Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 144

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140←Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145Archive 146→Archive 150

History Dept. at U. Massachusetts

Is this a reliable source for argument from silence? http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/silence.html Humanpublic (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What text is the source supposed to be supporting? What is the text of the source?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic definition for starters. But, really, just about all of it. It's the best brief overview I've seen. The summary is good and the ideas of it could go in the article: "In sum, the argument from silence, like all historical arguments, is always conjectural. But it is not, as some claim, a fallacy. It is the correct default inference from silence. That inference can be strengthened by relevant evidence of a positive kind, or by the continued silence of further evidence." In general, is the source useable (granting that there are obvious possible misuses). Humanpublic (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of "Argument from silence" section "Misuse of sources" [[1]] to put this question into context. Humanpublic wants to remove the definition "An argument from silence ... is generally a conclusion drawn based on the absence of statements in historical documents", sourced to The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999, and John Lange, The Argument from Silence, History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288-301, and replace it with the statement he quotes, drawn from a website, which, as has been pointed out to him, is not attributed to an author, therefore with no way of knowing who wrote it.Smeat75 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The mere appearance of an article on a university server does not make it reliable. This source is interesting, and was probably written by someone qualified to write it, but without a named author I don't see how it is citable. Zerotalk 11:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not just hosted at the site. The contents are copyright the University of Mass. I don't see where the reliable sources policy requires a single named author. The history dept. of U. Mass is obviously reliable on matters of history. Many sources, such as encyclopedias, don't have named authors. You look at the publisher, I assume. Humanpublic (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be part of the Warring States Project, which gives its staff here: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/project/staff/index.html - Bruce Brooks, a UMass professor, and various associates. I'd credit the Warring States Project at University of Mass. I'd consider it a reliable source, but not the only one, especiall if a dictionary says otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not just a dictionary that says otherwise, but a few other totally WP:RS sources if you look at the page. The general situation seems to be that arguments from silence are "so, so" at the very best but as one other WP:RS source said "stand on shaky foundations and can, like a house of cards, be easily demolished." On the positive side, there is a source already that says "although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events". In any case, it is not certain if the professor wrote that UMass page or the assistant. If the assistant did it, it is not great. And why not get a "proper WP:RS source" anyway. Is that web page the only source that says this? Why not get solid WP:RS sources whose authorship is not in question? History2007 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, I took another look at the univ website and it is not clear if that statement is by Brooks or an assistant. But what is clear is that Brooks has some type of reputation for overdosing on arguments from silence for (on the same web site) a review of his book states: "the authors' liberal use of arguments from silence might disturb some scholars as might their generous use of some rather late and suspect sources to construct biographical accounts of Confucius and sons." The book review is pretty positive overall, but seems to view the args from silence as one of the weak point in his work. So Brooks is viewed as good, but as someone who ODs on args from silence in view of other scholars. In any case, that is not a blanket statement to be used, and the fact that other scholars think Brooks ODs on these reaffirms the views in the other RS sources that these are in general viewed as somewhat shaky arguments. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
That is all completely irrelevant. Please cite a Wikipedia policy against the source in question. Humanpublic (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
History2007, you object to being called dishonest. Please start being honest, then. The review makes no generalizations about Brooks and the argument from silence at all. It doesn't say he overuses it. It does not say it is a weak point in that particular book, it says some scholars might see it that way. You are being obstructionist and distorting sources. Stop it. Humanpublic (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The number of WP:NPA disregards here and on your talk page is piling up too fast. And now we have WP:RS source deletion which quotes the source. I can not discuss items in this atmosphere. History2007 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks, all insults aside, what is the key point in dispute here? I read the page, and it doesn't seem to dispute the dictionary definition. It merely says that the argument from silence can be useful. Well, that seems perfectly fine for our page; we clearly need to give at least one example of a scholar who thinks it's useful, otherwise we're begging the question why it's an interesting concept at all. That doesn't mean we need to remove the counter arguments that it's not useful, it just means that we should give both sides. What am I missing? --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a scholar who says it s useful: it says "Louis Jacobs writes, If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing." And it is sourced to the A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion and I looked it up briefly and it looks right. So it is there, supporting it in the Talmud case. I am not sure if the first sentence of that paragraph comes from the same place, but Jacobs clearly likes them. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the question is just whether a Web site authored, copyrighted, and attributed to the University of Mass history/humanities departments is a reliable source for information about a historical method. Humanpublic (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
As Zero said, the quote needs attribution and without an author it is questionable. You need to get hold of the book about it that was reviewed (mentioned above) and see if the book says the same. That is what you need to do. Just get the book and check it. History2007 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of coming here is to get an independent opinion. If I had wanted to continue debating you (endlessly), I would stayed on the article Talk page. You are welcome to cite actual policy supporting your claims. You are being tendentious. The book review you mentioned above is not about the Web site. It is not about the argument from silence. It has nothing to do with this. You keep saying you're not going to engage with me, and then you keep engaging with me. If you're going to do that, please agree to the DRN I requested. Humanpublic (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We have had some opinions, and anyone can respond. In any case, a source needs attribution, and can not be attributed to a department, because "departments do not take positions". So one can not say the "department of physics at MIT says X", because in many cases faculty members have opposing positions. A funny example was years ago when Jack Dennis and a couple of his students were going around the east coast with a bull horn saying Dataflow is great, it is the future, etc. However, most of the department a MIT were directly against that architecture. So departments do not take positions, and statements cannot be attributed to departments. In any case, why not get a good WP:RS source whose authorship is not in question; or just get the book and see what it says. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It can be attributed to the Warring States Project (of the University Massachusetts History Department). --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
May be pushing it, but to make a long story short let us tentatively say it may be. Now what is it that would be attributed, the definition does not need to be given that there are better sources, but any statement from it, if to be used, will need to be carefully worded, and not be a blanket statement; given that the web page is full of caveats by itself anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder & broad claims of historical and archaeological accuracy cited to a biographical dictionary

Armaiti (talk · contribs) with this edit[2] and a previous identical one has added this to the article: "Apart from the Cyrus Cylinder itself, the benevolent acts of Cyrus are revered in the Bible; those acts are also historically correlated with other archeological accounts, such as the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Panegyric commonly known as the Verse Account of Nabonidus.[1][2] Yet some modern historians argue that while Cyrus's behavior was indeed conciliatory, it was driven by the needs of the Persian Empire, and was not an expression of personal tolerance per se."

Aside from the pov wording (closely paraphrased from the Dictionary of World Biography, I'm arguing that the dictionary and Robert B Kebric (a specialist in the Greek and Roman people, not Cyrus, see [3] and his book) are not reliable sources for such a broad statement - that Cyrus's acts (we seem to be talking about all of them) were benevolent and that they are all historically correlated with other archaeological accounts. I have no idea what the JSTOR article says but it dates to 1926 so can't take into account later work.

It also seems to be somewhat of a non sequitor - it says that everything in the Bible about Cyrus is accurate, 'yet some argue' - the accuracy doesn't reflect the purpose. Maybe it's the 'benevolent'?

It also ignores the fact that the authenticity of the decree mentioned in the Bible has been challenged (see Cyrus the Great in the Bible) but again that's another issue. I'm never sure what to do when an edit has multiple issues.

I asked the editor to bring this here, but instead he responded on my talk page and the article talk page telling me to. Commenting on the sources, he wrote "The first two sources are Historical and Archaeological accounts at once, you cannot argue their veracity, the Bible is religious, yet you cannot reject what is written in it; it basically calls 'Cyrus the Great', a 'Messiah'; this is by all means the utmost reverence for a human being by at least 3 world religions, who consider the Bible a sacred text." and "Also please try and understand the semantics here, there is difference between a 'biography' and a book called "The Ancient World: 'Dictionary' of World Biography" (which is also used as a source in various Wiki articles such as, 'Ancient Greece', 'Ashurbanipal', 'Damnatio ad bestias, etc.). In any case, 'Biographies' may also be used as references in Wikipedia, FYI, and there is no problem in that. Nevertheless we are not citing any 'biography' or 'world biography' here, but a 'Dictionary', and you cannot cancel the reliability of this book, just because its title contains the phrase 'world biography'." Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple issues, yes. I think Armaiti needs to be able to work constructively with others and try to understand our reliable sources policy better. Dictionary of World Biography: The Ancient World seems to be a rebranding of an encyclopedic text (a tertiary source) pitched at college libraries: if so, hardly acceptable at all as a source for us, unless this article on Cyrus (by John M. Lawrence) has received favourable comment from scholars on the Persian Empire.
The JSTOR link is to W. F. Albright, "Ea-Mummu and Anu-Adapa in the Panegyric of Cyrus" in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1926) pp. 285-290. It's a short philological article written soon after the discovery of the cuneiform Panegyric of Cyrus (which, as you know, we'd call a "primary source", not an "archeological source") at the stage when scholars were still puzzling out its meaning. I don't see any general comment about the character or politics of Cyrus, so no reason to cite it in this context.
PS - What does Kebric have to do with this, Doug? Andrew Dalby 11:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Partly of course this is an editing judgement discussion, not a simple WP:RS case. I think what I agree with about WP:RS in the judgement of Doug and Andrew can be summarised as "weaker sources should not be used for strong positions". The sources are certainly not as horrific as some we hear of here, and the statements are certainly not totally shocking either, just oddly balanced so as to give too much Biblical reference point. Just to make it clear I see no problem with separately mentioning the Bible's picture of Cyrus and how it has been often compared to this cylinder (consider WP:NOTE), but we should not make it our standard point of reference for describing the cylinder itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Should always use the best available sources (high quality recent secondary sources) and these types of arguments would disappear. TFD (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Using material posted on an internet forum as a reference?

There is currently a reference at St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine citing an ownership change in April, but the year is not listed. This internet forum post lists the year and appears to be written by a school official...but it's an internet forum post. It seems like it meets the requirements of WP:SELFPUB but I'm still not certain whether or not it can be used. Thanks. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 13:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the year that the change in ownership took place really being contested? If not, I would take the attitude that the year is not "likely to be challenged", and simply add it without a citation. If it is being contested, then I would say you should find a more reliable source for it (I don't think the forum is outright un-reliable... but it is borderline and there is probably a better source out there, if you look hard enough). Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks! SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 14:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Self published youtube videos as references in article Review Raja

Hi, would you say the way I used the videos as references is ok? They are mostly found in the Media coverage section -- Dravidian  Hero  16:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

While this isn't directly relevant to your question, I would probably move the external links in the table to the footnotes section. This is per Wikipedia:External links. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this suggestion. I might have to rethink my original idea regarding the existing table as an easy "fan interface". Meanwhile I found a solution for citing videos here: Template:Cite_video.-- Dravidian  Hero  16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unpublished sources

1. Sources: See also Talk:Haddenham, Cambridgeshire#Improvement of citations

  • Grassam, 2005, report 1809
  • Bray and Robinson, 1990, ‘Anglo Saxon Burials Haddenham’
  • Whittaker, 1998, report 261

2. Article: User:212.219.116.68/sandbox (formerly in the archaeology sections of Haddenham—[4], Witchford—[5] and RAF Witchford—[6])

3. Content: Whole article is suspect WP:OR but specifically, all the above are identified in the following report as unpublished: Bishop, Liz (2007). West End, Haddenham: Archaeological Evaluation 2007 (PDF) (Report). p. 25 & appendices: Birmingham Archaeology. Retrieved 26 February 2013. {{cite report}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

I believe that sources identified in a reliable source (Bishop 2007) as unpublished are WP:OR at best or WP:SPS at worst.

--Senra (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If a source is unpublished, then it can't be verified by other editors, and verifiability is a requirement on Wikipedia.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Unpublished sources do not meet rs. However, any information in a rs, such as Bishop's report, that is sourced to an unpublished source does meet rs, because we are relying on the judgment of the author for the accuracy of the information. That does not mean that we can consider any other part of the unpublished report to be reliable. TFD (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It's normal in some fields for academic writers to be using unpublished sources. Anything Bishop gets from this unpublished work, we cite from Bishop. We can't cite the unpublished reports directly. Andrew Dalby 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. I do, however, wish to clearly understand. Please forgive, therefore, my continual pushing at this. @Rurik says that unpublished sources fail Wikipedia's verfication policy. I agree. The editor may complain that their unpublished sources are printed and available at the Cambridgeshire Records Office; which they are. Could this editor refer us to Verifiability:What constitutes a reliable source thus: "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)"? I still feel that these sources, identified by a clearly reliable source as unpublished, are self-published and their use by the editor constitutes original research --Senra (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The definition of "published" is sometimes debatable, but I'm not sure whether that is a crucial question for you here. "Printed and available at the Cambridgeshire Records Office" does not equate to "published", because the Records Office holds all sorts of archives. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
As you and Judith both say, these are unpublished sources, and are described as such in our reliable source. Information drawn by us from the reliable source is potentially fine; information drawn by us from documents only available in an archive is a no-no.
I don't really follow your last question -- what does the "self-publication" question have to do with "original research"? To me those are two different issues. Original research may be built up from all kinds of sources; we simply shouldn't do it. Forgive me if I'm being dense :) Andrew Dalby 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Andrew I guess the point of that is that if we WP editors are the first people to bring something into public, we are like the publisher publishing something original? Back to the question of public archives, I think the responses are correct, maybe not only because of WP:RS but also because of WP:V. But there might be cases where there is a grey area. Many archives are getting easier and easier to access, with online summaries of records etc. It does not seem to be relevant in this case though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
There is also an issue of weight. If the information in a report is so obscure that no one has sought to publish it, then it does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Two papers on the Shakespeare authorship question

This paper—written as a project in an undergraduate class on data mining, and found on the course page under the heading "Sample team projects (Fall 2007)"—uses some simple metrics to compare the works of Shakespeare to writings of Frances Bacon [sic], Christopher Marlow [sic], and Edward de Verde [sic]. Though the authors express concern about the shortness of the sample of de Vere's poetry they found on the Web, they boldly conclude that "the Oxfordian camp may have some veracity" and "perhaps de Vere was Shakespeare."

