangika37 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thierry Dodin is a Tibetologist. Certainly is reliable. And he was just speaking recently at an academic conference. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
VictoriaGrayson is involved in a dispute regarding this question elsewhere. Would much appreciate any other people's inputs, like those not involved in the discussion. VictoriaGrayson, I'd appreciate if you let others give their input without getting involved. Thank you! Particularly about the website info-buddhism.com and the usage of an interview with Dodin there. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I just wanted to point out that Thierry Dodin is a respected Tibetologist.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two issues here: is the source reliable for the assertion that Dodin said what is claimed, and is Dodin's opinion on the matter significant? Only the first question is really in the remit of this noticeboard. Can someone clarify whether the issue is if the website is a reliable source for Dodin's words? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: I don't think anyone ever questioned the website contains Dodin's own words.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If that is the case, then given that it is made clear that this is Dodin's opinion rather than a statement of an undisputed fact, it isn't really a sourcing problem - instead the question is whether Dodin's opinion is significant, which is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Whether Dodin's opinion should be included in the article is essentially a NPOV/WEIGHT issue - i.e. does he have relevant expertise in the subject, and is his opinion shared by others? He seems to have some academic credibility, at least, and it should be noted that he doesn't just use the term 'cult', but explains why he thinks it applies - though it should be noted that there is a perspective amongst some academics that the term 'cult' is best avoided, in that it is arguably inherently subjective, and with inherent negative connotations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I see that you don't make a judgement on credibility here (like if an individual is reliable in making a judgement on an issue). I'll take the issue over to NPOV. Sorry about the confusion on my part. Prasangika37 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Properly sourcing standards documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are allowed to cite primary sources (we just have to do so with care). An article about a specific standards document would be a case where it would be appropriate to mention the key provisions contained within that document (quoting or closely paraphrasing it)... and for such statements it would be appropriate to cite the document itself (a document is the most reliable source possible for a statement as to the contents of the document). We would then turn to secondary sources for analysis and discussion of how that standard is interpreted.
In a more generalized article (say the article on Widgets), it might be appropriate to quote and cite a specific standards document... and compare it to other specific standards documents. When doing so it is best to attribute (saying something like... "According to the International Widgets Standards, published by the International Widget Makers Assoc., widgets should be painted red <cite XYZ>. ) Then this can be compared to any contrasting documents. (saying: "However, according to Standards and Practices of Widgets, published by the Widget Manufacturers of North America, widgets should be painted green.") Again, a primary document can be mentioned and cited for a statement as to the specific contents of that doucment... however, once you shift to analysis or interpretation of the document, you need a secondary source.
Finally... it helps to look deeper into why the secondary sources disagree... and that is where looking at the primary documents can help. One reason for the disagreement in secondary sources might be the fact that there are actually competing standards... However, another might be that the standards have changed over time (perhaps widget standards said "red" from 1947 to 1962... changed in 1962 to "green"... and in 2013 changed again to "blue" (which might explain why there are so few secondary sources that say "blue"... there hasn't been time for the secondary sources to catch up with reality. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I responded to the bulk of your comment below, I just wanted to address time specifically because it's very true that it takes a long time to catch up to reality. A scenario I've encountered was a standard that was in place for 22 years and stated what it applied without doubt. In 2 revisions the standard removed the explicit declaration and expanded the standard to be more inclusive. 10-14 years after those changes the overwhelming majority of secondary sources have not caught up with the changes. Those few that have are personal websites with no value as wiki sources despite their extremely high quality content. Even assuming I was wrong, there were direct conflicts that require no interpretation and made said bulk unreliable (or they were members of the issuing organization). JMJimmy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of this would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think standards and manuals and such are undeniably useful and important to the wider world, but we don't necessarily need that material repeated verbatim and wholesale in the encyclopaedia, sourced to the primary material alone. And the OP is correct that an editor summarizing multiple ISO standards with their own analysis and ad hoc personal comparisons of dissimilar standards would be OR. But secondary sources are not "out". Your paradox only comes from a misunderstanding of "verifiability". We don't demand that a secondary source verify or prove its claims are truth. It just has to be clearly verifiable that a better reliable source said it, and we report that. Verifying a claim is ultimately true is often impossible, verifying the source said that claim is commonly possible. As far as your "red, green, blue" scenario, if sources make different claims in the exact way you suggested, then an article should just mention all three claims and not summarise it as if only one happened. If there's disagreement among equally reliable sources or nuance, then the summary should reflect that disagreement and nuance. In fact, if you read your own description, you were able to summarize the views and positions of the various reliable sources and widget makers quite handily yourself within two paragraphs, in your own comment! That's what an article should do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I was very careful to use verifiable and accuracy as not to bring issues of truth into the discussion. Verifiable I use mean that a source directly supports the statement being made (not states word for word but does not require interpretation). Accuracy I use to mean to be reasonably faithful to the spirit of the document and not obviously contrary to it, as not promote misleading/incomplete/bad information (Jimbo's "no information is better than bad information"). To that end the desire is to create quality encyclopedic content, not every minutia of every standard. The "disagreement and nuance" could be subject to dozens or even hundreds of accurate perspectives. This is EXACTLY the problem: "you were able to summarize the views and positions of the various reliable sources and widget makers quite handily yourself". I did not summarize it at all, without using the primary source and the OR required to read it, I have no source which tells me that there are an additional 13 colours or that there are patterns at all. Any attempt to claim the 64 different possibilities (16*4) would require 64 articles of that nature each describing a different colour/pattern combination, or one which directly supports the full claim (which would have to be academic or an industry specific publication which would be unreliable for the reasons mentioned in the OP). This brings in Blueboar's comments... looking at why the sources disagree is that they will always disagree if they at all different in their application of the standard (meaning compliant with, but not subject to all parts). A simple fictional example of this is
  • Part 1: General (IX75)
  • Part 2.1: Plasma Displays
  • Part 2.2: Monitors
  • Part 2.3: LCD Displays
If you have a reliable source stating "IX75 compliant LCD displays are commonly Class 2" and another stating "IX75 compliant displays are commonly Class 1" and another stating "IX75 compliant LCDs are Class 0". All of them are accurate to the IX75 standard, verifiable and no other secondary source exists relevant to this part of the standard. What can you summarize about the standard? At most: IX75 standard specifies a Class for LCDs, displays, and LCD displays. This is bad information (summary makes no sense). What the standard actually says in this scenario is:
  • Part 1: General (IX75) - All displays in this standard are class 1 and exempt from IX007 unless otherwise specified
  • Part 2.1: Plasma Displays - Commonly "Plasma TVs" that are not monitors (2.2) shall be a minimum of 23 inches
  • Part 2.2: Monitors - Plasma monitors and LCD monitors are less than 23 inches. LCD monitors shall be Class 0
  • Part 2.3: LCD Displays - Commonly "LCD TVs" that are not monitors (2.2) shall be Class 2 when IX007 applies
A quality summary might be: "IX75 is an International Display Consortium standard for the minimum quality of monitors and displays that use Plasma, LCD, or similar technologies. The quality requirements are based on the Class standard. All displays under 23 inches are considered to be monitors while larger displays are considered to be TVs. In general, the standard requires displays be Class 1 quality, though LCDs monitors are held to a higher standard. LCD TVs that contain 007 chips are only required to be Class 2 as a result of the higher power requirements" - This, imo, is a good summary without coming across as a manual or indiscriminate information. It would require 3 primary sources and synthesis (interpretation document to tell you part 1 applies to subsequent parts, the IX75 standard, and the IX007 standard for the claims about power). Getting any set of reliable sources that could allow you to make that kind of quality summary would be near impossible. You'd have to source a minimum of 11 different claims, none of which are in the 3 sources. This is a *simple* example on a common subject but a more typical example on typically more abstract concepts like "Information processing - 7-bit coded charters for information interchange" would be all but impossible to source. JMJimmy (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You can't eliminate the use of secondary sources when you have that many primary sources at that level of technical detail. If you're at a level of detail where absolutely no secondary source exists that covers the material? At that point you are in the forest counting individual trees per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you have thirty-two automobile manuals that all give a separate answer for the width of a certain brand of tire, and no secondary reliable source has ever cared to take up the issue ever, then generally it's probably some version of WP:ISNOT, possibly but not limited to WP:NOTMANUAL. On a case-by-case basis you can find a balance based on WP:WEIGHT. We aren't trying to exactly replicate the accuracy or degree of precision of any particular group of primary sources; if you can't summarize a level of detail, you should only point to where the reader can find the originals in their original context, or (where available) to a source that is better at summarizing them.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
And we've come full circle, hence the paradox. WP:IINFO is actually where I think standards get their best support from: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." So not only should it be included, but it should be more detailed - without becoming a "how to" manual. I don't think WP:NOTAMANUAL applies simply because the articles are intended to be encyclopedic and they are not a "how to comply with standard XXXX" but do include general information on the contents. Regardless, consensus has already decided such documents are desired, the point of all this is what can be considered a reliable source?
  • Conflict of interest. With extensive relationships, 100,000+ membership, 163 countries, and millions of individuals/companies who have implemented or have a vested interest in the standards it would be very difficult to determine what is reliable for the ISO, let alone any other standards organization (as many are interconnected)
  • Long term reliability - Any revision can change in a document or any of the supporting documents can change the implication rendering all prior citations unreliable until they are updated. As mentioned before, a long term standard that once said one thing and now says another is largely not addressed in reliable sources 10-14 years later, even if its actively implemented.
  • Source errors - How can one tell Patent nonsense from a quality source without a reading of the primary material? Since quality sources often cite previous sources the long term reliability issue becomes doubly problematic. Current policy would favour the bulk of material already in existence. As such, it could take a decade or more before sufficient sources to go from "fringe theory" to worthy of inclusion let alone replacing the old standard. Many are updated every 4-6 years now so wiki would be serving info at least 1-3 versions out of date.
Is there any other way of sourcing that is unaffected by these issues? JMJimmy (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas on how to get reliable sources? JMJimmy (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Parisi (Yorkshire)