Smatprt recently cited this paper as "a study conducted at Dartmouth College" in Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, contrasting its conclusion with that of "Oxford by the Numbers: What Are the Odds That the Earl of Oxford Could Have Written Shakespeare's Poems and Plays?", a paper published in the University of Tennessee Law Review by professors Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza (who have also published together on the subject in such peer-reviewed journals as Shakespeare Quarterly, Notes and Queries, and Literary and Linguistic Computing) reporting that "the odds that either could have written the other's work are much lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning." When I reverted the edit on the grounds that a student project is not reliable, Smatprt removed the reference to the latter paper as well, arguing that since it is based on research originally performed by the authors' students, the two sources are equally unreliable. I invite comment on whether there is any distinction to be made between them. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Undergraduate research is generally not acceptable as a reliable source. Was it published and/or reviewed?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The first paper is obviously unsuitable. The second looks fine. The Tennessee Law Review is a student-published journal, but a rather serious one, backed by academic advisors and the school. Moreover, the authors are unquestioningly experts, and the paper is adapted from previous ones that were published in very good academic venues indeed. If you want to avoid the debate, you might want to go back to these previous papers (which probably will make the same statements, but possibly in a less colourful language). But I'd give the source a pass. Academics are supported by student research all the time - that's not the same as citing undergrad work directly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

New Scientist

New Scientist [7] has been described as "not an ideal reference" in a discussion at Talk:Human evolution#Timeline of human evolution and the lead. Is there a general policy as to whether New Scientist is considered a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's useful for many things, especially for science-related news. Very good for whether a conference was held, or for the existence of research institutes and projects. Not so good for actual science facts, because the articles are simplified for a non-specialist audience - the readers are mostly scientists, but from all disciplines. And its treatment can be sensationalist. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission

Two editors, (121.208.25.30/121.208.25.42/60.225.253.209/60.225.253.231/121.208.25.71) and (180.149.192.132/180.149.192.134/180.149.192.133/180.149.192.139) are repeatedly deleting the following paragraph from the article section Accusations of false claims on the grounds that it is "based on demonstrably false claims" and is an attempt "to discredit [Moran's] book." Moran is rather controversial as his books support Windschuttle's position in the History wars, ie:that while some deaths did occur there were no massacres of Aboriginals. The massacres are myths based on hearsay and the misleading use of evidence by academics.

Moran's claims regarding the reliability of Gribble were examined by Green and found to rely on unreliable sources, and where reliable sources are cited the claims are misinterpreted, false or can not be found in them at all.. — Green, Neville: Ahab wailing in the wilderness Quadrant June 2003 Pg 30-33

The reference for the above is a reply to two articles authored by journalist Rod Moran, Gribble out of Balance and Ernest Gribble's Dark Torment. Written by Historian Neville Green the reply was published in Quadrant magazine. As it is not online I have copy/pasted some of the relevant supporting text:

He did not, as Moran claimed, assist Trower in the investigation, and the Trower report, alluded to by Moran, does not exist...Moran claimed that "according to descendants," Jack Gribble "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island", was a bigamist and that he engaged in shady land deals. Jack Gribble has only one [descendant] and she denied making any of the derogatory statements Moran attributed to her...In his attempt to vilify Ernest Gribble and denigrate Christine Halse, Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted.

Green's interpretation of Moran's work is widely supported by other academics such as archaeologist and historian Sylvia Hallam:

Moran states explicitly that he is following the example of Keith Windschuttle's recent book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History"...[Windschuttle] cites material which supports his contentions and ignores other equally available material which might support the opposite view. Rod Moran leaves himself open to similar doubts...Moran's preface throws some doubts on his claims of impartiality...The evidence Moran cites does not always support his conclusions.More important criticisms are lack of adequate context, lack of ballance and insufficient presentation and explication of evidence. — review of Moran's book Sex, Maiming and Murder: Seven case studies into the reliability of Reverend E.R.B. Gribble published in the Australian Aboriginal Studies journal by Sylvia Hallam

Is the source, Ahab wailing in the wilderness Quadrant June 2003 Pg 30-33, a reliable source per WP policies and does the text reflect the source's claims? Wayne (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To paraphrase how another user has put it, is it responsible Wikipedia editing to include text based on commentary (by Green) on a source (in this case Moran’s books and articles) where that commentary can be seen to be false simply by reading the source commented upon? When an academic gets it obviously wrong, makes demonstrably false claims or puts false information in print, why would we want to allow those false claims or that false information into Wikipedia?
Green makes claims that sources referred to by Moran do not exist or do not contain the information Moran says they do. Let’s take the first example, Wayne has given from Green’s article: “He did not, as Moran claimed, assist Trower in the investigation, and the Trower report, alluded to by Moran, does not exist..”
Moran does not claim that “he” (being Police Sergeant Buckland) assisted Bishop Trower in the investigation nor did Moran refer to “the Trower report”. In Massacre Myth (Moran, Rod (1999). Massacre myth: An investigation into allegations concerning the mass murder of Aborigines at Forrest River. Bassendean: Access Press. ISBN 0-86445-124-5.), Moran refers to Trower twice only, on page 41 Moran wrote:
“The Commissioner obviously knew of the case because he remarked that Bishop Trower, who was at Forrest River at the time, said there was nothing in the allegations. (Q2625) The latter had carried out his own enquiry into the matter. But Nairn pointed out that Gribble had said there had been a massacre of a whole camp. At Q2629 he asked Neville: “You found no justification for Mr Gribble’s report?” He replied: “No. We found that natives had not been killed”. In fact, the enquiry found that the police had acted in self-defence while trying to apprehend a murderer.”
The Neville referred to here was A.O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia.The enquiry referred to by Neville was the official enquiry.
Moran’s second reference to Trower is on page 152: “However on investigation, it was found that, in the words of , Chief Protector Neville—in response to the question “You found no justification for Mr Gribble’s report?” --- at Q2629: “No. We found that natives had not been killed”. The Commissioner himself noted earlier that “I think…Bishop {Trower] reported that there was nothing in the allegations”.
So Moran does not claim that there was a 'report', in the form of some kind of document. He merely notes Commissioner Wood’s use of the word ‘reported’ in terms of what the Bishop said. There are no other references to Trower in Moran's book.
Let’s have a look at the next part of Wayne’s selection of examples: “Moran claimed that "according to descendants," Jack Gribble "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island", was a bigamist and that he engaged in shady land deals. Jack Gribble has only one [descendant] and she denied making any of the derogatory statements Moran attributed to her...”
The references to Jack Gribble Melville Island and the phrases "according to descendants," "served a disreputable period as a missionary on Melville Island" and the allegations regarding land dealings, bigamy, etc, come from page 215 of Massacre Myth. He gives a footnote for that paragraph. Moran makes no reference whatsoever to Jack Gribble’s female descendant, he identifies the source in the footnote 23 as “Gribble and Race Relations, p 432” (this is Dr Christine M. Halse’s thesis where she says on pp 432-433 “Of his later life, the Gribble family and others talk shyly about shady land-deals, a disreputable stint as a missionary on Melville Island, and a court-trial on a charge of bigamy.225” and she gives the following reference for those points (reference number) 225 "interview, Mary Oxborrow and Mrs Eric Gribble, Sydney, 12 March 1986." So it is Dr Christine Halse who reported the interview. Green, however, chooses not to let the reader know that fact.
There are a couple of other examples of Green misrepresenting what Moran used as sources or found in sources on the talk page, if anyone wants to take a look.
Can we really say Green’s article is a reliable source?
The fact is there are 2 principal books written about Forrest River, one by Neville Green and the other by Rod Moran. There should be fair and accurate representation of both in the article. The fact is that some historians have commmented unfavourably on Moran's work and some including Professor David Day and Dr Josephine Flood have commented favourably. Incidentally that claim in the Hallam review that "Moran states explicitly that he is following the example of Keith Windschuttle's recent book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History" happens to be false too. There is no source whatsoever for the claim.60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC) I see that my ISP address has been reset/changed again. I'm AKA [121.208.25.30]]/121.208.25.42/60.225.253.209/60.225.253.231/[[121.208.25.71]60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI the references to "Q2629" above are to a question number in the record of the 1927 Royal Commission.60.225.253.141 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Simply reading the source commented upon for Wikipedia to come to a conclusion regarding the reliability of Green is not permitted. The subject is prominent enough that the three academics who support Moran should have published something in the 10 years since Green published. Your entire post is irrelevant, synthesis and original research and as such can not be used to determine reliability. For an example of why we can't use original research... you claim that Green is making a false claim because Moran was only citing Halse. That is irrelevant as Moran still made the claim in his own book without any fact checking which would have quickly revealed that Jack Gribble was serving in the Navy for the entire period in question and that the mission on Melville Island was Roman Catholic, making it unlikely that Gribble, who was a Protestant minister, was acting as a missionary for them. Thus Green's criticism was correct. As for the two books, we have the mainstream view (ie:historian Neville Green's peer reviewed book) that the massacre occurred and the minority view (ie:journalist Rod Moran's self published book) that no massacre occurred. We must give prominence to the mainstream view regardless of the Wikipedia editors own views. Moran's book is adequately covered. Wayne (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have a somewhat flexible view of what Wikipedia standards are for preferred sources. The statement: “Of his later life, the Gribble family and others talk shyly about shady land-deals, a disreputable stint as a missionary on Melville Island, and a court-trial on a charge of bigamy.” and the reference for it are contained in Dr Christine M. Halse’s PhD thesis (which since it was specifically about Ernest Gribble and his family, makes her the leading academic expert on the 'field' of the Gribbles). This thesis went through the entire process of review, acceptance and approval by the University of Queensland. The claims by Neville Green "that Jack Gribble was serving in the Navy for the entire period in question and that the mission on Melville Island was Roman Catholic, making it unlikely that Gribble, who was a Protestant minister, was acting as a missionary for them" are contained in an article dashed off by Green and published in Quadrant magazine. You are saying that Green's magazine article, which did not go through any process of peer-review, is to be regarded as correct and is to be preferred to Dr Halse's PhD thesis? By any standard, both Wikipedia and Moran are fully entitled to accept that Halse is the reliable source, not Green, and since Moran relied on the reliable source, he has to be regarded as correct on this issue.60.225.253.141 (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Next point, you refer to Moran's book as "self-published" which is a term that has a defined meaning. Moran's book was published and sold by Access Press which expressly advertises on its website that it does not provide self-publishing services. So that's an incorrect claim by you.
It seems that your idea of Wikipedia editing is that editors must switch off their brains. If text is based on claims that are obviously false, editors are obliged to remove it.60.225.253.141 (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Access may have paid for distribution, but Moran still paid for the book to be printed. What is "obviously false" to you is irrelevant, you can not use any original research in WP. Wayne (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this really an RS question? Using our common sense to say that a source is weak is type of reasoning we can use when deciding on what weight to give a source, which is something to be judged on the article talk page, but it is not really relevant to what is normally discussed on this noticeboard. I see nothing at first sight which gives a reason to invoke RS as a reason for not using the sources under discussion. The discussion seems to be one more about getting the right balance between WP:RS-acceptable sources? That seems to be for other forums, but concerning other policies I would point out that concerning the question of due weight, we do not normally accept "common sense" arguments for removing any well-known sources. We aim to report whatever is mainstream and when the mainstream is controversial, report more sources, and show the controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The two anons believe that mainstream and minority views should be given equal weight, they are oblivious to Wikipedia policies regarding reliability and no one else has weighed in on the article talk page. I was hoping that bringing this here and getting a few editors to tell them that they have to provide sources rather than base reliability on what is "obvious to them" would end the matter. What other board would be more appropriate? Wayne (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I am seeking fair and accurate representation of the Moran book in the article, nowhere have I asked for ‘equal weight’ nor, that I can recall, has the other editor who objects to Wayne’s use of this material, asked for ‘equal weight’ . The particular text that I and the other editor object to is being used to mislead the readers of Wikipedia into dismissing the book as having a valid contribution to the debate on Forrest River by pretending that Moran falsely claimed that he had found evidence in sources when Neville Green ‘proves’ that the evidence is not in those sources.
Green reproduced a part of the text of Moran’s book, pretended that Moran had only 1 source for it, Constable St Jack’s patrol journal entry, and then reproduces that journal entry which does not contain all the information that Moran had reported. Moran, in fact, clearly listed multiple sources for that reconstruction in his book, not just the journal. Green pretends the others don’t exist. No original research required for that, it is simply what is written in the source. Green claimed that Moran , in his review of Christine Halse’s book, had claimed to find ‘suggestive’ evidence in Commissioner Wood's report regarding Gribble’s motive for inventing a massacre that never happened. Reading the review “Ernest Gribble's dark torment”, Moran clearly makes no claim to have found that evidence in the report and the sources that Moran actually used are clearly stated in his book Massacre Myth. Other examples, where Green misrepresented Moran’s work, are discussed above.
Green's article seems to be a case of him lashing out with wild and false accusations at Moran because Moran's book challenges the book that Green made his reputation on.
Surely there is a fundamental issue of reliability where the magazine article that Wayne wants to use as a source makes claims that are false.
We can certainly give prominence to the mainstream view on what happened at Forrest River but we shouldn’t allow the minority view to be misrepresented which is what the text that I and the other editor object to does.60.225.253.141 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
If there is a controversy amongst mainstream and/or notable sources, then we should report that controversy and not take sides I'm afraid. The internet is full of venues for expressing our own opinions, but this particular site has less ambitious aims.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that it is Wayne who is asking for this noticeboard to ‘authorise’ the inclusion of his wording in the article over the consensus/objections of the other 2 editors. It also seems that the basis for his request is a very narrow interpretation of Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources. Just because you have a source for something doesn’t override the fundamental need for whatever you put into the articles to be correct, to be accurate. The 2 ‘anons’, as you refer to them, have given very strong reasons why this wording introduces incorrect information into the article. If their assurances that the information in Green’s article is not correct are not enough for you, I’ve just pulled Moran’s book from the stacks, looked at the relevant pages and can confirm that the ‘anons’ are correct. Green’s article does grossly misrepresent Moran’s sources. I suggest that you go back to the sources yourself and reconsider whether the material is something fit for inclusion. Misrepresentations about someone else's book like those Green makes have no place in Wikipedia where, I would hope, most editors strive for accuracy and honesty.The Schoolteacher (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)— The Schoolteacher (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