Is Helen M. Jewell author of The North-south Divide: The Origins of Northern Consciousness in England, published 1994 by Manchester University Press, particularly this page a RS for Parisi (Yorkshire) of In the late 5th or early 4th century, the Parisi were established in East Yorkshire and their culture survived into the period of Roman settlement. The tribe are inferred to have been surrounded to the north and west by the Brigantes, with the Coritani south of them across the Humber. AnonNep (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have given an explanation of the issues with the text quoted at Talk:Parisi (Yorkshire)#Sources - in short, though the author appears to be a respected historian, what they have written about Parisi (which is a matter of ancient history / archaeology ) - is trivially shown to be speculation or error - it is probably a mix up between the Arras Culture - which is related - but not the same thing.
Comment In short, the writer can be trivially shown to have made an error.
The article which is well source is quite clear on what is and is not known about the Parisi.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
More than willing to read sources which state Jewell's position is wrong, but without them, I think Prof.Haddock's position is Original Research. AnonNep (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Try reading the article, and also Arras Culture - this is simple comprehension - if you can't see the hole in Jewell's statement on a subject on which literally nothing is known about then I need to question your competence in this subject eg see WP:Competence .
Specifically read Parisi_(Yorkshire)#Historical_sources_and_archaeology - that section is complete.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-expert here. Is there a non-Wikipedia source that says that Jewell's take on the matter is wrong? If not, is there anything to show that a position contrary to Jewell's is the consensus among professionals? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Was about to reply similarly - if there are RS that clearly refute this then I'll happily agree and the article could do with the extra attention. AnonNep (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It does seem uncontroversial to make an association between the Arras culture and the Parisi. In this source [33], for example, note not only that the association is suggested, but that the Parisi are talked about in terms of their archaeology. This source [34] says "the Arras series in eastern Yorkshire [is] sometimes equated with the antecedents of the Parisi of Ptolemy's Geography" (p. 302). That's a little more tentative, since it might imply that it is also sometimes not. I can understand an argument about whether 2+2=4 in this case, but I think it's one where we need to rely on sources and, AFAICT, it seems to be a respectable position that the Arras culture and the Parisi are roughly identified. Formerip (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcers and scholarship from the 19th century and older in Wikipedia articles

There is discussion regarding the use old sources, when it is appropriate to use and when they should be avoided. I know the topic has been discussed here and/or at WP:RS on other occasions, so maybe editors here are interested to weigh in on the discussion. Originally the issue was triggered by an edit conflict, which by now however has become a sideshow and it has turned into a general discussion on what sources should be used. Currently I would describe the opposing views as:

  • WP articles should (ideally) always be based on the most recent scholarly publications

versus

  • Whether a source is old or not does not matter, there is no reason to prefer newer sources to older ones unless the newer source explicitly corrects an error in the older one

"Old" sources here stands for (usually copyright free and online available) source from the 19th century and before. The discussion can be found here:

--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the second position named here. Evaluate each source on its own merits. Many older sources are unreliable (especially in anthropology) but not all of them. If the two sources conflict with each other, then figure out which is better and use that one. If the two sources do not conflict with each other, then make two reference tags and cite both.
There is also the issue that older sources may address subjects that do not come up at all in newer sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A source requires a modern-day and current reputation for accuracy, but the source itself can be from any time. If a source has a good contemporary reputation for accuracy it can probably still be used. As far as scholarly publications, a currently-well-respected article from twenty-years ago is usually more reliable a source than a paper that came out a year ago that no one subsequently cited. So "newest" doesn't necessarily indicate "reliability", although extremely old sources are much less likely to enjoy currency of respect. Sometimes they do, though. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree to that and it is partially the underlying argument for my (simplified) position above. My concern here that WP editors compile content based on 19th century sources because they free/available online without having consulted more recent literature or the current reputation (via recent review articles).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it would be great if they did consult the new stuff, but access to specialist or paywall sources is not a prerequisite for editing Wikipedia. Again, it's only an issue if the new sources contradict the old ones. This is one of the good things about expert editors. Not only do they know what they're talking about but they tend to have access to professional content before everyone else. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a systemic problem with free online sources often getting more weight than harder-to-access sources. But that can also work against older sources (somebody wanting to cite yesterday's Twitter comment because it is newer and more available than what is found in a more reliable offline text). The age issue seems like a complete red herring. But the particular material in this case shouldn't be included, as it seems to be coming from a source of no reputation. I don't think it's a reliable source, but it has nothing to do with it's availability or age. It just looks undue as unique material never mentioned anywhere else, with an author who doesn't appear to have any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Being old or new doesn't confer reliability either way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
They should be never used, because the advance of knowledge has found that many of the "facts" in older sources are incorrect or incomplete. Also, the range of opinions on historical events has changed so much that old sources do not provide the same weight that articles are required to have. Attitudes on gender, race, religion, sexuality and imperialism in particular have changed considerably. TFD (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that's true of many older sources, TFD, but not all of them. Also, some old sources cover material that new sources do not. For example, in History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucidides includes a great deal of information from his own firsthand experience. We're not going to get that from an archaeological dig. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Short answer to original question: no reason to disallow them. There are going to be more than a few biographies of notable individuals who have not received much recent attention and using the older sources from roughly their own era is certainly reasonable. Ideally I'd myself at least try to check these older sources against more recent sources and see if there are any discrepancies between the older and newer sources but if there are no such discrepancies I can't see any reason to prohibit the older sources.John Carter (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

LocalWiki as a RS for EL?

Moved to EL/N
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just noticed that an editor has been adding LocalWiki, using a template, to the External links section of many articles. Since wikis, including Wikipedia, are not considered RS, is this a good idea? Since they are wikis, savvy business owners are using them for free advertising space. OTOH, maybe they're good enough to be used as EL. I really don't know. Pinging the editor, @User:Michael Barera, so we can get his input. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. To be clear, I'm posting these links as external links, not as sources. I believe that LocalWiki articles (like Wikipedia articles) shouldn't be used as references, but I do think they can be useful to readers as external links. Brangifer, your point about LocalWiki being (or potentially being) used for advertising is well taken. However, I'm trying to be sensible in my edits and only adding links to LocalWiki articles that appear to merit such treatment. Until we reach consensus on this issue, I will voluntarily put a hold on all my LocalWiki-related edits. Michael Barera (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify: A number of Ann Arbor-related topics have been linked to (what was) ArborWiki (and is now part of LocalWiki) for over a year now. All of the links to other LocalWiki communities have been added today, since the template has been updated to enable linking to all such communities. Michael Barera (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wanted to get some outside input on this because ELs aren't exactly in the same class as other types of sources. LocalWiki might be good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll be interested to see what the community thinks, and I'll certainly respect its decision. Also, I think it is useful to note there are a number of other external wikis (including Wikia ones) that are essentially in the same boat on this issue. Perhaps it would be a good idea to consider them in this discussion as well? Michael Barera (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. A positive decision here would allow editors to add those links without having to "look over their shoulder" in case someone disapproved. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Brangifer for bringing up this issue, and to Michael Barera for bringing it to my attention. Having a consistent template is helpful in many ways because it allows for straightforward monitoring of edits to Wikipedia that reflect on Localwiki. I treat Localwiki as a potentially useful external link, but not as a reliable source, in much the same way that when I'm editing Localwiki I think of Wikipedia as maybe a good start for an article but decidedly not something to simply copy from without localizing and verifying. The two projects should complement each other and the "external link" is the right structure for that. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
We actually have a separate noticeboard to handle questions about external links: WP:External links/Noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I'll move this discussion over there. It should appear in a few minutes. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Digital Earbuds for critical reception in the Allison Strong article

Hi. I want to know if this article from the blog Digital Earbuds reliable for adding the following two things to the Allison Strong article:

  • Information on critical reception of Strong's music
  • Biographical information on Strong

Is it? Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's a blog, not just a blog-looking magazine article but an actual blog, then the policy you want to check is WP:SPS. Is the blogger an established expert in this field? Upon a casual read-through, this article appears to be an interview with the artist in question. Is the blogger a journalist? Does the blogger have credentials outside this blog? Has the blogger been non-self-published through any third-party?
Even if the blogger cannot be proven to be an expert, some of the direct quotes from the artists might be acceptable if properly attributed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not correct. We can't use self-published sources - such as blogs - for material about living persons (such as Allison Strong) whether or not the author is an expert, and there is no exception for interviews. The key line is WP:BLPSPS. --GRuban (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If a site or blog is the official site or blog of a noted, reliable writer, then I've long-considered it to be reliable as well, as long as the material did not involve controversial or contentious claims about other persons. Nightscream (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not the policy. The policy is "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." No exception for expert sources or non-contentious claims, much as we may wish there were. So unless Digital Earbuds is an actual magazine, rather than just a blog, or Allison Strong is personally writing or publishing it, it's a no go. --GRuban (talk)
Of course, that's right. I never notice when it's a living person's article. The only question, then, is whether this is a blog at all, not whether the blogger is an expert. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
So you're saying that if Wolf Blitzer or Cooper published an interview with President Obama on his blog, I wouldn't be able to cite it? That's absurd.
In any event, the site is a blog, and he has responded now to my email by telling me that his writings are merely a hobby he engages in for pleasure, so he's clearly not reliable. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm saying just the opposite. You've cited the case almost perfectly per WP:NEWSBLOG. If Digital Earbuds is a real magazine and reliable, and if this writer's so-called blog is subject to its "full editorial control," then it's usable "with caution" even in a BLP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Law360

Can this be considered a reliable source in a BLP, relating to a lawsuit otherwise covered only in tabloids? I don't see any previous discussion of this as a source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Operated by Portfolio Media, subsidiary LexisNexis... It looks like a straight news source. Do you have the diff and the specific source? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of this article[35]. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It matters what text it's supporting but it looks okay to me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the journal New Male Studies a RS?

Thanks, in advance, for the review of this issue. Info below. Memills (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Source: An Angry Non-white Man? Research and Rhetoric in Michael's Kimmel's Angry White Men.

Article: Michael Kimmel

Content: Here is the diff in question:

Miles Groth, a professor of psychology at Wagner College, criticized Kimmel's book Angry White Men in an article in New Male Studies: An International Journal. Groth presented evidence that some of Kimmel's claims were unsupported and he suggested that they raised questions about the quality of Kimmel's research, the conclusions offered, and whether the "claims made can be taken seriously as scientific research or whether the appearance of a scholarly study hides other agenda..."[1]

References

  1. ^ Groth, M. (2014). An Angry Non-white Man? Research and Rhetoric in Michael's Kimmel's Angry White Men. New Male Studies: An International Journal, 3, (2), 2014, 99-122. ISSN 1839

Here is the relevant discussion on the Michael Kimmel Talk page:

I removed the opinion piece in the MRM journal per WP:BLP. The reliability of the source was questionable and the opinion was given undue weight. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Time to revisit this issue. First, the article in question is not an "opinion piece in the MRM journal." The journal is a scholarly, academic journal about men's studies (per it's title "New Male Studies" and its stated mission as an academic "interdisciplinary forum for research and discussion of issues facing boys and men worldwide."). As a peer reviewed, scholarly journal, it meets the criteria as a RS. However, if there is disagreement about this here, perhaps the issue can be reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN.
Also, the article is a scholarly review of an academic book written by Michael Kimmel. Reviews are a normal part of the process of academic scholarship, they do not violate WP:BLP and do not meet the criteria of undue weight. Memills (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the para re Groth's review of one of Kimmel's books under the "Scholarship" subsection. Again, if there is disagreement about this, perhaps the issue can be reviewed at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN.Memills (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I will remove the paragraph again for the reasons stated above. There is no consensus for including an opinion piece in an obscure men's rights journal to discredit a academic. Let me also remind you that this article is subject to the article probation explained here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
See my comment above -- this is not just an "opinion piece. " It is a scholarly review written by a professor of an academic book written by Michael Kimmel. Book reviews are a normal part of the process of academic scholarship, and, the journal is a RS (see the journal's editorial board). However, since I don't think this will convince you, time to get a 3rd party review.
I have requested a review of this issue here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Memills (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is New Male Studies a questionable source or not?... I would say no. It may have a bias, but it certainly should not be dismissed as a "Fringe Journal". Looking at the About US page, it has quite an impressive number of PhDs, from highly respected universities on its board. I would deem it RS. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this journal cannot be used in this particular case because the article's author is also the head editor and member of the advisory board for the journal it's published in, thus making its peer review questionable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Editors commonly publish opinion pieces in their journals. CSDarrow (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That is often the case for many academic journals -- and doesn't not disqualify it as a RS. Memills (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Articles published by editors in their own journals should be considered suspect because of the conflict of interest. Letters from the editor should never be used as anything other than opinion pieces. Peer review is compromised. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you actually read the aticle? It is a book review and openly an opinion piece CSDarrow (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Unlike journals such as Men and Masculinities, "New Male Studies" isn't listed in any relevant citation indices (e.g., Social Sciences Citation Index) and is very much a fringe journal. As for the specific opinion piece in question, it is obviously not peer-reviewed. The states on its website that book reviews aren't peer-reviewed. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Since when is it a "Men Rights Journal"? You are displaying bias. If that sentiment is driving your opinions then I'm am dubious of their neutrality. Book reviews rarely if ever are anywhere apart, that's the way it works CSDarrow (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The journal is less that three years old, it may take time to get listed in various citation indexes. Further, that is not a requirement for a RS. The editorial board is composed of many highly respected professors such asRoy Baumeister, David Benatar, Lionel Tiger to name a few. Memills (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
From WP:SCHOLARSHIP:
  • Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
  • One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
  • Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
The journal has not yet (1) established itself as "reputable" or "well-regarded" yet, (2) not in a citation index, and (3) parts of it are not peer reviewed. The journal itself fails the first two points and is not RS. The citation intended for use on for Michael Kimmel's BLP article absolutely cannot be used as it fails all three points. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If your logic is to be used to discredit this journal then Wikipedia has indeed dived to depths I would not of otherwise imagined. A very, very dangerous precedent would be set. CSDarrow (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If using existing guidelines is a dangerous precedent, then I'm happy to make it. This journal clearly does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP on multiple criteria. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am left with the impression you're not experienced in these matters. CSDarrow (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly I'm not. Not like I'm in academia or anything. Or that I can read policy articles and understand them. Or that others seem agree that this journal is not RS. /sarcasm EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This looks very much like a fringe journal and should be treated with caution. The journal is clearly obscure (what's its citation history?) and the auspices under which it is published appear murky ("Australian Institute of Male Health and Studies", although what that is exactly is not clear even from its own website). It appears to be connected to a failed attempt to set up an anti-feminist course at the University of South Australia [36]. Formerip (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I share the concerns of Formerip. As Groth is the editor of the journal, he has control over what content the journal publishes. In this instance, WP:ABOUTSELF #2 is applicable and likely outweighs WP:RSOPINION. This may have been what EvergreenFir was alluding to above. Location (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm also concerned. Looking at Google Scholar, it seems as if articles published by the journal have, so far, been cited a total of 9 (nine) times, with the most cited article having 4 of these citations. This certainly means that the journal has, at best, marginal impact so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is common place for the editor to make contributions to a journal. CSDarrow (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was uncommon. Location (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way Formerip, it is irrelevant whether they are antifeminist or not. There are plenty of ideologically Marxist journals for example, that's the way social sciences work. Having a look at that Google Scholar search, most of the citations are from 2014 so this journal seems to be becoming a more notable one but for the current status it's harder to say, but on the other hand it doesn't have to be popular to be RS. --Pudeo' 03:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the relevant information in FormerIP's post is that the course failed and was rejected by the university. An academic journal doesn't have to be popular but it does need to have enough relevance and impact to be in a citation index. If it isn't, then it's fringe. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Being on the citation index is probably sufficient but not necessary to establish worth. CSDarrow (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Kimmel is a controversial figure, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The page reads like a eulogy and is devoid of any criticism whatsoever. Miles Groth is a scholar of international repute with a publication list as long as your arm. Wikipedia achieves neutrality by recording all significant view points, especially from reliable secondary sources. The Miles Groth piece as such is a secondary source from a scholarly individual, in a scholarly publication with an impressive International Editorial Board [37]. Miles Groth's opinion is of worth regardless of where it is published. Until proven otherwise this is a reliable source of worth in the construction of this article. This material should be replaced.

The reliability of a journal is based on the reliability and reputations of those who edit it, which in this case is an impressive list of editors. A journals reputation for reliability is NOT a function of the size of its audience or unsubstantiated criticism from others. Reliability is not a function of "I just like it" or a popularity contest, else Wikipedia becomes ruled by the mob. Unless there is credible criticism concerning the journals reliability, then it is assumed to be reliable. I have not see any from any credible source.

The page in question has a history of material critical of Kimmel being removed. CSDarrow (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is more a matter of weight. Miles Groth writes in his article that Angry White Men is "a widely read and referenced book." It has in fact been reviewed in the New York Times and elsewhere in mainstream sources. So there is no reason to include an obscure unrepresentative review. Incidentally, while New Male Studies may be peer-reviewed, I would want to see a reliable source that says their peer-reviewed process is comparable to mainstream academic journals. And book reviews in peer-reviewed journals are not peer-reviewed themselves. TFD (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You won't accept a source until a reliable source declares its review process to be trustworthy? Is this a criteria that is part of Wikipedia's RSN policy or something you made up? My guess is the latter. Weasel words like 'obscure' and 'unrepresentative' carry little weight and are entirely unconvincing. Obscure to whom, you? Unrepresentative of whom, you? Unless there is considerable evidence to the contrary, the reputation of a journal is based on the reputations of those on the Editorial Board. The board is made up of a large International team of highly respected academics at equally respected institutions; unless of course you consider McGill and Cal. State etc. subpar.
You state that book reviews are not per reviewed in journals. You have absolutely no idea whether this is true in this particular case, and in fact in general is untrue. All reviews will at least be thoroughly read before publication. The point here is that this article is secondary source quoting the opinions of an highly accomplished academic who has worked in these areas for decades and has an International reputation; I can assure you Miles Groth is not unknown and obscure to Michael Kimmel.
Wikipedia achieves neutrality by recording all significant perspectives. Groths published opinion fits that description, and adds a well needed balance to the page on Kimmel. CSDarrow (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Since the whole point of this noticeboard is to determine whether there is sufficient reason to consider the sources brought here as reliable, it is not unreasonable for me to ask for evidence that New Male Studies is a reliable source. And you do not appear to understand the academic peer review process. Manuscripts (with the author's name removed are sent out to reviewers with a broad range of views who then identify errors or other problems with manuscripts which are then repaired before publication. The process can take 18 months, and some papers do not survive peer review. Unless a publication has adequate peer review it does not qualify as a peer-reviewed academic journal, although that does not necessarily mean it is not accurate. Do you know for example if feminist academics form part of the review committee? Book reviews on the other hand do not go through this process. The journal states under "Submission Preparation Checklist" that not all sections of the journal are peer-reviewed.
We can say the publication is obscure because it has been cited articles listed in google scholar only nine times, and one of those was another article in the journal.[38]
You are right that neutrality is achieved through providing significant perspectives. But this is not one of them. And putting in a fringe criticism without reporting mainstream assessment of the book is not neutral.
TFD (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am probably more aware of the peer review process than you are. Your response has contributed essentially nothing to this discussion. CSDarrow (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's a very hard sell to claim that this journal enjoys any kind of scholarly weight in the field, particularly as it's not indexed. Since it appears to enjoy little weight in the field, it's improper to emphasize its content in our articles. MastCell Talk 22:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Upon what basis? Cause it it does not tow a majority view? That is the antithesis of what academia stands for. This journal has a significant review board of international academics. Rejecting this journal would send Wikipedia towards very dangerous territory and censorship.CSDarrow (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought I made the basis clear in my comment. The journal does not appear to have any scholarly impact, is not indexed, and is almost never cited by other academics. Whether it "tow[s] a majority view" [sic] is neither here nor there. MastCell Talk 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The basis of your comment was very clear and your response is equally inadequate. CSDarrow (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Equally inadequate to what? Actually, never mind. I offered my opinion about the source; you don't like it; I don't have anything to add. MastCell Talk 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There are multiple issues being discussed and conflated. This is mainly directed at CSDarrow, but is relavant to all. There are multiple editors have raised legitimate concerns about this journal's reliability. It appears to fail three points of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The journal itself is not reliable. The article, an un-peer-reviewed piece published by the editor and board member of the journal, is even more so and should be treated as a self-published opinion piece. Again, this journal does not peer-review book reviews (see here). We are not here to discuss Kimmel specifically or the inadequacies of his article. That should be dealt with on Talk:Michael Kimmel. But we do need to consider that the source is being used on a BLP. Kimmel's "controversial" or "celebrity" status does not change that WP:BLP is of utmost concern. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If this journal is deemed unreliable by RSN then Wikipedia has reached a crisis point. I have repeatedly seen utter rubbish of a particular political hue pass as reliable; such as collections of self evidently un-peer reviewed articles by 'scholars', that in places are little more than bigoted outbursts. Wikipedia relies on checks and balances, RSN is a gate keeper close to the highest level. If RSN fails then Wikipedia is probably on its final decline, partisan censorship by the mob will simply take over. CSDarrow (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You are conflating WP:BIAS with WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Not I am not. There is an difference between opinions and facts or new knowledge. CSDarrow (talk)
Indeed, are we discussing whether this book review is reliable or whether the journal is? Anyway, as far as I am aware there is no policy requiring book reviews to be peer-reviewed. In that case we are reporting opinions not facts. The primary question then should be whether Miles Groth's opinion is relevant per due weight in the article. The opinion of the journal is probably not relevant, but Groth's might be. As for the journal itself - not being in the Journal Citation Reports doesn't mean it's not RS: the JCR only includes "the world's leading journals"[39]. That would be more relevant if we were to discuss whether this journal is notable enough for an own Wikipedia entry, not about RS. Notability and reliability are different things. Also it is an Australian journal - atleast many non-English RS journals are not found in American indexes. New Male Studies is found at the National Library of Australia's List of journals. It would be good to have a source that states that the journal is unreliable if it has to be turned down, given that it has several academics of good standing. It is far from being an important journal in the field, but so far there is no evidence that it's not reliable or that it somehow differs from the hundreds of other minor academic journals (especially from outside of the US). --Pudeo' 02:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
no evidence that it's not reliable is not evidence that it is reliable. There are many possible sources we could add if they only had to pass a test of "nobody's ever mentioned anything bad about them, or mentioned them at all". This does not seem to have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. You have also mentioned "due weight"; we don't add material simply because it opposes other material in the article. It has to be included in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources. It still has to come from an agreed-on reliable source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't argue for a reversed burden of proof though, just stated that if we had a source that stated it's unreliable - it would be a done deal. I'd like to give an example of a situation where this interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP would run into troubles. Say I'm going to write something related to the Finnish language - there is a peer-reviewed journal called Virittäjä (ISSN 0042-6806) that is edited by the leading scholars of that topic in the world. However, Finnish journals are not in American indexes and don't have impact factors, and thus the source wouldn't be RS? Seems like US-centric systemic bias. Besides this kind of tight scrutiny on peer-reviewed minor academic journals is a bit odd given de facto most articles use sources by different foundations and institutes which should be considered less reliable. Attention should be given to who's the author of the articles. If the intent of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is that minor peer-reviewed journals are not reliable and that mostly the leading American journals should be used only, it should be amended to state just that. --Pudeo' 03:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP has multiple points to it and citation is only one of them. If citation indices are not common/possible for a particular journal, than that should not count against it. However, non-English languages and non-American journals are certainly included in indices (e.g., SSCI). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Virittäjä has appeared continuously since 1897 and is cited in a large number of books from well-regarded academic presses. WP:SCHOLARSHIP wouldn't stand in the way of this source in any significant way. The citation index is a possible positive indicator of some reliability. It's not an absolute deal-breaker if a source isn't in an index, but it still has to show it is well-regarded in other ways. There needs to be a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, shown in a convincing way, per guideline and consensus, whatever continent the journal's from.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable - a concession on my part. Although... I think this journal probably has been predisposed for ultra-tight scrutiny in comparision to other similar minor journals right now due to this (and similar articles use sources like the Huffington Post...) but anyway. Back to the book review thing still: given that we're reporting on an opinion, WP:SCHOLARSHIP even has to state: Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. An opinion is not a RS issue but a NPOV and notability issue, and it belongs to the article talk page. This discussion on the whole journal has just been an unnecessary bonus. --Pudeo' 04:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As what I think is major point relating to the reliability of this "journal", despite being an Australian-based publication (judging from their web-hosting arrangements and contact email addresses) New Male Studies is not listed on the catalogue of the National Library of Australia [40]. As Australia's legal deposit library, the NLA has a mission of keeping a copy of all Australian publications and accepts pretty much whatever is submitted to them as long as it's been published (including noteworthy websites, which it archives through its Pandora service). This means that the editors/publishers of this journal appear to have not undertaken the basic step of notifying the NLA of their existence, as they're required to do. It's hard to believe that the editors of a serious scholarly publication would make such a basic mistake, especially given that the requirement to notify the NLA of Australian-published material is well known. More generally, I agree completely with Formerip and Stephan Schulz's analysis above: there's nothing to indicate that this is anything but a fringe publication, and it should not be considered a RS. Real scholarly journals have very clear publishing and contact details (including in almost all cases being published by a relevant expert organisation and/or reliable publishing firm), and reputable journals get a lot more citations than those Stephan could find. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