I've already supplied one example where a claim of misrepresentation was false. Please do not comment on Green misrepresenting Moran unless you have a reliable reference that makes that claim. Until then such claims are WP:OR.
This seems to a case of do as I say, not as I do. You were perfectly willing to make comments about content including whether misrepresentations were in a source when you claimed on the article talk page that Green had ‘briefly mentioned’ other sources Moran had used. That claim by you was completely untrue. Green had, in fact, pretended that there were no other sources. Was this the example of the ‘false’ claim of misrepresentation you are talking about? Your claims with respect to this certainly don’t check out, nor have any of your other ‘examples’.180.149.192.133 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Concerning RS policy, you are right that WP editors do not need to feel any compulsion from RS policy to include a work. (RS is more a guideline about what not to include.) But other policies are relevant. Is Moran's book well-known? For example is it frequently cited and well known? If so (and it seems so from comments above) then not reporting its opinions could be considered WP:censorship and WP:OR. It could make WP report a different WP:balance from what a reader would find if they went out and collected the most cited WP:mainstream sources on this subject. Being asked to avoid this can of course be a frustrating thing when you find that a field has very widely cited badly written sources, which happens often. I think what you ideally want to find is a published criticism of Moran so that you can report the controversy. If the controversy is only with WP editors we should not be basing our editing on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Green is considered the authority for the Forrest River massacre while Moran holds a minority view. Green is a historian whose book was his thesis, Moran is a journalist. Moran's work is supported by Keith Windschuttle, who has cited him often, and two other archaeologists while Green is supported by pretty much the rest of academia. The National Museum of Australia exhibit displays Greens version although it now also mentions the controversy after Windschuttle complained about it not mentioning that some people dispute the reality of the massacre. This is a lengthy critique of Moran by the director of the Western Australian Museum who especially condemns Moran's habit of making ad hominem attacks on any academic he cant refute. Another critism is that Moran holds that all Indigenous oral history is unreliable and that he only accepts oral history when it gives support to his view. In fact, Indigenous oral history is remarkably accurate due to having no written history, for example it records the eruptions of long dead volcanoes and the flooding of the continental shelf millenia ago. Moran's book and it's claims is covered in the article. Despite Green's account being the mainstream view, his specific account of what happened makes up 17% of the article compared to 19% for Moran's counter claims while another 7% is one positive and three negative reviews of Moran's research. As far as I know there are no negative reviews of Green. It should be noted that the anon who has commented above has made no edits outside of this subject with any of his various ISPs. Wayne (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Professor David Day is one of the historians who have commented favourably on Moran's book (in fact Day revised his book Claiming a Continent and included a favourable reference to Moran's investigation into Forrest River in it) and he IS a historian, not an archaeologist. By the way do you have a source for your claim that "Green is supported by pretty much the rest of academia"?180.149.192.133 (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I should have said with the exception of those three, Green is supported by all other academics who have commented on the subject. I can name a number of notable academics who have rejected Moran and all state museums in Australia support Green. The National Museum of Australia includes the massacre controversy in it's exhibit and includes a bibliography for views both for and against, a book by Keith Windschuttle, who based his research on Moran's book, is included, but the exhibit doesn't mention Moran's book at all.
Historian Geoffrey Bolton wrote in the journal Studies in Western Australian History: "Most, including myself, Peter Biskup (senior Historian for NMA and RHSQ), Brian Fitzgerald (Historian), Neville Green (Historian), Christine Halse (Sociologist), and Kate Auty (Lawyer) have agreed with the general conclusions of the royal commission...Others, among them Colin Tatz (Professor of Politics) and the late Greg Dening (Sociologist, Historian and Anthropologist), believe that the royal commission greatly underestimated the carnage."
Anthropologist Ron Brunton was another who wrote a review of Morans book: "The slender grounds on which [these allegations] are based makes it hard to accept that Moran is the rigorous and sceptical researcher he would have us believe...It would be most unfortunate if Rod Moran's writings lead people to believe that the Forrest River massacre is just another fabrication."
Journalist Bruce Elder wrote a book that covered the massacre which is considered "one of the ten most influential Australian works of non-fiction in the twentieth century."
Others include historian Henry Reynolds (Historian), Noel Loos (Historian) and Helmut Reim (anthropologist). That's more than a dozen of Australia's most prominent academics in this subject area (and one German) and those are only the ones I'm familiar with, all have supported Green and rejected Moran. Wayne (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you have forgotten to mention that Professor Geoffrey Bolton changed his mind regarding Moran’s work and in fact, wrote the introduction to Moran’s next book: Sex Maiming and Murder; Seven Case Studies into the Reliability of Reverend E.R.B. Gribble, Superintendent, Forrest River Mission 1913 – 1928, as a Witness to the Truth.

Bolton’s commentary in that introduction includes the following: “....In the midst of this controversy the researcher striving for that unachievable goal, scholarly objectivity, has a hard time of it. Such a researcher can win credibility only by close attention to the primary sources which are the building blocks of history.

Rod Moran is such a researcher.......A royal commission found that 11 Aborigines had been killed, and the two constables in charge of the party were brought to trial but discharged when the magistrate ruled that there was no case warranting prosecution. This has not prevented eminent scholars who should have known better from claiming that more than one hundred Aborigines were slaughtered and the reputations of the two policemen have suffered accordingly. It was the urge to clear their reputations which brought Rod Moran into the controversy.

The result was his book Massacre Myth, which put the view that there was no evidence that anyone at all had been killed by the police party. This contradicted the view previously taken by most historians, including Henry Reynolds, Neville Green and myself, that on the evidence before him the royal commissioner had probably got it right in assessing the death toll at around a dozen. Careful analysis of Massacre Myth suggested that the evidence for the killings was less substantial than we had supposed, and depended a good deal on the say-so of the missionary Ernest Gribble, who by 1926 was a psychologically troubled man. Inevitably this argument embroiled Rod Moran in the current controversy about frontier conflict, although he was not arguing that police killings of Aborigines never occurred or that the pastoral occupation of the North was uniformly peaceful.

His argument suggests that by 1926, when police and official control of Aboriginal settler contracts was firmly established and regulated, a massacre on the scale of the alleged Forrest River incident is harder to credit than it would have been in the 1890s or in the early years of the 20th century. Oral histories concerning the events of 1926 may well have been blended with folk memories of the conflicts of earlier times and should be treated with caution.....”

So we've got Professor David Day, Professor Geoffrey Bolton, Dr Josephine Flood and yes...Shock! Horror!...Keith Windschuttle who all have supported Moran's research into what happened or rather didn't happen at Forrest River. Bolton even suggested when he wrote "This contradicted the view previously taken by most historians..." that other historians may have reconsidered their positions on Forrest River. Even Neville Green no longer claims that there was definitely a massacre, now he just says it's "probable". 60.225.253.166 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Green has always said that the massacre was "probable." Saying there "was no case warranting prosecution" is deceptive as there was insufficient evidence for prosecution. Moran having an "urge to clear their reputations" says it all, and he falsly impunes Gribble's reputation to do it and displays no scholarly objectivity. Being "harder to credit than it would have been in the 1890s" is also a deceptive claim. The Bedford downs massacre had only occurred two years earlier and the Coniston massacre two years later. Conflict between Aboriginals and Europeans (cattle spearings and attacks on station owners) continued right up to at least 1970. You also need to keep in mind that the Aboriginal population of the northern half of West Australia in the 1930s was estimated at 15,000 in missions and towns etc with an additional 10,000 living traditionally, while the white population was less than 3,000 (with most in towns) which hardly allows for sufficient scrutiny of police actions to say that massacres are hard to credit. So now we have four academics Vs the 12 I know of that have critiqued Moran. That supports Moran as the minority opinion which is my arguement. Continued arguement regarding the merits of Morans research does not alter the fact that he is not mainstream. Wayne (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

skyscrapercenter.com

The website http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/ allows submissions by readers, but there appears to be a "council" that approves the changes. Should we use this website for facts about skyscrapers and proposed buildings? It is found at a lot of articles including Burj Al Fattan, List of tallest buildings in Dubai (FA-class), List of tallest residential buildings in the world, The Bay Gate, and Platinum Tower (Dubai). It is being added to articles by User:Nabil rais2008. I would like to get a sense of what people here think of the source, to see how we proceed on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We have three most reliable sources of skyscrapers i.e: CTBUH, Emporis, and Skyscraperpage. But out of these CTBUH is widely considered as most reliable source, that's why the articles of skyscrapers are mostly heavily depended on Skyscrapercentre (Skyscraper Database of CTBUH), because the information on CTBUH, is updated very quickly, as compared to other databases of skyscrapers: Emporis Skyscraper Database, Skyscraperpage Database, etc. The Council (CTBUH) is an international not-for-profit organization supported by architecture, engineering, planning, development and construction professionals. The CTBUH is the world’s leading body in the field of tall buildings and the recognized source of information on tall buildings internationally.

The construction status of skyscrapers vary on these sources, in database of Emporis construction status of some skyscrapers are still on-hold, but in actual they are under construction, which is supported by other reliable sources including CTBUH, and same is the case with Skyscraperpage, they (Emporis and Skyscraperpage) do not update their data base. While on the other hand, CTBUH has a detailed database as compared to emporis and skyscrapage, for instance see the database page of Burj Khalifa, on Burj Khalifa (CTBUH), Burj Khalifa (Emporis), and Burj Khalifa (Skyscraperpage), here we can see the difference between the information in databases of above mentioned sources, CTBUH has more detail of the companies involved in construction of tower, while emporis has more details of facts about the tower, while skyscrapage doesn't concentrate either on companies involved nor facts and figure. Skyscraperpage concentrates more on the diagrams of skyscrapers, rather than facts and figures.

I think that is the main reason of giving preference to the database of CTBUH, because of precise, accurate, and detailed information of statistical information.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether skyscrapercenter.com should be dropped as a reliable source, or should it continue to be accepted as reliable? Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

CTBUH should continue to be accepted as reliable source in Wikipedia.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Supercars.net looks like a fansite

http://supercars.net it looks to me like a fan site and car-spotters forum than a reliable source. This page, for example, is used to source a number of items in the article McLaren F1 including world record claims. I think it should be removed but would appreciate input from others. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Aoki Mariko phenomenon

Aoki Mariko phenomenon is based off several Japanese sources. I can't find anything in the English literature. Could someone confirm that these?Smallman12q (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Second hand account from a primary source

Decided that it might worth checking for. Source in question is a primary source, to be more precise it is a personal account of the author regarding to the events in question. However in a preceding section of the book the author has noted not being at the time of the event at the location in question. Later when describing the event on entry marked as '14 September' the description is phrased as

Что же здесь произошло?

Я знал следующее.

Новый Белоостров, захваченный было противником 4 сентября и отбитый нами на следующий день, снова три дня назад, 11 сентября, оказался в руках врага...

Rough translation:

What happened here?

I knew the following.

New Beloostrov captured by the enemy was on September 4 and batted us the next day, again, three days ago, on September 11, was in the hands of the enemy...

So the question is, is a second hand account (since the author has already stated not being at the location at the time) from a primary source a reliable source - since at least for me it appears to be rather questionable source.

Source in question: Luknitsky, Pavel (1988) (in Russian). Сквозь всю блокаду [Through the Siege]. Leningrad: Lenizdat. page 58 (In Russian) in article Continuation War used to back up a following statement:

However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day

- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You forgot another source (secondary) which is also used for that statement in the article:
Russia at War, 1941-1945, by Werth:
page 228: In the north, on September 4, the Finns occupied the former frontier station of Beloostrov, twenty miles north of Leningrad, but were thrown out on the following day.
page 265: There is also no doubt that the Finns did, at one moment, push beyond the old frontier, since they captured the Russian frontier town of Beloostrov only twenty miles north-west of Leningrad; here, however, the Russians counter-attacked, and the Finns were thrown out on the very next day, after which this part of the front was stabilised.
-YMB29 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I never forgot it. However Werth does not discuss N. Beloostrov in his text - instead he uses reference just to 'Beloostrov'. This is rather crucial since the nearby S. Beloostrov saw fighting at the time mentioned - as documented in plethora of secondary sources. In addition the Werth does not have relevance to the reliability of Luknitsky's diary. Especially since if you combine information from two separate sources you are already violating wikipedia rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
No, the Werth book is relevant to the text from the article which you quoted, since that text is attributed to these two sources.
Only N. Beloostrov had a station, so the two sources are talking about the same location. -YMB29 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Problem is the Werth is not discussing of any railroad station, instead he is referring to a frontier station. Only location he mentions is 'Beloostrov' which can refer to either of the two possibilities. Just because you make your personal conclusion on the source that it would be discussing of N. Beloostrov it does not mean that it would actually be doing so - that is called OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Like I said before, the station can only refer to a railway station, unless you think it was the 18th century US and not the 20th century USSR... -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong once again, by making the conclusion that it can only refer to a railway station you are already doing OR because the source does not say so. Also i never referred to anything in 18th century US, that is once again all your conclusions and OR from you. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Well if it is not a railway station then what else can it be?
Common sense is not OR... -YMB29 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That is not for us to decide since it is would a conclusion done beyond what the sources are stating. Any 'conclusion' or use of 'common sense' goes beyond what the source is stating. Also for the note that source is still not relevant to the discussion at hand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It confirms the supposedly unreliable source you complain about.
The Werth source says station, if you think that refers to a colonial frontier station, a space station or a shopping station then that is your problem... -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Once again conclusion that it refers to colonial frontier station or space station is again your own OR. If the source does not state which it was then it can not be said in the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If you are claiming that it cannot be said to be a railway station, then you are implying that it might be a colonial frontier or space station... -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The source only specifies it as 'frontier station' however it never states that it would have been a railway station. It might or it might not. Regardless concluding that it was is already OR since it goes beyond what the source states. And only you have referred to it as colonial frontier or space station so it would better for all involved if you kept you OR away from the discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It would benefit everyone if you stopped making false accusations and admitted your OR that was confirmed by a third opinion... -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Which as it happens is not what person giving the third opinion stated. Regardless i see no point to spread that discussion here, it already has it's own discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You are going to ignore third opinion feedback again? -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
As said there is another discussion for this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Also, the correct translation for the above Russian text is:
What happened here?
I knew the following.
Novyi Beloostrov was captured by the enemy on September 4 and retaken by us the next day, but three days ago, on September 11, it was in the hands of the enemy again.
-YMB29 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Luknitsky was a war correspondent. I don't understand why Wanderer602 thinks that he had to personally witness an event for his information to be considered reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter what his position was. The work he made is a personal, unofficial, diary of the events in which the author admits the information regarding the fighting at the N. Beloostrov on 4 September 1941 to be second hand information. That is the only thing that matters. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
He does not admit anything... I still don't understand why you think he had to be there himself for his information to be reliable. -YMB29 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
He states at not being at location at the time of the event and then states that he suddenly 'knew' something which had not witnessed. If it was not first hand information then it was second hand information (by definition, not by conclusion). Also it would be polite if you kept your OR from this discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The only OR is coming from you. You still did not answer my question... -YMB29 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Because it is a second hand account of events described in biased personal diary. And keep your own deductions and conclusions (i.e. your own OR) elsewhere. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
So everything correspondents write is a biased "second hand account of events"? Keep your twisted logic to yourself... -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The information is confirmed by a secondary source and an army report.[8] -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If by secondary source you refer to Werth, then answer is no, the source is question does not discuss of 'railway station'. Which means that the current entry is OR. However if we read the primary source you linked to without analyzing any of its contents or without doing conclusion on it then it has to be said that it does not discuss that N. Beloostrov would have been cleared of enemies - and since doing analysis or conclusion on primary sources is forbidden (needs to be read as it is) it can not be used as a source for such a statement - especially when there were two Beloostrovs next to each other in the Karelian Isthmus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You know other people read this...
The source directly mentions the Finns taking it and being kicked out.
So far you failed in your desperate attempts to prove that it is somehow unreliable. -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, it is a primary and can not be used for analysis. As it does explicitly discuss 'Beloostrov' (not N. Beloostrov) in the second part of the statement - it could mean either of the Beloostrovs in the area - and since it does not say you can not conclude it either way since any analysis or conclusions from primary sources is OR. As you so quaintly put it, leave it to the historians. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It is amazing how quickly you can transform from pushing OR to vehemently fighting against it when you need to...
It does not explicitly discuss N. Beloostrov? Maybe you will notice it now: On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands. -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Only part which discusses N. Beloostrov is the section stating that fighting broke out at there. However rest of the text does not make that rather crucial distinction between the two localities - and since it is a primary source no wikipedia editor can do that conclusion either without it being OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
So are you actually going to claim that the same sentence is talking about two separate locations?? -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It might or it might not. Point is that we can not tell. And since it is a primary source we can not conclude it either way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This is just too funny... -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You may disagree with wikipedia's rules but then again you shouldn't introduce sources which violate it either. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I disagree with your ridiculous claims. -YMB29 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to disagree yet you still can't make any interpretations or conclusions beyond what is already stated in case of a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Which is exactly what you are doing, not me. -YMB29 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Except that was exactly what you were stating just few posts earlier. So are you actually going to claim that the same sentence is talking about two separate locations?? <- there you are demanding that others would agree with the conclusion you made from a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands.