UK Metric Association

For questions regarding the way metric system units are used, should the UK Metric Association's Measurement units style guide be considered a reliable source?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally, published style guides are RS for matters of style, and this one looks good so long as its ref tag makes its provenance clear. So if by "how they're used," you mean the way they're spelled and abbreviated, yes. They don't always agree with each other, though, so if one guide says one thing and another one another, then some choices might be in order. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This needs a context. Used where? What article are you working on? Is this a Wikipedia style question or a question about how things are styled specifically in the UK? A UK standard may not exactly mesh with a South American or Canadian standard, but it's unclear what aspect of it you're asking about here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, regarding whether it's a reliable source for informing the English Wikipedia's style.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a reliable source on what the UK Metric Association consider how the metric system units should be presented but thats about all. So can be used to say the "UK Metric Association recommends that x should be done like y". MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate brings up a good point. If you are writing about the way metric units are styled in Britain, then yes this is one RS. If you are using metric units on Wikipedia, you want WP:MOS and WP:METRIC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the others. But I would note that the UKMA is a pressure group favouring the use of the metric system and consequently it is not to be considered a neutral source in terms of determining whether or in what circumstances metric units are to be used. Kahastok talk 14:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Sources don't need to be unbias, see WP:BIASED, merely reliable in their context and that their POV isn't brought in as fact. Dog colour expert's publication states "Dogs should be brown" vs other dog colour expert "Dogs should be black" - both are reliable sources on dog colours but the fictional wikipedia article would never state either opinion as fact. Similarly, AMA vs UKMA vs ISO vs etc are all reliable sources, with given weights, but none are used to dictate wikipedia's MOS - influence maybe, but not dictate. JMJimmy (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is in no way required to be backed up by specific citations to reliable sources. There is no requirement that house style be based on anything reliable at all; we can base a guideline on what completely unreliable anonymous Wikipedia editors did once on random Wikipedia pages if there's consensus (the bulk of the MOS is actually "sourced" this way). The best "reliable source" for current Wikipedia house style is WP:METRIC and associated MOS pages. (And though you asked generally, some might see this as a potentially problematic request as you are currently topic-banned on certain "height-related" conversations. I don't think you've necessarily done anything wrong yet, but this query could be interpreted as standing on the very edge of the cliff, leaning in a certain direction. If your query has nothing to do with that, then no harm nor foul and never mind this comment.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of my topic-ban being extended to any talk pages. It's articles under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football only as far as I know.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Topic bans aren't page or article specific. You're probably okay, but you should probably know they are usually for any discussion about the topic happening anywhere, including talk pages (outside of some formal request to lift the ban). This seems pretty general at this point, so maybe I was overcautious mentioning it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Previously discussed here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If something is to be regarded as a reliable style guide, I would want to see evidence that organizations outside the publisher use it, or that the publications from the style guide publisher are influential. For example, numerous university library web sites can be found suggesting that Modern Language Association style be used in some fields. Or, the style of the American Medical Association (AMA) is reliable because the journals published by the AMA are influential. Although the UK Metric Association is notable enough (barely) to warrant a Wikipedia article, I am not aware of any evidence that their style guide is influential enough to pay any attention to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I second Jc3s5h's comment. UKMA is an advocacy group who's scope seems limited to the UK. As previously stated by others, Wikipedia does not stick to any one style guide or set of rules other than those set forth by the community in the WP:MOS at any given time. It's an evolving document and is always subject to WP:IAR. UKMA can be a reliable source in discussions when updates to the MOS are sought; the lack of influence, as Jc3s5h pointed out, will affect its weight in any such discussion. JMJimmy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Would one way of putting this be, it may be a reliable source for the UKMA's views, but it does not demonstrate that the UKMA's views must be included in any given article per WP:WEIGHT? That is, a statement saying, "the style guide of the UKMA says x" is reliably sourced, but may overstate the significance of the UKMA's POV? Kahastok talk 16:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the article. Within its own article or something relating to the subject matter such a statement is fine, given due-weight considerations. Extending that to all of Wikipedia would be something entirely different. JMJimmy (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, the UKMA has been advocating its members edit wikipedia to promote their views on the implementation of the metric system in the UK [41] since 2008. One of the problems I have with any style guide they promote is that it promotes their agenda, rather than reflecting the way units are actually used in the UK. So answering the original question, I would suggest it is not a reliable guide for how units are used in the UK, in particular the appropriate unit in common use which may still be imperial in certain circumstances.
This may come as across as an overly pedantic comment but experience with its members who do edit wikipedia indicates they are somewhat fanatical in pushing for metric units to be used in all circumstances. This is one of the reasons why I will now state my own view on the matter: I do advocate the UK should be wholly metric but I edit wikipedia for its readers and seek to present information in a natural manner they readily understand. This is why I follow the MOS as regards unit use rather than personal preference. WCMemail 18:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting this source be used to push the use of metric units at all. Just to provide guidance on how they're used where they already are. I hadn't thought about being specific on which articles, but if I have to be, I'd say those under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I think what CM et al. are getting at is is this source an example of how these units are used in the U.K. or of how its authors think they should be used in the U.K.?
It might help if we could see the specific text in question. If this is a source for "centimetre is abbreviated cm" and "never use capital letters for unit names unless they're named after people" then yes, it's fine to tag this page in the unlikely event that someone would actually challenge information like that. However, almost any style guide would cover something like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd been pretty clear. No it isn't a reliable source on how units are used in the UK, its only reliable for what the UKMA think should be used. I would not consider it reliable for Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom and some of the guidance it gives is frankly incorrect. As far as units for UK articles goes WP:MOSNUM currently gives a reasonable summary. WCMemail 22:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Right. IMO style guides are poor sources for usage generally. I ran into something like this a while back, where the style guide said do such-and-so but most writers and editors (voting with their feet as it were) actually don't do such-and-so. So we go with actual usage. A style guide is a data point. Style guides for particular publications are different, you can assume that the Time Magazine Style Guide (if it was published) would reflect actual usage at Time magazine (but not anything else, necessarily). If you have a third-party style guide that you know has been adopted by numerous important publications, that'd be different also (but it would also show up in usage, and thus be kind of redundant). Herostratus (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And again, Wikipedia house style has no "reliability" requirement. It's decided by editors by common general usage, common Wikipedia usage, and other bits of ad hoc consensus. It may certainly be informed by other style guides but it doesn't have to be at all. If someone wants to modify a MOS page they should take it up with other concerned editors there, because WP:V is for choosing content, not formatting it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The issue of whether the MoS must follow reliable sources has come up repeatedly on the MoS talk page, but the fact is that it does follow guidance in some ways and does not in others. Generally, style guides are RS for information on style, though the fact that they are not the same thing as sociolinguistic studies must also be acknowledged. For example, both style guides and books about the history of punctuation are cited as sources in Question mark.
Again, if the text in question is a punctuation and writing subsection of metric system, then style guides—though it seems not this one—would be suitable sources. If the issue is how to punctuate metric terms on Wikipedia, then use WP:METRIC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if the UK Metric Association's style guide cannot be seen as a definitive authority on style when using the metric system, surely it can be considered as part of a pool of evidence (including common usage) that already shows a certain usage pattern.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If this isn't about a specific edit, or only about Wikipedia house style, then any questions about reliability or "common practice" are completely moot. It doesn't matter if the source shows a certain usage pattern or if it doesn't if you're just talking Wikipedia style. Formatting guidelines are based on consensus, not WP:V. You haven't suggested any actual changes or edits at this point, so this is not looking like a particularly constructive discussion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Criminal transmission of HIV, Blacks & political correctness

The paragraph in question states "In some cases attempts at denial of one's illness, accusation of institutional racism, or political correctness (as a disproportionate number of HIV cases in the USA, Canada and many other countries come from Black people[3]) delay treatment or prevention of the spread of the illness.[4] For example during the first case of criminal HIV infection in Finland, when a photo of of Steven Thomas[5] a Black US citizen from New York, was published in newspapers, many Finnish politicians were worried about political ramifications of this public health prevention act.[6] In Poland, reports of Simon Mol were initially dismissed because he complained about alledged racism of Polish police and denied being ill, despite having been positively tested. This pattern is repeated in many countries, as evidenced by WHO studies[7][8].[42]"

The source for the most of the first sentence is [43], "Paper Prepared for the “UNESCO/OHCHR Workshop To Develop Educational Material to Foster Tolerance and to Eliminate Prejudice”. I don't consider this an RS but I also can't see that it backs the statement. The source for the rest of the sentence is [44]. That is one source discussing on case, that of Simon Mol where it is also used. I can't see how it can be used for anything other than the Mol case, certainly not for such a generalisation.

Source 7, used to state that this pattern is repeated, is the same workshop paper as above. There is a quote in the reference saying ""HIV/AIDS epidemiological data is generally reported by countries and by risk groups and not by ethnicity / race due to the political sensitivity involved in doing so (PAHO/WHO & UNAIDS, 2001). It is also argued that race/ethnicity based data may further serve to perpetuate stigma linked to those groups and that in part the problem may also be a `definitional’ one with respect to racial categories". Source 8[45] - the quote used is " "When stigma exists people often prefer to ignore their real or possible HIV status. This can lead to the risk of faster disease progression for themselves and also to the risk of them spreading HIV to others". Note that the pattern is presumably " denial of one's illness, accusation of institutional racism, or political correctness (as a disproportionate number of HIV cases in the USA, Canada and many other countries come from Black people[3]) delay treatment or prevention of the spread of the illness." - a pattern not backed by the sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems to me to be a case of editorializing or OR when the statement that the representation of the race of perpetrators is politically sensitive is described flatly as being caused by political correctness in wikipedia's voice. This would suggest that any recognition of the existence of ethically or politically sensitive topics is apriori a case of political correctness. I think to make this statement we would need an RS stating that the reluctance to represent the race of the perpetrator was a case of political correctness, AND an inline attribution saying who interpreted it as such. And yes it also seems to misrepresent the source which is not making this point, but rather the opposite point that the presence of stigma and racial stereotypes may have negative epidemiological effects. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't see anything in the legitimate sources that supports the claims. Source 8 is about HIV/AIDS issues regarding the Black (African/Caribbean) population in Canada, so of course it addresses issues of race. Nowhere does it say anything that could be glossed as "accusation of institutional racism, or political correctness" delay treatment or encourage the spread of the disease. It does say that some people within the community may be in "denial of one's illness", but that's a general human trait. Of course in some cultures the illness may be seen as more shameful, and that could be correlated to race in a loose sense, but it's not what the source says at all. Paul B (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the paper is an RS, but that is shouldnt be misrepresented. I have tried to rewrite the section to separate what is clearly two different issues (stigma vs. political correctness as obstacles to stopping the spread).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's RS to a very limited extent, for content directly related to its function. Paul B (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by that specifically?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the UNESCO report is RS but I read through it and didn't find any content to support the idea that blacks go into denial about their HIV status. (Ran search for "denial" and "lifestyle" and "life style.") Did I miss something? I also read some of the other sources that are in the paragraph now,[46][47] and there does seem to be some problem with matching their content to the Wikipedia article. For example, it says that the Finnish police were too fearful of political correctness, but the sources say that Thomas was convicted and that his name and picture were disclosed to the public. The sources are reliable, but the section does not describe them accurately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It says that "When stigma exists people often prefer to ignore their real or possible HIV status. This can lead to the risk of faster disease progression for themselves and also to the risk of them spreading HIV to others". And it argues that black people are particularly prone to stigma both because of the lack of cultural acceptance of the disease in some communities, and because of racial stereotypes. But it is true that it doesnt say explicitly that Black people are more likely to deny their HIV status, but it suggests that stigmatized communities in general are. and the link to AIDS denialism was outight misleading as that has nothing to do with denying ones individual HIV status.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I get it now. Because this could be said to argue a politically loaded position not explicitly stated in the source ("blacks are more likely to deny HIV status than other people are") rather than just relay or organize straight facts, I'd say rewrite or remove. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that the way I've rewritten it now does not make that implicit argument it simply states that stigma may lead to refusal to acknowledge ones HIV status. It doesnt currently say that black people are more likely to do this. Although the quote in the footnote is still cherry picked to make this point. I think the quote should just be removed now that it is not actually supporting the claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your balanced discussion and efforts at rewriting this section instead of blanking it outright. Firstly, I have added many new English RS sources to the case of Simon Mol, outlining the reports of race PC getting in the way of epidemiology and even police investigation. Secondly, here are other quickly found reports about, as you write, "blacks go[ing] into denial about their HIV status": 2,000 St. Louisans are HIV positive but aren't taking their medications, HIV epidemic grows, Florida city grapples with fear and denial. (Instead of "Blacks", please search for "African-Americans", of course). There are many more.

Would these be RS enough so as to use them for the references?

One can also reuse the sources from AIDS denialism, I believe. Zezen (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • St. Louis Dispatch looks like a regular newspaper, so it's RS. However, I'm do not think that the sole reference to blacks in particular, about black men having "an element of denial" in their sexuality is sufficient to support the text in question. It is attributed to a medical doctor who treats patients, not an epidemiologist or sociologist. The source is good in general, though. Same deal with CNN. The "turn blind eyes" refers to black churches and homosexuality, not HIV status. It is RS but it does not directly support the text in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Darkfrog24, the paper isn't really a report, it's just a paper given at a workshop. Probably OK but I think it should be attributed.
    • @Maunus:, @Paul Barlow: The last sentence, "This pattern is repeated in many countries, as evidenced by WHO studies" I still don't see how the sources support this. What am I missing? Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
But the repeated pattern is the pattern that stigma causes epidemiological problems, because it deters HIV positive people from seeking treatment an from identifying as such. This is as far as I know a well documented fact in the literature on HIV epidemiology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see I missed the rewrite. We still have "Some commentators have argued that political correctness may also be a contributing factor in some cases, when authorities fail to take the necessary steps to apprehend criminals for fear of perpetuating racial stigma, or if, as has happened in at least one case, HIV-positive individuals have strategically used accusations of racism to become able to spread the disease and to try to avoid apprehension." The 'some commentators' is at most 2 people commenting on one case.[48] The rest of the paragraph, which is about political correctness, has no sources mentioning political correctness. Ok, the first bit is probably WP:UNDUE but the second bit uses sources that don't mention political correctness. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This is more of an OR or NPOV issue. You guys do not seem to have any problem locating reliable sources. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the origin of the e-teatr.pl article? Running the site through google translate gives me the impression that if it is a news site, it's a news site dedicated to theater, not politics, society, or general news. It doesn't even appear to be something like Entertainment Weekly, but specifically about the stage and only the stage. Searching "Bertold Kittel, Maja Narbutt, Peter S Rieth" brings up only the original article, the WP article it's currently cited on, and a handful of blogs and forum posts, one of them overtly racist, one of them far-right. While we're not citing those entries, all of this makes me question the RS status of the e-teatr article. It appears to have been an isolated and out-of-place opinion piece meant to play on racial tensions, which was deleted by e-teatr staff because it did not fit the site's editorial vision. The Peter S Rieth at one point writes "It is racist, of course, to believe that all African men have AIDS just because a majority or a large number of them suffer this disease." Are we really going to cite a source that believes that a majority of African men have AIDS? A source hosted on a theater news site, which they later deleted? While we can use WP:BIASED sources, they should demonstrate editorial control and fact checking, and if included after that, be specifically attributed. That the site deleted it and does not host it in its archives seems to indicate that it failed their editorial oversight even if one editor was involved. That the article seems to think that about 5-15% is a majority of African men definitely fails fact checking. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That source is also used at Simon Mol. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I didnt look at that source, but yes that looks problematic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice e-teatr either. It looks like a news site. I wouldn't say that focusing primarily on theater necessarily makes it unreliable for articles about other things. However, using Simon Moll as an example in a way that suggests a pervasive problem raises WP:WEIGHT issues.
I plugged some lines from the e-teatr article into a search engine to see if it was originally from somewhere else and only reprinted by e-teatr, but every news source cited e-teatr as the origin. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is presented as an English translation of a report and editorial that first appeared in Rzeczpospolita in 2007. The editorial section is said to be written by Peter Strzelecki Rieth [49], a Polish-American pundit who apparently believes that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings were caused by "a warped immigration culture and a degraded university culture" [50]. He seems to be a rent-a-quote figure guaranteed to say "it's political-correctness-gone-mad" about just about anything. Yes, I saw that bizarre statement about the "majority or a large number" of African males have AIDS. Of course the are "a large number", but that's quite different from a large proportion, which the connection to 'majority' implies. The article is a fairly lightweight piece of journalism about a one-off case, which seems very slender thread indeed on which to hang the claims that are being made. The other "evidence" provided is simply another individual case in Finland. In neither instance is any evidence provided that there was any delay in prosecution because of the race of the man accused. The only issue raised was that the arrests would encourage prejudice against black people. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
So, what opposition is there to treating Rieth as a racist conspiracy theorist and removing anything sourced to him? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
None from me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, I'll be on it in a sec, I'm assessing a related article that with sourcing just as high-quality as what we're discussing here. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know WP:FRINGE was determined by digging up a list of articles and a WordPress site about the author and having a popular vote whether we think that his columns are absurd or whether we like them, or if we disagree with his "it's political-correctness-gone-mad" political slant. If the source can be attributed to the newspaper Rzeczpospolita that is RS it can be used for his opinion: we are reporting on opinions not facts. But I agree with the majority here that these two cases aren't that notable and shouldn't be given that much weight. If someone is interested in this topic, perhaps creating an article like "Ethnic background / race in crime reporting" could be justified. There seem to be a number of scholarly articles about that subject. This critcism could be dealt there, if there are RS, and not drag up two HIV cases in undue manner. --Pudeo' 04:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The fact that there is an RS for a viewpoint does not mean that the viewpoint is notable or relevant. That ultimately requires an editorial judgment to decide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
We do indeed assess notability and reliability by looking for information about authors. It remains unclear where this text originated, and Rieth does not appear to be an especially notable commentator and his views seem to be borderline fringe. Paul B (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Which is one reason why 'undue' was mentioned. Zezen has just added "He explained his refusal to put on a condom during sexual intercourse by claiming that his sperm was "sacred"" with [51] as his source (if you use Chrome it automatically translates it for you). I'd removed the 'sacred sperm' bit earlier as that source gives zero context. As it's the same source that hasn't changed, and the addition by User:Zezen of the claim this was his reason for refusing to use a condom doesn't seem to be in the source at all - as we've found with several of his sources. This article is basically the same as a userfied version of the originally deleted article and Zezen has been trying to find sources to back the text, rather than writing text that is backed by sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
We should not be including mass block quotes of anonymous hearsay, sourced to an opinion piece that says women sleep with black men because they are "corrupted by academia". I am surprised this has gotten this much debate.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that though the accused is no longer living, we can't assume the same of the women being discussed. All of this material should have been taken out while it was being discussed, not kept in just in case it wasn't a BLP problem. I don't see a consensus to include it here in any case.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Elaqueate:Good point. I think most of it is gone except for his latest addition about "sacred sperm"[52] - do you see anything else that should go? Zezen says something on the article talk page about "whom Mol met and infected" which it looks as though he wants to source or has sources for. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
In the Criminal transmission of HIV article, a swathe was included as a free-standing quote in the "References", including the gem that the women only slept with him because black men are "trendy". I can point out that there's a huge direct quote in Polish in [the diff you showed me where the Polish text asserts that Black refugees are "always sexy" and "trendy" and "A priest has warned about this immorality for years". This stuff is seriously problematic on more grounds than whether it was cited in an opinion piece or not.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of two sources on Israel-Palestine