Just to be clear, we are talking about this sentence. What is wrong with it? -YMB29 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the second instance of 'Beloostrov' does not specify which one of the two locations it is referring to and as it is a primary source we can not make conclusions as to which one of them it is referring to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I guess when you are proven dead wrong, all you can do is make up arguments like this... -YMB29 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not an argument, only a statement since the source does not disclose accurately. And since its a primary source we can not do any conclusions over it regardless how much you want to do them. Assuming you want to follow wikipedia's rules that is. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it is an argument you made up as an excuse, which only embarrasses you. -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not an excuse as it merely is directly how the WP:OR and the instructions on how to use primary sources detailed in WP:USINGPRIMARY are laid out. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Comprehending a sentence cannot be OR... -YMB29 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is if it the sentence is from a primary source and requires making a conclusion over its contents. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No conclusion is being made... -YMB29 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If you conclude that 'Beloostrov' mentioned in the source refers to N. Beloostrov instead of S. Beloostrov (or indeed vice versa) you are already doing conclusions from the primary source, and that is OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, go ask about this on the OR noticeboard, if you are not afraid that others will just laugh... -YMB29 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to go to OR noticeboard since the source you are using is a primary source from which no conclusions can be made. You have already admitted as making a conclusion by stating that something was essentially 'blatantly obvious'. That does not matter since it is a conclusion regardless. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, reading comprehension is not OR. If you think it is, you should go ask for help from others. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No, you are 'comprehending' that 'Beloostrov' means 'N. Beloostrov' - that is not comprehending that is concluding. And since it is primary source that can not be done. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter if it is primary or not. This is simple comprehension... -YMB29 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Your 'simple comprehension' already changes some the 'Beloostrov' into 'N. Beloostrov' which is a conclusion, and as such not allowed in wikipedia especially since the source in question is a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No... See the other page where I explained this. -YMB29 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
All you explained is that you concluded that it was N. Beloostrov, nothing else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I explained how ridiculous your claim is. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
All you have explained is how you 'comprehend' that in the given context 'Beloostrov' means 'N. Beloostrov'. That however is already a conclusion - and as such made from a primary source it is also OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No, anyone who can comprehend a sentence in English will understand this. Again, go ask for a third opinion if you are so concerned about this. -YMB29 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't really need to do anything but if you want to use the source you still need to show that it is not OR - by other means than just because you think so. Rules are quite in this instance, no conclusions from primary sources - it simply does not matter how 'blatantly obvious' or 'simple comprehensions' they might be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It will be blatantly obvious to anyone, so you don't want to ask... -YMB29 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There exists other discussion also for this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not think that a "frontier station" is necessarily a railway station? Secondly, someone can at least find a clearer term than "Soviet sources" to describe the sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The source in question is a book based on the diary of a Soviet war correspondent.
There are two towns, N. Beloostrov and S. Beloostrov. N. Beloostrov has a railway station (the last stop before the old Soviet-Finnish border), so when the author writes "frontier station of Beloostrov," which town do you think he refers to? -YMB29 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
If Werth discussed of a 'station' then there wouldn't be much to discuss - however he does not. He explicitly refers to it as 'frontier station'. He does not make any references for it being a railway station - by doing that conclusions you are already doing OR since the source does not state so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
So what else can that mean? You are just being disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That is the problem with your stance, you have already concluded beyond what the source is stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The word "station" existed before railways existed. Even in recent English, "frontier station" might still mean "manned frontier crossing" rather than "frontier railway station". You'd need more context to be certain what the author meant. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Andrew is correct. "Frontier station" can mean the same as "frontier post". In a military context it can mean a fortified outpost near the frontier. It is certainly can't be assumed to be a train station. Zerotalk 11:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The other location was a settlement or village, not a military outpost. Again, this is not the 18th century US...
Yes, it would be incorrect to make that assumption... If one location did not have a train station...
Also, in the Russian translation of the book, the word станция (station) is used[9] and that can only mean a train station.
Wanderer602 is just nitpicking. -YMB29 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something but if S Beloostrov is not the one on the frontier, it will not be the frontier station no matter what the word station is referring to?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The two locations are nearby, so both can be said to be on the frontier, but S. Beloostrov did not have a train station and was not a military outpost.
Furthermore, Wanderer602 is aware that S. Beloostrov was captured by the Finns earlier and the Soviets were not able to retake it, as mentioned in the article [10], so the author cannot be talking about S. Beloostrov. -YMB29 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Both S. Beloostrov and N. Beloostrov were on the frontier before the Winter War. There was no difference there.

As stated by other users term 'frontier station' can refer to other things than 'railway station' - which only verified that your conclusion that it must mean railway station is OR. And since we are editing English Wikipedia and that the original language of the source is English it is hardly relevant what Russian translation of English text states after it has been back-translated into English (as per WP:NOENG).

Statement regarding not being able to retake it is valid in broad context but a according to for example Russian historian Juri Kilin (in the source used for the text section, the book 'Jatkosodan hyökkäystaisteluja 1941', referenced above by YMB29) Soviet forces did reach the S. Beloostrov on exactly the date (5 September) in question after Finns had captured in on the 4 September 1941 and managed to capture it; however the Finnish counter attack to the Soviet counter attack managed to retake the village of S. Beloostrov to the Finns later in 5 September. I cut some parts of the description from the text - since it involved counter attacks and counter attacks against counter attacks - just to keep it simple. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You added the text into the article about the Soviet attacks on S. Beloostrov failing. Now you are trying to say no?
It is a translation of the same book, so WP:NOENG does not apply.
You will find an excuse for everything... -YMB29 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
As the source did, if we observe the whole of the 5 September then the Soviet effort to retake the village failed. Soviet counter attack launched on 5 September against Finnish advances of 4 September was successful in reaching the village (i.e. capturing) but Finnish counter attack to the Soviet counter attack to the Finnish original attack threw the Soviets out from the S. Beloostrov again still on the 5 September. Actually NOENG applies since you deliberately using back to forth translations to enforce your point of view of a certain term which we already have valid English language source (the original). - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The translation can clear doubts about the term, so WP:NOENG has nothing to do with this.
Reaching is not the same as capturing, just so you know... -YMB29 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Translation can, yes, but in this case the source (original work) is already in English so there is no need for translations as per WP:NOENG. Performing personal back and forth translations is actually OR once again as per the guidelines given in wikipedia page defining what is not original research which quite clearly states together with WP:NOENG that English language sources are preferred and that previous translations should be preferred instead of new ones. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It would help if you actually read the policies you refer to carefully...
Also, this is not my personal translation; I quoted a Russian version of the book. -YMB29 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That you did, however the already existing original English work takes precedence over any translations according to wikipedia rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That is what you like to think...
Again, in this case it only helps clear doubts about word usage.
You don't like it because it proves you wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Your whole original research regarding the translation is pointless since the original source was already in English - just like wikipedia rules dictate, English work takes precedence. Just because you dislike what the original source is stating is not a reason to use foreign language translation and then back-translate the term into English. WP:NOENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. - and since the original work is published and reliable source it is preferred over your personal work. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You are still lost... I did not translate anything.
The Russian version of the book states exactly the same thing as the English one.
The word "station" was translated to Russian as "train station", which means the author did mean train station as I have told you. -YMB29 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it does not. It only determines that the translator, not the author, decided that it was such. It has no bearing on the actual English source since the the English language source is the original work and takes precedence over translations in English wikipedia. You are already translating it back to English by telling how it was stated in the Russian translation - and once again the original work with its 'frontier station' takes precedence, it is the official version. Just because you don't like it doesn't allow you to do translate it since valid 'translation' (i.e. original work) already exists. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A translation by an translator/author takes precedence over your ridiculous OR claims.
Anyone can look up the word станция.-YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter since the original work is in English and as such takes precedence - according to wikipedia's rules - over any translations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It does not contradict the original book, only your OR... -YMB29 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter if it contradicts or not. The Russian translation simply does not matter as the original English language work takes precedence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
No, the translation is only used to clarify a doubt that you have. -YMB29 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That still does not matter since the original source is in English and takes precedence. Just because your OR requires the Russian translation of the original English language source to be used does not mean that any kind of translation would take precedence over the original work - given that both this wiki and the source are in English, as per WP:NOENG. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You are just repeating the same thing without understanding what I am saying. -YMB29 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I understood perfectly what you are saying but you have still not read the WP:NOENG: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. - since the English language work in question is the original work there is no reason to even involve the translation since according to wikipedia rules the original English book takes precedence. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You are still just repeating the same thing...
There is no contradiction between the two books for the English version to take precedence. -YMB29 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If you reach a conclusion from a translation that is not in the original source then there is a contradiction between the sources. And since the English source takes precedence the translation is simply irrelevant. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. You claimed that the words used are ambiguous. The Russian translation can be used to resolve this. -YMB29 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Problem with that is that it does not matter what the Russian translation states, since the original work was in English and takes precedence. Just because it is ambiguous does not make the source in any way invalid or unreliable. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Who said that it is invalid or unreliable? I said that the Russian text can be used only to clarify the exact meaning of the words. -YMB29 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No, it can't since the original work written in English takes precedence. As per wikipedia's rules assuming you want to follow them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I don't know what rules you follow, but there is no rule against this. Using a published translation to clarify something does not mean preferring it over the original source. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly were you are wrong, by using a translations instead of the existing English work, especially when the English work is the original work you are violating the WP:VERIFY, namely WP:NOENG - which clearly states following: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (since the English work in question is the original work it is of at least equal quality to a translation from it) - furthermore it continues: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." Which means that the published English work would still be used as a official translation for it instead of your translation from Russian translation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The word станция is station in the original English text, but because you claim that station is too ambiguous, we can refer to the Russian translation to settle this. There is no rule against this, so stop quoting irrelevant text. Can you for once not ignore common sense. You are just arguing because you don't want to admit that you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Problem again is that we can not refer to any translations since the original work was already in English which with its 'frontier station' takes precedence over all your translations back to English as well as over the published translation in to Russian since this is English wikipedia. For example the ambiguity in question might just as well have been author's intention.

And original English text most certainly didn't have word 'станция' in it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well at least you see that...
Once again, I am not translating anything differently. -YMB29 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
That is just the catch, the original work is still the 'translation' of the Russian translation. And since it is published English language source it will take precedence as a translation from anything you state according to wikipedia's rules. It simply does not matter what or how you translate anything from the Russian translation since the original English language book takes precedence regardless. Assuming you want to follow wikipedia's rules that is.

This discussion should be continued on the respective talk page rather than here if there is any need to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but you don't understand how the rules apply in this case. -YMB29 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There's far more text here than I have time to read; however, answering the initial question, secondary sources are interpretations of primary sources. Go look up anything on JSTOR, and the vast majority of articles you get will be based on primary sources. Wikipedia states that we cannot interpret primary sources, but allows us to use secondary sources that have done so. Ryan Vesey 06:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

About melting point and boiling point of francium

The Los Alamos source only gives the number. Do we need additional documentation on prediction or experiments to verify it?--Inspector (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they're the experts. Their word is enough. - Cal Engime (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dog Breed Identification

Source: [11]

Article: List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatalities reported in 2012

Content: The content is a tabular entry for the breed of dog involved in the April 20 attack on Aiden McGrew.

Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever mix

The question is whether the Source is reliable for identifying the breed of dog involved in the attack. In this case, the dispute is whether the breed of dog shown in the tabular entry should the one stated in the source ("golden retriever-Labrador mix") or as it is currently stated in the article ("Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever mix"). There is an extensive discussion here: Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Clear Case of misIdentification. -- Astro$01 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a reporter from an established newspaper who spoke to the dog's owners is a much more reliable source than J. Random Wikipedian. If these editors want to call it a Toller in the article, they'll have to convince The Post and Courier to print a correction. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This situation is clearly that of the opinion of one or two editors based on what they believe they see in the image of Lucky, the dog that attacked and killed the child. It is innappropriate to lable the dog anything more than what the sources claim until and unless true verification is found anywhere that contradicts the information. There is no such source at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My position is

  • The WP:RSes cannot be safely assumed to have had the ability to identify a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever. It's a rare and obscure breed that not even the local animal control authorities can be safely assumed to have been able to recognize it.
  • The ability to identify a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever, or basically any breed, is not that difficult to come by. We can easily learn to identify a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever with tools available to anyone with an internet connection. We as a group are more reliable than your average Animal Control officer and can see that this is apparently a clear case of misidentification: the RSes really seem to be wrong.
  • I don't know how to cite a statement to the effect of "the dog is apparently/appears to be/shares the traits and physical features/looks and sounds like a NSCTR", but I think it can be done by directing any challenger to pictures and videos of the dog in question on the one hand, and confirmed NSDTRs on the other hand and let the the reader be the judge. And also some pictures of Lab/Golden mixes in a third column would help to satisfy a likely challenge. I don't know how to do this, though. Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
No, no and no. Drop the stick and back away from the horse.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

2006 Greenwich Village assault case

Brought to my attention through OTRS Ticket#: 2012022810011972:

The case involves an assault involving a black man named Dwayne Buckle in Newark and 7 lesbians. There is debate about whether Buckle, who was more seriously injured in the incident was the aggressor or the victim, and whether or not the women were acting in self-defense. A related earlier incident involved a lesbian named Sakia Gunn who was killed in Newark. The sentence in question is:

All the women were acquainted with Sakia Gunn, a black lesbian murdered in a hate crime.[citation needed]

The best remotely reliable source I can find for this on Google or Google News/Archives or HighBeam is CounterPunch:

"Being young, they knew the odds of fun were better in the Village; being lesbians, they knew fun was not to be had in the streets of Newark, where, four years earlier, 15-year-old Sakia Gunn was knifed to death by men who thought she was cute–until she told them she was gay." http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/07/05/killer-lesbians-mauled-by-killer-court/

Another source, of unclear reliability, is ThePublicIntellectual.org:

"All of the New Jersey 7 either knew Sakia Gunn personally or knew that she had been murdered in a street harassment incident three years earlier. The media, they say, helped foster an environment that made it easy to mischaracterize the women’s acts of self-defense." http://thepublicintellectual.org/2011/07/18/the-case-of-the-killer-lesbians/

One last source, also of low reliability, is NYC IndyMedia:

"All of the seven women knew and went to school with Sakia Gunn, a 19-year-old butch lesbian who was stabbed to death in Newark, N.J., in May 2003. " http://nyc.indymedia.org/or/2007/07/88068.html

I'd appreciate thoughts about these three sources, as the mention of Sakia Gunn is apparently controversial and requires a closer look. Cheers and thanks! Ocaasi t | c 16:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't seem good enough for us to state they were acquainted with her personally. We may be able to use them to write that commentary on the incident connected the cases after the fact. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

ESPN as source for ongoing NCAA conference realignment

This has probably come up before, but are reports like [12] considered RS to support that Butler & Xavier universities are joining the new Big East Conference? If not, what about the SportsCenter TV show, which also supports the above? --96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In summary:

Source(s): SportsCenter broadcast from 2013-02-28, and ESPN article

Articles: Any article which lists the members/future members of the Big East Conference, either the current one or the new one being established by the "Catholic 7", or lists conference membership changes of NCAA members.

Including but not limited to:

Content: Any content such as running text, timelines of conference affiliation, conference membership tables, etc. that indicate that Butler University and Xavier University will be members of the newly-established "Big East" later this year. Example diff: [13]

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

With in-text attribution (i.e. "ESPN reported..."), I don't see why these wouldn't be OK. One concern is WP:CRYSTAL. Location (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Smacks of recentism to me. Why not just wait for the published sources?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
what do you mean by "published sources"? i.e. why are the above sources not "published sources"? 96.32.138.125 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I should have said "written" sources. Chances are ESPN.com will have the information online by the time it made it to your TV. For some reason I get the feeling that the TV shows are being used to "get the scoop". Nothing wrong with that I guess, but its a lot easier to use an online source. Just my 2 cents.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I did link to an ESPN.com article above 96.32.138.125 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is OK, but for a report you heard on Sportscenter you would need to cite a published video or transcript of the broadcast. Location (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
We don't have a preference for written vs audiovisual sources. I think the sources are probably okay, but I think that WP:INTEXT attribution would be appropriate and expected by our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

www.magweb.com

This looks like a web scraper to me and I can't find any indication that they have a reputation for fact checking. It is used for bio information in the article Nikita Ramsey as http://www.magweb.com/actors/nikita_ramsey# I'm not certain, though, so would like other opinions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it's anywhere as reliable as IMdB, which is at least accepted for such routine things as list of films and roles, , But what information do you see there that could possibly be used in the article? DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It was being used as a reference to support birth date in the article. I suspect it got the info from IMDb, they don't say where the info is from. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I got this. Swapping it out with a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I put in a reliable source for an approximation of the birth date as I presumed magweb.com wasn't usable. I couldn't find anything reliable that gave specific info that meets requirements at WP:BLPPRIVACY. Would be nice to find something though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AYDOGDY KURBANOV on History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire)

Resolved
 – Dr. (Prof.) Aydogdy Kurbanov can be cited in the WP Articles -->> "Hephthalites" (Hephthalite Empire), "Gurjar", "Rajput"; the Consensus favors Dr. Kurbanov, unanimously !! ← Abstruce 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dear ALL

  • Source: Dr. Aydogdy Kurbanov [14]
  • Content: The content (all) from this very specific source (by Dr. Kurbanov) on the whole -->> www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000007165/01_Text.pdf . Please do mind that in the mentioned source, Dr. Kurbanov has firmly advocated -->> "As a result of the merging of the Hephthalites and the Gujars with population from northwestern India, the Rajputs (from Sanskrit “rajputra” – “son of the rajah”) formed."

    It is noteworthy that at the present moment, this very source ( www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000007165/01_Text.pdf ) is already cited as much as 6 times in the Article, "Hephthalite Empire"; but is being contested in the Article, "Rajput" by a Gentleman !!

    This discussion is initiated to have a word on -->> whether Dr. Kurbanov is "worthy of trust" on "History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire)". And, to neutrally work-up (or have) a firm decision on whether the above-mentioned source ( www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDISS_derivate_000000007165/01_Text.pdf ) can be cited in the WP Articles -->> "Hephthalites" (Hephthalite Empire), "Gurjar", "Rajput") or not ?!

Nothing wrong with Kurbanov - his is one of several varying theories. I am not aware that anyone has contested his reliability at Rajput or the associated talk page. Please note that we do not usually provide every possible source in support of a statement - see WP:CITEKILL. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Friend, to say the least, the present sentence in the WP Article "Rajput" is "under-explained". The present sentence is,

One theory espouses that with the collapse of the Gupta empire from the late 6th century, the invading Hephthalites (White Huns) were probably integrated within the Indian society.

So, I cited Dr. Kurbanov, who provides Us some more (new) valuable information, as well. I did add something new; but, it was removed Dr. Kurbanov advocates,

As a result of the merging of the Hephthalites and the Gujars with population from northwestern India, the Rajputs (from Sanskrit “rajputra” – “son of the rajah”) formed.

Anyways, the discussion is most certainly not very much limited to any specific "revision" of any specific WP Article, definitely not. So, consider it a request to leave that to a possible up-coming discussion at Talk:Rajput.

As the title of the section suggests, it has been initiated to work-up a firm decision on -->> whether Dr. Kurbanov is "worthy of trust" on "History and Study of the Hephthalites (Hephthalite Empire)". Once, We work-up a firm decision on this, We can always discuss things on concerned WP Articles' talk pages. And, Thank You for Your firm comments on the subject under discussion, Dear ← Abstruce 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

He's an academic and this is his main area of research interest. Reliable, and it would be unusual not to refer to his work. If other academics disagree with his conclusions, mention both viewpoints. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Professional sports databases

At WP:FAC there is currently debate about whether a sports database such as this is a Wikipedia:PRIMARY source or whether it is a WP:RS SECONDARY source. In prior FAC debates, notably for Tyrone Wheatley. Databases such as these were considered reliable sources for statistical claims. Does PRIMARY have relevance in this matter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's complicated, because the season stats are probably independent and primary but the comparison to similar players is independent and secondary, but why does it matter in this instance? That type of source is presumably as accurate as humanly possible, and the sources in this article are being used in ways that anyone, even a ten-year-old sports fan, would be able to figure out whether the article's content is verified by the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Bagumba (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5 cares a great deal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Tony: The argument was WP:PRIMARY, which is under WP:OR. There is no question the the data is reliable. The debate is that it is original research to mention the statistic more often than WP:SECONDARY do. Therefore, this is an inappropriate noticeboard for this subject.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Record Charts - Blogs and Forums as sources

Sources:

  • MediaSource Forum [16], specifically [17]
  • Canadian Active Rock & Alt Rock Chart Archive. [18]

Articles:

I've removed these as sources, based on the fact that they are respectively, an internet forum and a blog. The forum posters purport to be posting chart lists, but there is no way to be certain that they are accurate. The blogspot blog appears to be a matter of some anonymous blogger cutting and pasting charts from another source (which probably means that they are accurate, but blatant copyright violations). I checked to see whether some less stringent sourcing is routinely accepted for record chart list articles, and found that the issue had previously been discussed at Talk:Record Charts, wherein the consensus was that a blogspot blog was never a reliable source for such purposes. [21]. So, I felt secure in removing th sources, and leaving a note on the editor's page, User_talk:FogDevil#Record_Lists_-_Sources Nevertheless, the editor who has diligently maintained these two articles, relying exclusively on these two sources, is understandably interested in what others may say on the issue.

Thoughts? Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You took the correct action.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
These charts are not archived anywhere else. Removing these links now leaves unsourced chart positions all over the place, and adding in new chart positions without using these links would be unsourced information, which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.
I started archiving them myself (I thought that it was already known that I'm the one running that site, but it appears that may not be the case) so that I could add the chart positions to Wikipedia without having unverified content.
I can understand not using someone's personal blog as a source on Wikipedia, but it is not a personal blog. It is not a place where I insert my own thoughts and feelings. It is an archive that shows facts.
Is it considered a blog just because "blogspot" is in the URL? Would this be considered a fine source if I bought a domain and hosted the archive there? It would still be the exact same site. Could I go to webs.com, create a site, and host the same information? It would be a free-hosted website then, not a blog. But still with the same information. FogDevil 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right that "blog" is a red flag to us, but that's just a quick rule of thumb. Blogs are often discussed here, and some are acceptable as RS. One common reason why blogs become acceptable to us as sources is if the author also publishes in other media and can be shown to be an expert on the subject. Andrew Dalby 10:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. It's not that the site is hosted at Blogspot, it's that it is just some anonoymous user's fansite. It wouldn't matter where it's hosted. I understand the problem that Mediabase doesn't archive its charts online, and that it has added a robots.txt to its website which prevents anyone else, like the Internet Archive, from archiving it automatically. However, it is a pretty clear copyright violation for you to simply cut and paste Mediabase's charts into your website, and then link to your website as a source. (See the copyright notice at the end of the big red block underneath every chart on the Mediabase website?[22] Yeah, that big red block - the one you don't bother to copy onto your website when you're copying the charts) Even if we regarded this as a "covenience link", WP:LINKVIO would preclude using it as a source in this circumstance. Fladrif (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
But I do say that it's published by them. Can't I just add the text in the red box to my site, then? FogDevil 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what you do, we can never link to copyright violations. Unless you have written permission, you are violating the publisher's copyright. Of course, you can copy the red box if you like, it's simply that doing that doesn't change anything with respect to our policy. A copyright notice doesn't mean you can copy it as long as you attribute it and/or include the copyright notice, it means you have to get permission to make a copy. Yworo (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Judging by that, can I just have the chart positions in text instead of a screenshot? FogDevil 03:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If I've understood the question correctly, the answer's no: taking a whole page (or a large part of a page) from someone else's website without permission is a breach of copyright, and the format in which you reproduce it doesn't change that. But look, if they've taken a decision not to archive this stuff, it's possible that they will give you permission. You might as well ask them :) Andrew Dalby 09:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a risky move. There must be a reason why they don't have it archived. If they'd get mad at it, I don't want to bring attention to the site. But then again, it's possible that they do know about the site, but haven't said anything because they don't mind. Also, it's hard to grasp how Allmusic can spread full charts throughout their site and still be allowed to be linked to here...and acharts.us...and zobbel.de...FogDevil 14:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Acharts and zobbel.de have been previously discussed several times here at WP:RSN:

The consensus as I read those discussions was that it these kinds of anonymous, self-published aggregations and archives of charts originally published by other sources do not qualify as a reliable source, do not meet the requirements for convenience links and should not be used. I add that, on top of that, absent written permission, they violate the copyright of the original charts. Why the Wikipedia:Record_charts guideline would list them as acceptable sources is a mystery to me, as I see no serious discussion there about why it was included. References to these kinds of sources should be removed from articles, and they should be listed as unacceptable as a source on the Record Charts Project. The unfortunate fact that these, and similar sources, are cited literally thousands of times on Wikipedia is both (a) unfortunate and (b) WP:OTHERSTUFF insofar as being some kind of precedent for using your site as a source. Fladrif (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine, if this place doesn't want my help, I won't give it. FogDevil 21:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't consider opening Wikipedia up to possible legal action for contributory copyright infringement to be "help". We would of course be delighted if you help in some other manner. Yworo (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

essortment/PageWise

I notice we have a number of articles cited to essortment.com/PageWise as if it were a journal. My impression is that it's actually more like a vanity press. Mangoe (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is one of Demand Media's brands. It is a content mill. Tens of thousands of writers get paid $10-$15 per article to grind out content on anything. Given that they publish 5000 articles per day by 13,000 freelancers[23], there is no realistic possibility that there is any effective editorial oversight. The essortment articles are anonymous, unsourced, with no assurance that the authors know anything at all about the subject matter, and are not editorially reviewed. and should not be regarded as a reliable source. Fladrif (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Undiscovered Scotland

In Template:Did you know nominations/Symbister, Symbister House, the web site Undiscovered Scotland is used as a source for the hook: "... that Symbister House (pictured) in Symbister, on the island of Whalsay in Shetland Islands, is reputed to be haunted by an old sailor who was murdered by the gardener during a game of cards?"; specifically the page: "WhalsayUndiscovered Scotland: The Ultimate Online Guide". Undiscovered Scotland. Retrieved 1 February 2013. I contend that Undiscovered Scotland's articles are paid-for placements and are thus not eligible as reliable sources. Please advise linking to policy and/or guidelines where appropriate --Senra (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say not reliable for the claim - That said the claim itself can be reliably sources Church Records from 1867 record it as haunted but no detail [24], Page 96 of "The Folklore of Orkney and Shetland" 1975 Marwick [25] give it as haunted by a seaman murdered by the gardener. There may be other reasonable references I'm missing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Thank you for your response. DYK issue cleared using your source. --Senra (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