Pinging Darkness Shines. There is already an RfC going on for this, but this is a narrower question. There are two sources being used on the Gaza flotilla raid page, for this paragraph.

It was later found that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian supplies, and that elements within the Turkish government had paid 50 mercenaries to take part,[1] and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death".[2]

References

  1. ^ Schwartzwald, Jack L. (2012). Nine Lives of Israel: A Nation's History through the Lives of Its Foremost Leaders. McFarland. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-0786466849.
  2. ^ Spoerl, Joseph S. (2013). "Hamas: It`s Past, Present and Future". In Copeland, Thomas E. (ed.). Drawing a Line in the Sea: The Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 79. ISBN 978-0739167328.

The first source is by a medicine professor and the second is by a philosophy professor. As far as I can see (discussion) they are simply repeating IDF claims for the first two claims and either Palwatch or ITIC for the last claim. Should these claims be attributed to the original sources rather than "laundered" through neutral-sounding secondary sources? Kingsindian (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Does WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT help in this case? Yes, it's generally best to go to the source, but if the other editors had access to these sources but not IDF documents, then it is actually preferred that they cite these sources while acknowledging that they are quoting the IDF.
Please note that there is a difference between "repeating" and "saying the same thing as." If these authors explicitly state that they got the figures from IDF, then yes a direct IDF is preferred. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
We accept that authors of reliable secondary sources are able to consult all kinds of sources and make a judgment about facts, and their writings undergo degrees of fact-checking before publication and errors are not removed are corrected subsequently. So unless the author has specifically mentioned a source in-line (for example, by writing, "According to IDF...") then we must accept their facts and not question their validity by saying "According to..." We do not say for example that according to Dr. X, Apollo 11 landed on the moon, because it would create doubt in the reader's mind that it had actually landed. (Here btw is a link to p. 79 of the Rowan & Littlefield book.)
I would not cite the IDF, even if you had the original source, because it is not reliable or as reliable for facts so you would have to mention them in-line, which would detract from the claim's credibility. But authors of reliable sources have the judgment to determine what statements by IDF are reliable, while we do not.
If you question the accuracy of the facts, you find other rs that provide a different account, then discuss how to present it. Or, you could say that no other writers mention it, so weight excludes its inclusion.
TFD (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the problem. Let's leave aside the first point for now. The citation for the 2nd point is a Jerusalem Post article, which makes it clear that the claim is by the IDF, but the attribution does not appear in the actual text of the book itself. The source for the third seems to be Palwatch, again repeated as straight fact. I do not dispute that the IDF said A or B, but considering that neither author is any kind of expert on the topic, they are simply repeating the claims at face value. Kingsindian (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter to us what a writer's qualifications are if they are asked to write a chapter for an academic book. The publishers and editors are persuaded that they know what they are talking about, and these articles are reviewed before publication. There's no proviso saying "Warning, Dr. X is not qualified to write about the subject and the facts reported in his paper are not reliable." Obviously the writer is confident of the accuracy of the original report and that is all that we require. Otherwise we would have to qualify pretty much everything in every article, which would make them unreadable. If readers want to do their own research of course they can follow the sources we provide and trace them back to the original source. TFD (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a strange doctrine. Perhaps this goes to the WP:WEIGHT of the source rather the reliability? If one looks at the footnotes cited in the first source, it is almost exclusively based on Israeli military, intelligence, press and govt. sources, all stated as bald facts. If this is OK, there is something quite troubling here. Kingsindian (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(I have pinged Zero0000 who has some experience with these matters. Hopefully he can illuminate the issue a bit.) Kingsindian (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, find better sources. Obviously these two guys are not experts and are using a very prejudicial source. Find a couple that have a better perspective. If they can place the IDF claims in proper perspective, even better. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this subject area is that there is so much stuff written that one can find secondary sources for almost any claim. A corollary is that searching with the keywords one wants to appear in the source has a good chance of finding a source with those keywords. Moreover, claims made by a protagonist, no matter how unsubstantiated, are always repeated as fact without checking by the cheer squad of that protagonist. Including academic members of the cheer squad, alas. It means that there is a thick layer of polemic secondary literature that serves to launder the dirty linen that comes from this or that propaganda department. Biased editors know this very well and make use of it to slant articles towards their viewpoint while technically remaining within the rules (I'm not fingering any particular person here). The only help provided by policy is that one can "balance" one bit of laundered dross with an opposite bit of laundered dross. My personal approach is to set the source quality standard so high that only the very best sources pass: the protagonists themselves, who can be cited as such, and the academic subject experts. I would not pass either of the two sources mentioned here since the authors have no apparent professional expertise in the subject. Anyone who cites racist web cites like Palwatch uncritically should be struck off the list of reliable sources immediately. Zerotalk 01:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." These are the books that are taught in universities and cited by future historians. Publishers, editors, reviewers and writers put their professional reputations on the line. Whether the facts are accurate is totally independent of the views of the writers - this is not the echo chamber. Drawing a Line in the Sea: The Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2011) is published by Lexington Books, an academic imprint of Rowan & Littlefield. It does not seem to be cherry-picking since the book is about the conflict. TFD (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of an author's quote to substantiate a charge of "brainwashing cult"

I would like to request additional opinions about the citation of James R. Lewis’ book, “Legitimating New Religions” (found at http://books.google.com/books?id=hdYSdts1udcC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=james+r+lewis+anti-anti+cult+soka+gakkai&source=bl&ots=FtDzO9wMy-&sig=bBJaAvGLEW1dS_8YZtM7xCEK4xA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yD7U82UDJShyASjuoDIBA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=soka%20gakkai&f=false) in the Soka Gakkai article. A quote from this work is the only source being cited to support a clause in the lede,

[The Soka Gakkai] grapples with a stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing cult’.

To substantiate this statement the posting editor used this paragraph in the Lewis book (p. 218):

Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intensive proselytizing activities. Although never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Soka Gakkai which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America until after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shoshu was not infrequently stereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anticult authors.

To the eyes of WP readers, the charge of a “stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing’ cult” is serious and damning—especially when appearing in a lede--and thus should require a high bar to validate. The Lewis source does not pass this muster and should be removed. There is considerable debate on the Talk page which has led to a standstill.

Two points alone should disqualify its use. First of all, James R. Lewis is specifically referring in this quote to the Soka Gakkai in the United States and Europe. The Soka Gakkai article, however, by consensus of all the editors, is about the organization in Japan. Secondly, the quote uses past tense verbs (“it aroused,” “went under,” “was not”) whereas the statement in the article is examining current—not—past perceptions (“is still widely viewed” with suspicion).

Equally important, however, Lewis uses this quote as a mere literary foil. In fact, he spends the rest of the book pushing back, explaining that the contention is false. For example on the prior page (217) he states,

For over half a century, one of the most controversial new religions in Japan has been Soka Gakkai. Although this group has matured into a responsible member of society…

Lewis goes on to explain why—in the past—public perception was negative, fanned by negative publicity.

Until relatively recently, it also had a high profile as the result of sensationalist and often irresponsible media coverage. Apparently as a direct consequence of the social consensus against this religion, some scholars have felt free to pen harsh critiques of Soka Gakkai—critiques in which the goal of promoting understanding has been eclipsed by efforts to delegitimate Soka Gakkai by portraying it as deluded, wrong, and/or socially dangerous. This body of ‘scholarship’ presents a useful case study for the paradigmatic manner in which it exemplifies inappropriate approaches to the study of religious bodies.

As a literary foil Lewis feels no need to support it by providing citations. He claims no field trip to research public perception in Japan about the Soka Gakkai nor provides any link to Japanese sources. This is simply “his perception about public perception” of the Soka Gakkai which moves him toward this thesis about legitimating the Soka Gakkai. He thus does not uses the perspectives of the sociologist, political scientist, or anthropologist to support the quote in question. He doesn’t care because his goal is not to examine public perception but drop a casual statement to make his larger case for legitimating new religions.