While your specific Query was resolved it worried me that Dr Blofeld made the claim "Ask WP:Scotland, it's a top website on Scottish subjects which is used as a source for hundreds of articles on here." so I did a check and we have something like 578 articles using this as a reference. This is problematic undiscoveredscotland.co.uk gives no detail as to the reliability of any of its claims at best it's a tertiary source which makes no reference to its secondary sources, at worst its a mess of otherwise unverifiable material that if it can be verified should be sourced to the source of that verification not undiscovered Scotland. The material gives no credit to the author and may be in some cases either commercial in nature or the author may not be a reliable expert in the fields of local history/geography/Travel or may even be user added. As Senra notes above it is fully advertising orientated, and while the design is standards compliant it is rather dated giving the real concern that the content itself may also be dated. Generally these add up to a number of failures of WP:ELNO and WP:SOURCES and I feel that use of the site as a source should be discontinued with all existing pages amended to use other more reliable sites. Is this likewise the feeling of other WP:RSN editors? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Further to above, I note that it's been flagged as Spam on several occasions over the years but that no action has been taken to clean up these references like the following Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archive_56#undiscoveredscotland.co.uk_advertising_spamming_-_please_help_halt Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/undiscoveredscotland.co.uk annoyingly it's also been given as a suitable source in a Peer Review and as a reason for notability in several AfDs. As such I've embarked on a bold clear-up having completed removal of it as an External Link, and now removing occasions where it's used as a reference despite better reference texts already being cited, I'll leave it in temporarily where it stands as a sole source for cited material until someone can verify whether better sources exist to replace it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In addition to above several fatual errors in the source are now clear, a street in falkirk recorded as the shortest in the UK (which it was once but not for decades), Casualty figures for George Monck's sacking of Dundee that agree with no scholarly source, claims regarding settlements at the extremities of the UK that aren't as far east west or north as other settlements listed within Wikipedia, I even found a BLP issue where a family was reported to have died out only for a family freind to had edited the article to state that burkes peerage shows two of them still alive and living locally. I'm doing my best to sort these out where I can, but sometimes they could be the only source in the whole article and impossible to replace. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that.
The website doesn't name its authors—but authors' names are not required.
The website doesn't name its sources—but a list of sources is not required.
The website contains advertising—but ads are normal for many types of good sources.
I agree that it's pointless in cases where better refs are named, but depending on the exact claim being made, it might be strong enough to support the claim. So I think Stuart's work is probably striking the right balance: remove it if it's redundant, and leave it as "probably better than nothing (for now)" in the other cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


The problem isn't that it's authors names aren't mentioned (it's Ken and Maureen Lussey) or that it doesn't name its sources (even though it Close-Paraphrases some of them) - the real problem lies in the fact that because of both of these it falls into the exact area and problems of a Self- Published source - showing no real evidence of expertise (Ken Lussey wrote a book on hitchhiking in the early 80s but the site covers and is cited in areas such as history and geography and natural sciences in a way that requires more expert interpretation than that of a travel writer. He also appears to have worked as a civil servant rather than writer since then.), and no strong evidence of editorial standards or fact checking - after a removal on Barry Mill was reverted by an Editor (I believed that a source in the article covered the material, but I was wrong) I worked out the source which the Lusseys had used, ordered it and went on to find multiple errors in the transfer from the secondary source to their tertiary source at least two of which made their way into our work. In another article I found the name of a hill was wrong in their article leading to another error here. As with any SPS we should be using it only in limited occasions with rigorous checking of the claim being made - if the claim is significant or substantial and can't be sourced to any other reliable/scholarly source it should really be removed (or as I've been doing commented out) until a significantly better source can be found that allows the claim to be traced.
The Web Advertising, issue I see as more of a problem when the site is used as an External Link - we're driving traffic there not because particular claims need verified but because additional unverified claims are made there, this in turn gives them hits to sell. In short I feel doing this fails point 2,4,5, and 11 of our External Links to be avoided policy. I did originally think that there had been a deliberate attempt pre-2006 to insert these links into wikipedia for that purpose, however I later came across Ken Lussey's own account and it has very few edits or changes. The majority of insertions were carried out by early wikipedians in the days when sourcing requirements were much lighter and it's use was seen as acceptable - many of these editors stopped editing by the time it was reported as linkspam in 2006 although a few are still here.
There are some articles that are going to be trouble - geographical gazetteer articles often have it sourcing some non-controversial fact or fact that isn't directly related to the article. Take Portuairk for instance, it's used to source the fact that Kilchoan is the most westerly village on mainland UK (non-controversial) but it's the only source in the whole article even though it doesn't mention Portuairk. Another I'm looking at just now is Gourdon, Aberdeenshire where it's used to source the adjective "natural" when discussing the village harbour, no one else uses this adjective but geographically it's likely to be true. Is it non-controversial enough to leave, insignificant enough to remove, or one where it should be left despite the significant likelihood nothing better will ever come along? RoRo ferries also seem to be problematic at replacing the sources and the deletionist in me actually wonders why we're covering these at all but I have a hard enough time trying to delete non-notable bus articles that I don't want to start the same with insignificant ferries. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Democracy Now! in general

I don't know where to ask if a source is reliable in general. Please disregard if posting here is inappropriate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking WP:RS, I believe it is: "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective...Sometimes 'non-neutral' sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." All the best, Miniapolis 03:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Political magazine or news aggregator. Look at the writer's credentials and whether the piece is commentary, reportage or investigative journalism. Most of the factual information can be found in other sources. Bias is not the main factor. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. Very informative.

Speaking of "news aggregator", would you say The American Bazaar is such? You don't have to answer this one, as it is a bit off topic, but I see lots of stories there attributed to "Bureau report". Many of these stories are not written by American Bazaar. This, for example, is a PR Newswire bit, but no attribution. Is that allowed? If the same bit isn't found elsewhere, should that source be considered unreliable? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's best for us to look at specific cases rather than giving general rulings. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a reliable souce for news. TFD (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you talking about Democracy Now or The American Bazaar, TFD? If you are addressing Democracy Now, it's acceptable only if it is attributed to them. Democracy Now is no more an objective and reliable source than any other hyperpartisan source (such as WND or CNS), and I agree with Itsmejudith that it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Democracy Now often buries news in a heavy dose of editorializing, and if it's only available through Democracy Now, it's likely that WP:UNDUE needs to be considered; bias is only a secondary issue, not the primary reason for exclusion.
As for The American Bazaar, if it is displaying PR Newswire releases as "bureau reports", I'd tend to think that it is useless as a reliable source. PR releases, unless identified as such, do not meet the reliability threshold, since they are very selective in their presentation. A source that presents news releases as straight news is problematic at best. Horologium (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Very informative and useful feedback. Thank you all for the thoughful response. It's appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to Democracy Now! which is the subject of the discussion thread. The fact that you disagree with their editorial policies does not mean their facts are wrong. Reliability and partisanship are two separate concepts covered by two separate policies. As for American Bazaar, articles in reliable media do not have to be signed in order to be reliable. Most news reports are not signed, but are considered reliable because the source has a reputation for accuracy. TFD (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said, regardless of their editorial stance, the main concern is undue weight, not factual accuracy. Something which is only covered by Democracy Now! is likely to be of marginal notability (especially in a BLP) as is anything that is only covered by a single strongly partisan source, even one which exercises editorial oversight and fact-checking. The original request was for an overarching "generally reliable" ruling; I suggested that it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis instead, with a careful look at avoiding an introduction of undue weight or coatracks into articles. My suggestion to attribute it is to clarify the source of the statement, which is something that I support with any overtly partisan organization, whatever their affiliation. As for making coatracks, you can see an elaborate version at User:Horologium/BLP, which was actually in the biography of a (marginally) notable living person. WP:COATRACK may still be only an essay, but it's widely cited, and the concern behind the essay is relevant, especially in BLP cases (the essay predates our BLP policy).
The problem with the American Bazaar is that it is presenting PR pieces as news, without disclosing that they are PR pieces. There is a reason that we generally do not allow PR releases on BLP pages; they are essentially self-published and either unduly promote the individual who wrote the piece, or they serve to attack another person, which is absolutely forbidden. The specific piece Anna linked to above is a positive one, so it's less damaging than an attack PR piece, but it's a bit too efffusive, and there is no indication that it is a PR piece, not a straight news item. Sources which don't make that distinction should not be generally considered to be reliable. It's not because it is unsigned (almost nothing in The Economist, which is unquestionably reliable, is signed), it's that it is a PR puff piece masquerading as news. Horologium (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The question was posted here not WP:NPOVN. Information that has received little coverage may have little significance, but that depends on the notability of the subject. I do not see however that their news reporting differs from other news sources.[26] TFD (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't even have to ask, but...

Are these reliable sources? They are being used in the article Very Serious People

[27] is being used for the original research. "Digby at Hullabaloo"

Nope. Personal blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[28] is being used IMO for original research via the following statement. "The term has been in use since at least 2006"

Still nope. Another personal blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[29] is being used for the following statement. "Atrios defined it as "The idiotic assholes who rule us," in response to a video of Senator Alan Simpson with regards to the Bowles-Simpson Commission." - Which may be true, but I don't believe that it is a reliable source.

Same source as above. Personal blog.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[30] is being used for the following original research. "By 2007 it was in use by liberal bloggers Matt Stoller at MYDD". This one is boarderline I must admit. Is opednews a reliable source? Arzel (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Now, this last one is a bit more comlicated, but it seems to be an actual news organisation, although it aggriagtes its news form other sources. This article is basicly a news blog as the site appears to have proper editorial oversite but would have to be attributed to the author and publication. The author is an established jounalist who's credibility is not in question. [31].--Amadscientist (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Arzel (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I would say that dated posts on Atrios's personal blog are a reliable source for Atrios's own use of the term, which Paul Krugman's post establishes as notable. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You cannot use it from there as that isn't considered a primary source unless mentioned in a secondary, previously published RS. It is a personal blog which is not an acceptable source for even opinion. You may be thinking of an official webpage for referencing information about the subject itself. Thats not what this is. I have a blog on that site...anyone can have one.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Digby and Atrios are both reliable sources and valid per WP:NEWSBLOG. To primary sources:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

In this case what is being said by them is not in dispute, (ie that Atrios said x). CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS - unless restricted by another policy... --Onorem♠Dil 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Claims that these sources use the term "Very Serious People" are, in accordance with WP:PRIMARY, "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Any source has to be reliable in context, and while a blog may not be a reliable source for scientific, historical, medical, etc. information, it is a perfectly reliable sources for what words appeared on that blog. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
As a self-published source, it could be used in an article about the blog or the blogger, but typically not elsewhere. Such a source can never be used for information or opinion about a living person, though. WP:BLPSPS. Yworo (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS says that self-published sources are acceptable for information about their author (with conditions), and I don't see what living person this information reflects on other than Atrios. - Cal Engime (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
If it could be proven with some sources that Atrios is the originator of the term, rather than Krugman's statement that got it from him, and the phrase was attributed to him, I could see it being OK to use his blog as a source for the definition. However, this is not the case. In fact, as per the talk page, the phrase is likely to have been in used long before being used by Atrios. At the very least, I think we can agree that we cannot use the date on his blog as a form of OR to determine the history of the phrase. Arzel (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that's sort of moot now. Collect showed at Talk:Very Serious People that the phrase dates to the early 20th century and gave an example, which I quote: see G. K. Chesterton in The Well and the Shadows [32] flippancies of this sort are only used by a very serious person, and Mr. Bernard Shaw is a very serious person. Yworo (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is very simple. As a personal blog it cannot be used as a primary source because it is a self published blog. If there were mention in a secondary, reliable source about the material it could be seen and used to illustrate the point as a primary source to that information as previously published in an RS. The use of self published material is very limited. Here we are simply trying to source a claim or statement made by a figure who, while notable as a blogger, is not notable, or has expert experiance in a particular field that would make the inclusion encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In addition, to go looking for examples of a phrase in order to build an article about the phrase would be original research. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I think everyone is agreeing in practice, but I find Amadscientist's explanation a bit confusing myself, and I am not sure I agree with that explanation. Primary sources can be used and blogs can be used, in particular situation. This blog can be used as a source about the opinions of the writer for example, but I understand that is not the case here. I think the point is that this blog does not appear to be reliable for non-obvious "research", which is how I would categorize a statement about word use history.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Andrew but you are incorrect. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (bolding added for emphasis):

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited

as well as:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

A personal blog may be used to source material about the figure:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves

However, a personal blog cannot be used to promote or summarise the authors opinion as that is unduley self serving and promotional. But the fact is, the first two uses of Atrios are being used as the primary source to claim a fact and is not even attributed. This is not appropriate use of a primary source. This requires secondary reliable sourcing. The second use (ref 8) is a BLP violation and should be removed immediatly as it uses the personal blog to involve claims about third parties (Alan Simpson).

Atrios is simply a personal blog and should not be used to source facts (even the fact that he may have mentioned something in that blog), or source his opinion of third parties.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think your explanation is a bit confused about what is wrong here. It is hard to connect the different citations you make into any logical argument. For example just summarising a blog author's opinion is not by definition contrary to WP:RS because a person's opinion is not necessarily self serving, and the parenthesis in your concluding sentence is wrong. But in this case I suppose that is irrelevant. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I got what is wrong here correct, but I would say that my opinion of what is promotional may be opinion, however I would question the use of a personal blog to mention any opinion to be primary sourcing and without a secondary source mention it shouldn't be used. Regardeless, the blog is being used in the manner I mentioned.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That is closer to how I would put it. Thing is that the need for a secondary source which you mention is really more to do with fulfilling the needs of other policies such as WP:NOTE and WP:DUE. Personal blogs are normally RELIABLE sources for what specific personal blog writers have written. But the personal blogs need to be noteworthy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


I shouldn't have to ask again, but a couple of editors are pushing the issue in order to save the article.

Unpublished working paper which doesn't even use the phrase "Very Serious People" in order to give weight to the personal blog posting which mentions the phrase. This has to be pushing the bounds of WP:TE. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is a person's own CV a reliable source, particulalry for BLP?

Is a CV generally considered a reliable source? It does not in any way seem to fit the definition. I assume this discussion has been done before, and I hope someone can point me in the right direction? Thank you, -00:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It depends what it's referencing, but I can't see it being a reliable source for much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS would permit such a source if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" and it is "not unduly self-serving." - Cal Engime (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
By its nature, there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; studies show that the percentage of people who lie on their CVs is rather high, in the 40 to greater than 50% range. Why would Wikipedia consider an inherently falsifiable self-serving document as a reliable source? Resumes are unduly self-serving, that is why people lie on them. Thanks for taking time to reply. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Our major problem with BLPs is inaccurate or unsourced negatives about a person. CVs don't contain negatives, so they won't be a problem on that front. But the positives may be a little exaggerated. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A secondary problem with BLPs is people using Wikipedia to sell themselves or their product through their biographies. A policy that allows sourcing to CVs can only help this second problem along. CVs are inherently unreliable sources; there should be no slack in theis area, imo. And, while hate pages are easy to catch, Wikipedia continues to have a problem allowing people to misuse their own articles to promote themselves. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's slightly odd, though, to accept a personal website as potentially usable (on the subject of that person) and never to accept a CV. The issues are the same, it seems to me. I suggest, for example, if other reliable sources provide a fact (e.g. a professorship), and the CV adds dates, I would cite the dates from the CV. Andrew Dalby 09:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
But I think that personal websites are the same issue, and Wikipedia overuses them. If this information is found nowhere else, maybe it is due to lack of notability. Wikipedia keeps lowering the bar on notability, like the recent Wikipedia editor whose article was mostly tied to blog posts. I think Wikipedia has turned into a closed and limited social networking club that makes self-serving decisions, but that is another discussion, as this has moved on to. I might be okay with using dates from a CV to support an otherwise reliably sourced fact, but that was not the case here, a DYK hook sourced entirely, and badly, to a CV. Thanks for the input. -166.137.210.21 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
They are fine for purely factual information about the person but some judgment is required. Things like professional name, work history (as long as it is not treated as complete), birth information (although birth date for actors is sometimes faked if given at all). For bio articles WP:BLPPRIVACY says we need some indication that the article subject is OK with the release of some key birth data and a CV would meet that requirement if that data is given there. Not everything a person says about themselves is "unduly" self seroving. It should be fairly obvious which parts of a given CV are unduly self-serving and should not be used. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with most of the commenters here. You may use it, and you should treat it just like a person's own website. Also, given that the subject's own website is the usual published source for the CVs, it would be silly to say "You can cite this web page to say she went to this university, but this other web page, which looks a CV and contains the same information, is not reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It does depend on who the person is. A mayor of a major city is quite unlikely to lie about their date of birth. It's not impossible that they would, but no source is infallible. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Birthdates are not standard on CVs, although this is US. The information most likely to be inflated and to require interpretation is job skills. There are too many good reasons not to use them that have already been addressed. Most allowable information is either available elsewhere, or if not, should raise questions of notability anyhow. Birthdates are not standard on resumes because of the illegality of asking the question for a job. No source is infallible, but the information available shows that resumes are likely to contain false information up to or more than half the time. This is more than not infallible, it is like using sensationalist newsrags to weigh the information in a BLP. If you know the source has high fallibility, it should not be considered reliable. Resumes are inherently unreliable. -166.137.210.19 (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Birth date was an example. Another would be educational institutions attended. There are many categories of notable people who are unlikely to lie about such simple facts. We need to apply commonsense and disregard claims that are just puffing up. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can only go with the information that I have studies that show that Americans have a high percentage of falsification on their resumes, including politicians and academicians. You now suggest that we should have editors individually evaluate the reliability of a source? It seems to me that CVs are the example of the type of material we should not be using on Wikipedia. If we can only get their academic records from their resumes, maybe that information itself is not so noteworthy. Maybe the person is not so noteworthy. Deciding that applying common sense is the way to go with Wikipedia editors is kinda like saying, well, our community consensus on reliable sources is not worth much, so just decide yourself. The community consensus on reliable sources on Wikipedia is solid, imo; so it should not be diluted to "common sense," a value judgement. Not all information is available from reliable sources. That information should simply be excluded from Wikipedia, rather than having to decided individually what you can about the reliability of a CV. -15:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's cut to the chase. These kinds of questions are impossible to answer without the following information, which is lacking in this query: (i) what is the article we are talking about here? (ii) where exactly is the CV published? On someone's website, or social media site, or on some third-party site like their employer or a conference host? Provide a link. (iii) what information from the CV do you propose to include in the Wikipedia article? I can't comment intelligently on the request until I have all that information. Fladrif (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I was posting here for the information about CVs in general. Does it matter what information we get from a CV? A couple people seem to be saying it can be considered a reliable source for some information, but not for other information, in spite of resumes being shown by studies to be often unreliable. The National Enquirer probably has some factual information in it. Should editors be deciding what is factual and using it in Wikipedia articles cited to the tabloid? That seems like nonsense. Because I have read studies (and you can do a google scholar search and find them) that show that resumes and CVs are often inflated and inaccurate, I questioned the use of a CV to establish facts in a BLP, and I asked for general information about using CVs. However, because the article of interest is a BLP, and I am questioning generally the reliability of CVs without reference to a specific living person's BLP, I deem it inappropriate to tie this question in general to a specific BLP on this noticeboard. What purpose would that serve? They're either reliable or they're not. And, like blogs, not should be the standard. My opinion. -150.135.210.79 (talk)

Anyway, this is just a noticeboard, and I thank those who posted for taking the time to provide me with links and background. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If the cv is posted on the person's website then treat it like anything else posted there. If it is not, e.g., if they send you a copy, then ignore it. TFD (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


If we use a subject's website or CV, then the article text should attribute the text sourced to the website or CV, not just cite it as people often ignore citations. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

In September 2012, the Daily Caller reported that they had obtained emails showing that staff members of Eric Holder's communication staff worked with Media Matters to criticize coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident.[3] The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.[4]

  1. ^ The Ancient World: Dictionary of World Biography, Volume 1, 2003 - By Christina J. Moose, Taylor & Francis - p. 311 - books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1579580408
  2. ^ The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society... > No. 2, Apr., 1926 - p. 285 -http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25220950?uid=3737536&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101484182761
  3. ^ Matthew Boyle (19 September 2012). "Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press". Daily Caller. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
  4. ^ "Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics". Fox News. 18 September 2012. Retrieved 24 February 2013.

The central issue of the disputed text is the question of the reliability of the Daily Caller (TDC) to provide analysis of emails they obtained and subsequently published via a FOIA request. The Daily Caller claims to be a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, in-depth investigations, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news. They exhibit editorial oversight publish corrections. The article in question has a byline and the author attended journalism school.

The relevant text from the Daily Caller states:

Internal Department of Justice emails obtained by The Daily Caller show Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications staff has collaborated with the left-wing advocacy group Media Matters for America in an attempt to quell news stories about scandals plaguing Holder and America’s top law enforcement agency.

Dozens of pages of emails between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and Media Matters staffers show Schmaler, Holder’s top press defender, working with Media Matters to attack reporters covering DOJ scandals. TheDC obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Emails sent in September and November 2010 show Schmaler working with Media Matters staffer Jeremy Holden on attacking news coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation scandal.

No one is seriously questioning whether or not TDC obtained DOJ emails via a FOIA request, but rather wither TDC is competent to provide analysis (and the text is clear on the attribution) that DOJ staff members coordinated with Media Matters to criticize coverage of, inter alia, the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Clearly TDC should be a reliable source for their attributed analysis.

Ad-hominem criticism of TDC notwithstanding, which should be irrelevant because this specific source is either reliable or it is not, we have corroboration of TDC's analysis from Fox News article titled Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics of which the lede states Newly published emails show the top spokeswoman at the U.S. Justice Department regularly collaborating with the liberal advocacy group Media Matters on stories that slam the administration's critics. which is a clear endorsement of the analysis performed by TDC. The article further mentions TNBPP case stating (emphasis added) Emails from late 2010 also reportedly showed Schmaler sending Media Matters information to help challenge claims that the department dealt lightly with New Black Panther members who allegedly intimidated voters in Philadelphia in 2008.. Fox is indeed commenting on TDC's analysis, and short of any negative critique (there is none) this supports the endorsement found in the lede.

Now let's be candid. Executive branches often leak information to friendly news sources (though usually we aren't privy to such machinations) so this isn't earth shattering stuff, but it is relevant to this specific article. As we should evaluate sources on a case by case basis, in this case is no credible evidence that TDC is not reliable. Their sole source is documents produced by the DOJ. No anonymous sources or tipsters.

So, I ask the folks at RSN to comment on whether or not the sources presented are reliable for the provided text.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note Some editors have expressed a concern that including this text violates BLP policy. While this might be a discussion that is needed, this is not the appropriate venue for that discussion.

Comments by others

According to Teavanigelicals, a book sympathetic to conservative media (Brody, D. Zondervan, 2012, pp. 199-200), "The Daily Caller is a 24-hour online news site cofounded by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel, a former policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney." Matt Gertz, the deputy research director at Media Matters for America, a "progressive" watchdog on conservative media, accused Matthew Boyle, the author of the report, of "shoddy journalism", called his writing "conspiracy-minded" and says it "has involved inventing congressional testimony and pushing claims for which he admits he has no evidence." According to Gertz, Boyle left his job at the Daily Caller after they "had all but retracted one of his stories."[33] A representative of Reuters said they refused to pick up its series on Media Matters, which is the source in question, because it was "bad journalism and lame propaganda." (Race-baiter, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 57-61.[34])

Although Fox News reported that the Daily Caller published the story, they did not corroborate it. Other than Fox News, the only media that covered it were other conservative sources, such as Glenn Beck's The Blaze. Therefore I see no reason to consider the story to be reliable or the analysis valid. While it could be argued that the Daily Caller is a reliable source for its opinions, they would not meet WP:WEIGHT. That is, the opinions expressed by the Daily Caller are so insignificant that they should not be presented.

There is also the issue of the relevance of the Daily Caller article to the Wikipedia article on the allegations against the 'New Black Panthers. The challenged text says "staff members of [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder's communication staff worked with Media Matters to criticize coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident."[35]

TFD (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Let me correct TFD, as the source in this instance was not part of the MMfA series. Moreover, is it surprising that the subject of the series (MMfA) would dismiss critiscm of their organization? The critiscm from Reuters is a different issue. Their objection to the MMfA series was based upon TDC relying on anonymous sources and tipsters, something that is clearly not done with this source.
  • As for Fox corroborating TDC's analysis, the title of the article and the lede speak for itself.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer     
  • Additionally, the text in question is

In September 2012, the Daily Caller reported that they had obtained emails showing that staff members of Eric Holder's communication staff worked with Media Matters to criticize coverage of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation incident. The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Media headlines and titles of articles and books are not reliable sources, one needs to actually read their text. Your comment that we cannot rely on MMfA because they have been been criticized by the Daily Caller is disingenuous, because it assumes parity of sources. Watchdog groups always attract the animosity of groups they watch. MMfA is not critical of the Daily Caller because it is critical of them but vice versa. It is similar to saying that we cannot accept scientific sources that debunk pseudoscience because the pseudoscientists disagree with their debunkers. TFD (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:BLUDGEONing the process, article titles (in this case from Fox) are acceptable for characterizing a source. Using the lede of an article is even better. At issue however is the article entitled Emails reveal Justice Dept. regularly enlists Media Matters to spin press[1], of which to date there are no critical responses from MMfA, Reuters or for that matter anyone else. That some articles from TDC may be considered unreliable depends upon ones standards of journalism; One swallow does not a summer make, otherwise we would disqulify sources like the NYT, WashPost, NYT, Newsweek, CBS, etc. In other words the only issue at hand is the specific articles mentioned.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec)MMfA is not in the same league as scientific publications, nor is politics a science. The analogy is pure Jabberwocky. NYT: Media Matters for America, an organization that seeks to monitor and expose what it sees as conservative misinformation. seems to assign a POV to that organisation. [36] Each of these moments might have slipped into the broadcast ether but for the efforts of Media Matters for America, the nonprofit, highly partisan research organization that was founded four years ago by David Brock, a formerly conservative author who has since gone liberal. [37]. [38] Media Matters, a progressive media monitoring group, said that Mr. Castellanos “is responsible for placing, beginning October 11, more than $1 million of AHIP advertising in five states.” (one of the MMfA commentators was paid to work for an insurance industry advocacy group). (Castellano was mentioned as "one of its commentators" with a problematic antedendent - TFD correctly notes that the "its" referred to CNN - but their writing was very sloppy indeed) Sorry TFD -- trying to assert that MMfA is anything remotely like a neutral scientific organisation does not fly. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (emended "its")Collect (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Is the comparison between The Daily Caller, a partisan news operation, and Media Matters, an organization that doesn't engage in journalism at all? It seems like it's two separate issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect does not appear to understand the difference between a source being neutral and being reliable. None of the sources question the accuracy of MMfA's reporting, and you have garbled the story. CNN's commentator Alex Castellanos was paid to work for an insurance industry advocacy group (AHIP) and CNN decided to disclose his relationship after the MMfA report. The difference is that while MMfA reports inaccuracies in conservative media, the Daily Caller publishes inaccurate information. That the Daily Caller is partisan is irrelevant to its accuracy or inaccurary. Odd too that Collect, who believes MMfA is inaccurate because it is partisan, believes that the Daily Caller is accurate. If partisanship discredits a source, then it would discredit the Daily Caller. little green rosetta, your comments on article titles show a surprising lack of care for accuracy. TFD (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh? When in doubt - attack the editor? I most certainly do know the difference, and that a reliable source may not always be neutral. What I pointed out is that a source stated to be a POV source by reliable sources (NYT etc.) is not' the same as a scientific journal by a few thousand miles, and your assertion that it was, was errant. Nor did I say the Caller was "accurate" but I am now inured to such absurd claims. I ask you most politiely to read my damn posts and not make claims which are not rationally present in them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Reuters has been caught doctoring photos. The New Republic has been caught in multiple journalistic scandals. Both are still reliable sources. MMfA is a bad source because its entire existence is predicated not on journalism or truth-telling, but partisanship. It, like Newsbusters or FAIR or AIM, are not journalistic endeavors but political ones. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your arguments against TDC are ad hominem with a side of red herring. Nothing you have said here (or on the talk page) addresses the article in question. Ordinarily I wouldn’t ask anyone if they have read a source, but since you acknowledged quite recently that you had not, I was wondering if you have had an opportunity to correct the situation. This will go a long way towards having a meaningful discussion. I will ask you or anyone else outright to state what is the basis that makes this article unreliable? And regarding article titles; A title of an article (we are talking journalism here) is a short summary of what is in the article – usually a phrase to describe the lede. The lede is of course a summary of the most important facets of an article. I doubt you would find many that disagree with those statements.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If the author has, according to a reliable source, a history of misrepresenting records for partisanship then it is not reliable and there is no need to read it. I get my information from reliable sources. If Reuters, the NYT, etc. think it is not worth reporting then I must agree with them. Thargor Orlando, does your argument mean that we cannot use the Daily Caller? TFD (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen much evidence that TDC has this history you speak of. If the mainstream media ignores a story, but secondary media (whether it be Salon or TDC or something similar) covers it, we shouldn't be against using it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The complete opposite is true. If the mainstream media doesn't cover a story but minor sources do, we tend not to cover the story on Wikipedia per notability, undue, fringe, and other related policies and guidelines. In fact, the lack of mainstream coverage is a good indication that Wikipedia should not discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You're confusing "mainstream" and "noteworthy." Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't confused anything. TDC's article exists in a conservative echo chamber. It is neither corroborated, relevant, noteworthy, accurate, or reliable. As a result, it is what we call a questionable source and cannot be used. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not questionable because of those things. TDC is not a "conservative echo chamber" any more than Salon or The New Republic are a liberal echo chamber: both are viable, useful entities. Whether the story is appropriate for use in the encyclopedia is one thing, but the reliability of TDC is another. There isn't a good argument against using it that cannot be applied to any ideological news organization. I agree that we should probably only be using it in specific instances, but TDC's journalistic credibility (as compared to, say, WorldNetDaily or NewsMax) is on a significantly higher level than what you're giving it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's ridiculous that we have to have this argument over and over again, but it seems some editors have a constant freakout about the idea of openly stated point of view, while others want to use it as a way of keeping certain unflattering information out of articles. MMFA probably employs more actual professional journalists than that scandal sheet the Daily Caller, and its accuracy and usefulness are not in any serious question. Mainstream media is certainly preferable, though sometimes only because it stops these silly arguments from happening. There are plenty of mainstream media outlets that are unquestioned as reliable sources that openly state a point of view. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are Republican shills, Politico and the Washington Post openly push center-right Beltway groupthink as "conventional wisdom", etc. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, discussions in the past regarding MMfA in particular have not really shown any consensus in either direction regarding its usefulness. Its accuracy is absolutely in question, but I suspect most of those protests are from partisan sectors and not really based in actual research. The difference, however, between something like MMfA (which isn't journalism and professes a point of view) and Fox or Politico (which are journalistic endeavors and at least talk about objectivity) (and how you get the WSJ on the right, I don't know: the opinion page certainly is, but not their reporting) is significant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I disregard most of the comments in those previous discussions as I don't think most editors even addressed that issue at all, they just concurred with the simple formulation that openly stated point of view = inaccurate or useless. Anyone who would put MMFA in the same category as Newsbusters hasn't taken thirty seconds to examine either one. Also, I agree with you on the WSJ pre-Murdock. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd disagree re: Newsbusters/MMfA, as they serve the same purpose. It would be nice to have a wide-ranging discussion someday about the use of partisan, non-journalistic endeavors as sources to finally put it to rest, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the issue was not one of "purpose", it was accuracy and usefulness. As far as purpose, you could argue that the "purpose" of Fox News was to advocate conservative causes and candidates and put it in the same category. Anyway, you've just illustrated the point of my previous comment, which was that most editors have not seriously examined the issue of accuracy and usefulness in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd personally caution the danger in assuming that those who disagree with you do so because they haven't done the homework. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
A fair point. They can disagree for whatever reason they like, but it's fair game to point out when their comments completely ignore a significant aspect of the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That works both ways, but this is sliding off topic now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The question here should not be whether a source has a stated POV (which is common in mainstream reliable sources in the United Kingdom and elsewhere), the question really is this story by the Daily Caller a reliable source, and is its use in the article in question appropriate?