Anyone familiar with Lewis’ work knows that he is one of the foremost scholars of the 'anti-anti-cult' movement, a scholar who rejects claims of brainwashing. This can be plainly seen from the book’s title, “Legitimating New Religions.” Throughout the book he explains that the scientific basis of brainwashing cult has lost its standing APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control.

Therefore the presence of a claim of “brainwashing cult” in a lede is so serious and emotionally-charged that it merits the highest level of scholarship to substantiate, not Lewis’ mere casual mention as a literary foil.

I realize the rules on this board don't specifically require this, but this filing isn't written in a neutral manner.
It sounds like this is more of an NPOV issue than an RS issue, but here's my $0.02: The author, James R. Lewis, won the Choice award for a previous book. He has been praised for being balanced and criticized for being biased. Sources on Wikipedia don't have to be unbiased, only the final Wikipedia articles do. The statement from the book, that Soka Gakkai "grapples with the stereotype" allows that the stereotype may not be accurate. While calling Soks Gakkai a cult in Wikipedia's own voice might be biased, saying, "[Other organizations] have stereotyped Soka Gakkai as a cult" is a fact. If need be, specify which organizations. If you don't think the tenses match, then by all means match them or say "One [year of publication] book said that..." If you feel that Lewis is biased, then acknowledge it, "According to James R. Lewis, who has been characterized as anti-anti-cult in such-and-such newspaper..."
If Lewis's book also has material stating that the stereotype is false, then by all means, choose some quotes and balance the article. Whoever added the Lewis book in the first place can hardly claim that you're using an inappropriate source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Darkfrog24. I will incorporate your suggestions in my work. I am wondering whether you can ring in on my very first point above. There is consensus among all editors that the Soka Gakkai article is about the organization in Japan, not its sister organizations throughout the world (Soka Gakkai International). On the matter of the public's perception of the Soka Gakkai, one editor is insisting on including the Lewis source based upon the sentence "Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intense proselytizing activities. Although it was never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Sokka Gakkai—which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shoshu—was not unfrequently strereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anti-cult authors."
IMHO this quote refers to the SGI in American and Europe. There is not the vaguest reference to Japanese perception of this movement. As I posted yesterday, this indicates that this particular source should not be the singular basis for the comment that the Soka Gakkai grapples with a stereotype of being a "brainwashing cult." It is the harshest of conclusions to be drawn from the weakest of evidence.
Thank you, FetullahFan (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
So you feel that "SG grapples with the stereotype of being a brainwashing cult" implies, incorrectly, that it grapples with this stereotype worldwide when it actually grapples with this stereotype solely and specifically in the U.S. and Europe? If that is what the sources bear out, then you'd be right to change the sentence to, "In the U.S. and Europe, S.G. grapples with the stereotype of being a brainwashing cult." However, if stereotyping is a problem for SG elsewhere, even if this specific source does not happen to talk about it, leave the sentence as it is. To get your fellow participants to go along with this, phrase it as something like, "Just to be extra safe" or something.
That's my $0.02. If anyone objects, I recommend pursuing this further at the OR or NPOV noticeboards, but I would recommend that everyone work out a consensus text together before filing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Darkfrog24. Yes, you pretty much restated the problem correctly. The article is supposed to be--by common consensus--about this movement in Japan. The cited source is not about Japan but there are other sources out there that probably could support this POV. I will try tinkering to get a consensus. FetullahFan (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes.com blogs

This is just a cautionary note for the record. I noticed two articles on unrelated subjects, including one on a prominent person, in which Forbes.com blogs by non-journalist non-staffers were used as sourcing for significant and in one case controversial facts. This needs to be stop, as I believe in the vast majority of cases such blogs do not meet the standards set by WP:V. They are self-published, and explicitly are not Forbes articles, and each contains a disclaimer saying that they do not state the views of Forbes. In one case a self-published Forbes blog allegedly showing the "top five" web services in a particular area was used as the basis for an article's notability. Editors should be mindful of this article on the Poynter website in May 2012 which states: "There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing. If a story gets hot or makes the homepage, a producer will 'check it more carefully,' [chief of Forbes content] DVorkin said." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't sound much different to how op-eds are handled in traditional media, and we consider them reliable at least for WP:RSOPINION. DVorkin article shows that there *is* an editorial process in place, albeit a different one; I wouldn't dismiss it merely for their novel process if they comply with the rest of WP:NEWSORG. I would be wary to use such Forbes articles for statements of fact, but articles from paid contributors are useful for establishing notability and writing Reception sections per WP:PROFESSIONAL, as the contributors do it for a living (-some- Forbes contributors are paid), they are vetted by Forbes staff when first accepted as contributors, and they put their reputation in line (this was also discussed by DVorkin as the reason why they allow this product under the Forbes brand). I would thus assess reliability for each contributor, instead of dismissing them as a whole. Diego (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This has been covered many times at this point. Most of the contributors aren't paid. They don't fully comply with WP:NEWSORG. It's a Huffington Post style model of soliciting user-generated content with a small amount of vetting up-front, but nowhere near what is required of a standard newsorg practice. CNN iReport also lets stuff fly under the CNN brand, but it's not a proof of reliability. I agree that some contributors may be considered as reliable on their own merit, but having a Forbes blog is not a positive indicator of reliability by itself (there are actual regular paid staff contributions, but they're marked to distinguish them from this "Forbes contributor" model).__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Eloqueate. According to the article, they have 1,000 bloggers! In no way can this be compared to a newspaper op-ed, as newspaper op-eds are subject to editorial controls and editing. These are self-published blogs and should be dealt with under WP:SELFPUB, no more and no less. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
We've had the issue come up with video game sources, and there we identified the bloggers that have had past reputations for being good reliable sources in the past and/or recognized by reliable sources in that area, and continue to use those, but ignore others without similar established creditionals. Eg following the SELFPUB model. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. I was going to ask where those discussions took place, but I see now that they can be found from the WikiProject Video games situational sources table. Diego (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. What concerns me is these blog items being confused with genuine Forbes articles. That's a potential issue in Wiki entries on web services and other issues in which self-appointed "experts" blog about the "best" or otherwise praise specific products/services. Editors seem prone to citing that as "cited by Forbes as one of the ten best" when it is not. They don't recognize that these are self-published. As long as they do it's fine, but the "Forbes" designation is meaningless. It's much like Seeking Alpha. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Hey, can anyone poke their head into Talk:ContentBridge and help me with looking over the sources proposed by an editor? They've posted some links to places that don't appear to be usable as RS and one only mentions the company very briefly in relation to something else. There are some RS policies thrown around, but I believe that they're misquoting them. I've tried to help explain stuff, only to be told that I am misunderstanding policy, so I have a feeling that any further explanation from me will be met with the idea that it's only me that has an issue with the sources. Anyone want to help out? I'd like to keep the article, if possible but I'd like some help with explaining trivial sources and the like. I'm just concerned since most of the links are to articles that look like they're lifted directly from press releases (Home Media Magazine) or bloggish-feeling sources (Advanced Television, which also looks to be taken from a press release), trivial mentions (Variety), and in places that just feel a little skeevy as far as RS goes (MESA). The last one feels like it'd be primary at best, since it's posted by an organization that is set up to promote businesses like ContentBridge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • So far I'm leaning towards nominating it for AfD myself. I did find this source, which was written by SPIE, but mostly what I'm finding are brief mentions and articles in trade papers that read suspiciously like press releases. There just doesn't seem to really be a lot of coverage out there. I don't want to be the Debbie Downer that nominates the article, but I have a feeling that I probably will have to be that person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, MESA is primary since ContentBridge is a member of the alliance. I'm also in the process of opening an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Are Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity sources independent of the Lucy Burns Institute?

  1. Source. Palmer, Kevin (2-1-2013). "Local Ballot Initiatives: Learn How To Promote Democracy In Your Community". Watchdog Wire. Retrieved 11 August 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. Article. Lucy Burns Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Content. "LBI published a guide called Local Ballot Initiatives: How Citizens Change Laws with Clipboards, Conversations, and Campaigns, in November 2012. The booklet provides an overview of how individual citizens can use the initiative process at the local level."

The talk page debate was about whether the source has a conflict of interest and should therefore be treated as questionable. To aid in this discussion, consider the following evidence gathered at the article talk page. It is also worth mentioning that the source uses strongly promotional language. Just read the last 2-3 paragraphs. IMO this source is more or less a press release masquerading as legitimate journalism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence that Watchdog.org is closely affiliated with LBI

click "show" to view evidence ---->
  • Watchdog.org and LBI have shared key personnel
  • Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009[8]
  • Before the change in control Jason Stverak was the Regional Field Director of the Sam Adams Alliance[9]
  • Also in 2009 Stverak became president of the Franklin Center (which runs Watchdog.org)[10]
  • Stverak is also the president of Watchdog.org[11]
  • Watchdog.org and LBI have shared common funding
  • Control of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia switched from husband's Sam Adams to wife's LBI in 2009[8]
  • The Franklin Center was launched with seed money from husband's Sam Adams in 2009[3]
  • Also in 2009, the Franklin Center paid LBI $43,413[12]
  • Watchdog.org is a project of the Franklin Center[1][2]
  • Husband's Sam Adams also funded wife's LBI[13]

References

  1. ^ a b Peters, Justin. "'Serious, point-of-view journalism'?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 28 October 2012.
  2. ^ a b "About". Watchdog.org.
  3. ^ a b Kosterlitz, Julie (December 12, 2009). "Conservative Watchdogs Awake". National Journal.
  4. ^ "The Sam Adams Project". New York Times. July 19, 2008. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
  5. ^ "Our Staff". Lucy Burns Institute.
  6. ^ a b Graves, Leslie. "About".
  7. ^ Murphy, Bruce (June 12, 2014). "The mystery of Eric O'Keefe". Isthmus.
  8. ^ a b "Lucy Burns Institute is the new sponsor of Ballotpedia and Judgepedia". Lucy Burns Institute. July 1, 2009.
  9. ^ "Jason Stverak". Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.
  10. ^ "Jason Stverak". LinkedIn.
  11. ^ Schoffstall, Joe (April 12, 2013). "Watchdog Group Sued For $85 Million by Terry McAullife's Green Car Company in Libel Claim". CNS News.
  12. ^ Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, Form 990 (PDF), p. 22
  13. ^ Sam Adams Alliance, Form 990 (PDF), p. 30

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If you wish to make specific claims in articles, find sources making those precise claims, and seek consensus on the appropriate article talk pages for inclusion of such claims. This board is not the place to set forth an extended argument about any topic. Individual articles already include appropriate (apparently) information about any connections with other organizations. From here, it is clear that the publications of each group are independent, and that your apparent cavil would require specific agreement on article talk pages and not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I do not "wish to make specific claims in articles" as you suggest. Rather, I'm seeking to establish the unreliability of a specific source listed at the top of my original post. This issue has been discussed at length on the article talk page and no consensus has been reached. RSN would therefore be the appropriate place to go to resolve the dispute, no? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
And you will not find this board issuing an "unreliable" label for any organization - especially one routinely cited in major media. [53] states the employment of statehouse journalists by the center. It is regularly cited in the Opinion pages of the NYT. More to the point, this is the first time anyone has questioned it as RS here.
I see no reason to deem LBI as less than RS for material written by identified authors. The theory of "conflict of interest" is interesting but invalid here.
Watchdog Wire is much like "Media Matters for America" - better as a source for its own opinion than for matters of contentious fact. Saying someone published a pamphlet is not exactly a "contentious claim" IMHO.
"Ballotpedia" is a different matter. It is used in many places, but due to its intrinsic nature, I would not use it as a source for any contentious facts about a living person. It is a wiki, and no wikis are "reliable sources."
WP:RS states among non-RS groups: This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.
So the reliability has naught to do with anything about parentage of a site, but the nature of the site. Material which is generated by outside users fails, material which is provided by staff of a site may well be RS. All the stuff about sites being connected in some way is actually irrelevant on this noticeboard with regard to deeming a site RS or not RS for a particular claim. Is this expansion clearer?
Checking online sources, I would wager a great deal that the pamphlet exists and was, indeed, published by the LBI. If you consider that particular claim "contentious" I fear I would demur. Collect (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you read WP:QS? The conflict of interest issue isn't my "theory," it's actually WP policy. (Even the most otherwise reliable sources have conflicts of interest.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Um -- are you asserting that the claim that the organization published a pamphlet is "contentious"? If not, then WP:QS simply does not apply. Are you asserting that the claim is "extremist" in some way? If not, then your cavil fails. Are you positing that the source is "gossip or rumour"? What "conflict of interest" is there in a statement of fact that an organization published a pamphlet? None. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
How is any of this relevant? Per WP:V, questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, and WP:3PARTY#Conflicts of interest suggests that the conflict should be disclosed in our article. Regardless, if the content is both non-contentious and noteworthy then there should be independent sources supporting it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The source is Reliable for the (unimaginably bland) factual content presented above. The supposed conflict of interest, isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't what? A conflict of interest? Why not?--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No conflict of interest has been established with the supposed evidence above. The theory of COI proposed does not, in fact, match WP policy even if broadly stretched past its ordinary understanding. The evidence of "shared staff" failed verification. The conflict of interest isn't. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Most importantly the source is certainly and painfully obviously RS for the specific content under discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
IMO your comments are uncivil and inflammatory and completely ignore what the WP:QS policy actually says. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the line you took as uncivil. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is apparently little disagreement that the actual (modest) content is fine. The discussion is revolving around a meta-narrative or greater idea related to conflict of interest. Is this "SELF PUBLISHED" because of a conflict of interest between spouses. One spouse runs an organization. The other spouse runs an organization which once gave a grant to a third organization that employs a journalist which has written an anodyne piece about the first organization. Is there a conflict of interest that rises to the level of "Self Published" under our policies? Having closely read the policies (and footnotes), I think no. Others may disagree. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not an advocacy group. It advocates no policies, it lobbies for no legislation, it runs no rallies, it has no conventions or policy meetings, it produces no policy white papers. It is a non-profit journalism organization with a focus on statehouse reporting. It is explicitly non-partisan. It is, no doubt, conservative. That doesn't make it an unreliable source or an advocacy group. From their mission statement: "We conform to the Society of Professional Journalists standards, follow AP style and are not partisan or political " Capitalismojo (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
MastCell, this is surely a biased source but not an opinion one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Capitalismojo, I'm not saying this is an ABOUTSELF source, I'm saying it's a WP:QUESTIONABLE one (same policy, different section) due to the pretty blatant undisclosed conflict of interest. This easily falls under the policy language of WP:QS and the footnote there about what constitutes a COI. (Read the quote from the NY Times about spousal COIs in particular.) And WP:QS applies regardless of the "controversial-ness" of the content. We shouldn't condone this kind of unethical/quasi journalistic behavior. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand the issue then. From a close reading of the research above: The author does not work for the Lucy Burns Institute or the woman who runs it. He is apparently a professional journalist working for an project entity of a non-profit that is not run by the spouse of Lucy Burns Institute. The spouse's connection is apparently that the non-profit organization he (formerly) headed (one that no longer exists) gave a grant of less than $50,000 to the parent organization of the author's entity five years ago. While that grant may or may not have been important five years ago, I see that as tenuous as far as conflict of interest/COI is concerned. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding the relationship among the organizations. The $43,413 that the Franklin Center gave LBI was only a small part of it. Before that, the husband, through the Sam Adams Institute, launched the Franklin Center with a much bigger seed grant of an undisclosed amount. So, the author of this source wrote about an organization run by the wife of an individual who was responsible for creating the author's employer. Not surprisingly, the language is pretty plainly promotional. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Insert There is nothing in the evidence above or elsewhere that suggests that there was ever any larger grant beyond the initial $43,000. No sources talk about undisclosed amounts. Given the requirements of 990 reporting, it is expected that the seed grant was just that. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As it turns out, the author of the source, Kevin Palmer, is not a professional journalist, but is instead on the Franklin Center's public affairs team and is responsible for writing op-eds and press releases. (None of this is apparent from the source article itself, which calls Palmer a "staff writer." An article in the Columbia Journalism Review criticizes the Franklin Center and Palmer's lack of transparency.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And here's an instance of Mr. Palmer (the source's author) explicitly promoting an LBI event to "learn to use LBI’s tools." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC is not independent from GE, that does not mean it is not rs. It does mean we need to address whether its reporting on GE is independent of GE and we have determined it is. So I fail to see the point of this talk thread discussion. TFD (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is exactly what you suggest, to determine whether Franklin Center projects such as Watchdog Wire (the publisher of the source) are independent of LBI. As WP:V indicates, a source with a conflict of interest is generally considered questionable and is only reliable for use as a source of material on itself in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
And it seems clear that the claim of conflict of interest has failed verification. The husband is not the writer. The husband is not an employee, officer, or board member of the publishing organization. The husband once ran an organization (now defunct) that once (2009) gave a grant to the organization. So what? The claim of conflict of interest does not meet any reasonable standard. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The husband provided the seed money to launch the writer's employer. That's a COI all by itself even without the additional connections. An apparent COI (the standard imposed by WP:V) exists whenever someone would be justified in thinking the author's loyalty is likely to be divided. That can't be boiled down into a short list of checkboxes. Not this particular kind of COI, not that particular kind of COI, check, there must not be a COI. That's just not how it works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A small one-time grant from one non-profit to another five years ago (seed money or not) hardly qualifies as a COI. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Where do you get "small?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I would question the definition of 'small'; Swift Boats Vets for Justice started with less than $20k, and they were monsters. I find the interconnectedness of the sources and recipients of their reporting disturbing, to say the least. While - as TheFourDeuces points out - NBC and GE are connected, NBC always notes that when reporting on issues regarding its affiliates/corporate partners. I am not seeing that here, and the failure to list that relationship adds to my concern. Add to that the fact that Columbia Journalism Review criticizes them for their lack of transparency, and you end up with a maze of co-congratulatory and reciprocal support. We are being gaslighted, as prior attempts to subject the wiki have indicated a growing sophistication and complexity of these astroturfing legitimacy exercises. Its' best to simply walk away from them. This isn't a case of Imdb being a user-created source (though Watchdog is precisely that); imdb isn't slanting any given part of a movie. Another source would seem to be in order. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish source

Does anyone know if lainformacion.com is a legit news site? [54] Looking to see if this would count towards WP:GNG for the singer Ivan. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

the bottom of the article looks like its an EFE press agency story, so i am thinking it should be ok? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agree. Just to make sure, I did a search for EFE and part of the first sentence of the article, and got multiple hits for the same story. Go for it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Genetics: Are these 3 sources reliable?

Cany I use these sources at Wikipedia in genetic parts?

--82.113.99.169 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Science is the second most reputable scientific publication in the world. That's a definite RS on your third.
The other two look all right to me. However, I've never heard of them before. There are publish-for-pay "journals" out there that deliberately mimic the look and feel of journals with true reputations. It shouldn't be too hard to check. The key would be whether and how often they're cited in other journals. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Please remember to follow the instructions that appear whenever you add or edit a section on this noticeboard. There are three parts which should appear in any request: 1) the identity of the source; 2) the article where you wish to use it; and 3) the exact statements or content you wish to add to the Wikipedia article. You've nailed part 1, you've given a vague wave at part 2, and you've completely omitted part 3.
No source is absolutely, inherently, or intrinsically "reliable" or "unreliable"; the reliability of a source depends on the way in which one intends to use it. Could you give examples of the articles where you would like to use these sources, and the specific text you would like to support with them? Please also provide any information about prior talk page discussions, if you are aware of any, relating to these sources or their usage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Further, I've just quickly skimmed the Science paper. It doesn't seem to directly address any specific points regarding genetics, so I'm now quite baffled as to how you would intend to use it in a genetics article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
One is only in Russian, I don't see how the general editor could sign off on it by looks alone. The "Boldykova" paper is written by a pre-PhD student of art who is making a connection between people of 10,000 years ago on the basis that their current descendants both like "geometric patterns". This doesn't look that promising.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The art student one has nothing to do with genetics and shouldn't be used for any "genetics" material; it's speculation about ornamentation in art.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to provide the information TenOfAllTrades, otherwise it becomes a free-wheeling discussion. Also, are you using them as primary or secondary sources or sources for facts or opinions? TFD (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(TenOfAllTrades already asked this of the editor who first posted.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
A. F. Nazarova, "Biological, archeological and cultural evidence of Paleo-Asiatic origin of northern Mongoloid, Caucasoid and American Indians", Academy Trinitarizm, Moscow, No. 77-6567, publ.14446, 2007. Trinitarizm Academy is a group of the followers of a peculiar esoteric concept named "Trinitarizm". Scientific theories published by this entity may be (and in my humble opinion are likely to be) fringe ones. In Russian Wikipedia Trinitarizm Academy is cited in the text of rule about Reliable sources as an example of a source with false signs of reliability. Эйхер (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176&oldid=1164509383"