It is my humble opinion, given that they have openly made available the Emails received through the FOIA request for all to see (save that they have placed a watermark on those emails), that if attributed it is appropriate for use. It is corroborated by another RS, Fox News. If there are reliable sources that refute the content of the Daily Source article which is the subject of this discussion, I would like to see it. It would create a more complete and accurate section of the article that verifies that the DoJ worked with the MMfA in coverage of the subject in question. So far, I haven't seen any, just (in this post) general attacks against the Daily Caller that it is a partisan source.

So yes, it is my opinion (and should be since I am the one who initially added the content), that the Daily Caller is a reliable source, just as much as Salon, the Atlantic, and Huffington Post are. All the aforementioned last three lean left on the U.S. political scale, that does not make them any less a reliable source; same can be said about the New York Times.

I would have preferred to use multiple corroborating reliable sources, but I cannot answer why other reliable sources did not report on the story. I am not in their news rooms, I do not have a direct line to their editors in chief. But that is besides the point.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorial discretion - I personally use the rule of thumb of if secondary reliable published sources do not include the information that I have found only at one location (publication), then that information may-be —by definition—not important enough to include.Moxy (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Some of you might like to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated_sources. Sources are not required to be neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It also says, "editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources." Clearly the article in Daily Caller does not because MMfA has explained the author has a long record of writing false information and misrepresenting sources. RCLC says we can rely on the e-mails being accurate and use them, but the problem is that the source providing the e-mails has, according to MMfA, falsified information and therefore we do not know if they accurately represented what was provided to them. Even if they did, they would be primary sources and we would need a secondary source to interpret them.
Also, the crux of the story is that a DOJ spokesperson allegedly provided evidence of inaccurate reporting by conservative media to a factchecking group that monitors conservative media. What significance does that have to the article?
TFD (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
So because a partisan outfit with a history of publishing bad information believes the author of an article has a history of bad information, we shouldn't use it? What? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
What? The DOJ falsified documents provided under a FOIA request? That is an extraordinary claim, of which there is no extraordinary evidence, much less any evidence. As to what significance these emails have is open for debate, but the statement merely presents the case that the DOJ was coordinating a PR campaign with MMFA with respect to the NBPP, which is highly relevant to this article. However this argument is another red herring, because this forum is used to determine reliability of specific sources to specific claims. So far no one has presented any credible rationale that this article is not reliable for the proposed text.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The burden of proof requires you to prove that the article is reliable as a source, not for others to show that it is not reliable. Based on this discussion, there is no credible rationale for us to use this article as a source, and this conclusion is supported by the weight of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finally, there is no reason to keep discussing this because others don't like this conclusion or because others can't find an equivalent source. As long as editors cannot show this source is reliable and lacks authority, relevance, and accuracy, we are not required to use it. Therefore, please focus your efforts on finding additional sources or conceding your argument. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you read this thread, the plurality of editors have commented that the TDC is reliable, wheras those against have made no rational argument. You yourself haven't even made an arguement. Your only purposes seems to be needless confrontation. Some might consider your actions to be hounding.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many editors say "X is reliable", what matters is the quality of their arguments, their ability to persuade others, and the formation of a consensus backed by solid arguments based on policy. Since you have none of that, we can't use your preferred source. I'm sorry that you see this as "hounding" but it's time for you to put the stick down. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, your argument amounts to "one group says they aren't accurate, so we're going to go with it." Your argument could be used toward a variety of ideological sources, and we shouldn't limit TDC any more than we should Mother Jones or The Nation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A very small group discussion on a noticeboard where most of that group are involved parties does not make a consensus that a particular source meets RS requirements. Gamaliel (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Nor does it make a consensus that it doesn't. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Are most of the parties involved participants? I'm aware of 3, counting yourself, but i havent checked the history. Viriditas does make one valid point, the quality of the aruguments should prevail. I find it odd that he sees any merit in the sole arguement presented here that the source is not reliable because MMfA says it isn't. But Gamaliel, what is your opinion? You are now editing the article, perhaps you would care to discuss the source? If there is an argument that I'm not hearing, I'd much rather hear it now and move on to something else. I'm open to persuasion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've not edited the article to my knowledge, and don't intend to get involved beyond my commentary here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I would say that MMfA was marginal (in the same group as Newsbusters, doing the same kind of work) before they stated that their objective is to destroy FNC. It is one thing to be openly partisan, but it is entirely different to be actively trying to destroy FNC. Right now, they are simply not a reliable source for anything. All of this is largely irrelevant anyway. If something is important that they are reporting on, it will be within a mainstream source precluding the need to use MMfA in the first place. Arzel (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Where and when did they state that they objective was to "destroy FNC"? Or is "objective to destroy FNC" your hyperbolic way of saying they linked to form letters encouraging advertisers to stop advertising on Fox? Whether or not you disagree with their commentary, MMfA is scrupulously accurate in presenting facts. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
In 2011Here you go. You may want to change your mind regarding their objective as they have taken on an activist agenda.

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

. Arzel (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you asked. In general I think that TDC is an unreliable scandal sheet and shouldn't be used in any articles. Even if you disagree with this, TDCTFD has presented compelling evidence that this particular article should not be used, evidence that should give anyone serious concerns. I also think that it's the height of lunacy to dismiss MMFA as unreliable because they have an openly expressed point of view while at the same time saying TDC is a reliable source despite the fact that they do the very same thing and their "journalism" is much shoddier and openly partisan. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
TDC has presented compelling evidence that this particular source should not be used. Huh?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry! So many acronyms... Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes a difference. But upon reading this [39] for a third time, it is anything but compelling. It is a rant that does nothing to discredit this article and is full of chicanery. Every link in the MMfA critique is points to another MMfA article that is downright decietful itself. Case in point; The article from MMfA claims that Boyle was "involved [in] inventing congressional testimoy", which is hyperlinked to another article titled "Daily Caller Reporter Invents Congressional Testimony In Crusade Against Attorney General Holder". Reading the article one learns Boyle specfically said:
"I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head -- but he said something like that, "It's unfathomable that the Attorney General was unaware of this when everybody who works for him was."
Misquoting with a caveat is now fabrication? On what planet? And the comment from Boyle is, though strong, backs up the written testimony -- something MMfA left out. Now I'm not saying that there are reasons not to impeach this article -- in fact DGG makes probably the best case yet below -- but using MMfA's self-serving and intentionally deceptive analysis is not one of them.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at it for the first time, and counting the political bias of the stories there, so it does show its unreliability on the very face of it. I'm not sure i would accept it for routine facts, since it seems to make no attempt in any story to present alternative views, but just orients them so that readers of a particular slant will find their prejudices confirmed. I would never use them for political analysis, except if we are doing a comparison of what sources from everywhere in the relevant political spectrum and need someone from their end of things & can't find anything more competently done,such as Fox. . DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
little green rosetta, did you read the link you provided? Boyle said Horowitz "said something like that, "It's unfathomable that the Attorney General was unaware of this when everybody who works for him was."" In fact Horowitz said nothing at all like that. True Boyle said, "I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head." But that does not excuse the gross inaccuracy of his paraphrasing. It's like saying "I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head - but Obama said something like he was born in Kenya." Is that the standard of reliability you find acceptable? TFD (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I read it, did you read the General's submitted written testimony, which pretty much confirms that all the principles knew or should have known (according to the General) about the operation. "Unfathomable" is a bit over the top, to be generous, but it doesn't change the basis of the testimony.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not whether Holder knew about what was happening but whether Horowitz said he was. Boyle falsified Horowitz's testimony, which is bad journalism. TFD (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
You should read Horowitz's written testimony, which is quite different than the selected quote that MMfA used to bolster their "manufactured" theory.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the Daily Caller's involvement in a scam designed to slander a US Senator, I am troubled that any editor would think TDC is a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you find sources like CBS and the NYT to be unreliable because they published stories that they willfully manufactured?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Professional institutions make mistakes sometimes, sure, and sometimes they employ people who have an agenda or game the system. But TDC has a long way to go before it even meets the bar of "professional", much less one of "mostly reliable professional outlet that has dropped the ball occasionally". Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what this proves. Also, your thoughts of Truthout as a source? After all, wouldn't their "reporting" regarding Karl Rove in 2005 be just as bad? Again, if we're going to make a claim regarding partisan media, let's do it. I'd hope very few would complain. But if we're going to allow partisan media in most cases, TDC makes the cut as well as any other at its level. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
What level is that? The gutter? I'm stunned that editors are still defending this rag. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm stunned you think MMfA provided compelling evidence as you stated above. So lets recover from our mutual shock and move on.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

thejoekorner.com

There are edit wars going on R62 and R62a pages, and I said that since this article is self-published, it should not b considered a reliable source. Also, this is impossible to edit. We should put back (in curly brackets) NYCS-bull-small|X for each individual route so that if we think one is wrong, we can easily removeit without having to change a template, because the template is likned to this website.

OK. So I see we are talking about subway cars. The source in question is a self-published source. Whether it can be used or not is governed by WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Taking a quick trip around Google, it appears to me that there is some recognition in various sources that the author, Joseph D. Korman, has some reputation as a train/subway buff, and has occasionally been interviewed and quoted in various news sources on the general subject matter. But, as near as I can tell, he has never been previously published by reliable third party sources within the relevant field. It does appear that he co-authored (last person listed) a technical paper on transportation traffic patterns when he first started his career,over 40 years ago, but nothing since and even that would be on a different subject matter. Thus, even if regarded as meeting the first requirement, this source fails on the second prong of the two-prong, bright-line test for a SPS. Sorry, this website can't be used as a source. As for the template issue, that is for some other messageboard. Fladrif (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The template is not and cannot be linked to any website. It is only used because there is another article, New York City Subway rolling stock, that shows the same assignments. If one of them changes, both articles have to reflect that. Vcohen (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Don Mangus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Mangus

This article seems largely unsourced and unworthy of wikipedia. I suggest it be deleted.

Not a RSN issue. Take it to WP:AFD Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This source has been disputed and removed from men's rights movement without discussion

The source is here http://www.malestudies.org/4-7transcript.pdf The website is is http://www.malestudies.org

The article is men's rights movement

The wiki page text is below and the page in the source that justifies it is after in question are as follows:

"The men's rights movement explicitly rejects a number of feminist concepts including patriarchy theory and gender as a social construct." This source is meant for the gender construct remark. It can be found on page 5 and on page 27

Second "For example, Men's rights activists argue that statistical disparities in fields such as engineering aren't due to social practice and discrimination, but represent real biological differences." page 27


The first point is is this source reliable enough to be used in the men's rights movement page? The purpose of this page is to detail MRM opinions and positions on various subjects. I believe that since this transcript comes from a conference hosted by a foundation ran by and acknowledged academic that it provides a much needed primary source perspective. Remember that this is a page supposed to be conveying the opinions of the movement, not whether or not these positions are right or wrong. I would like to know if this source is acceptable generally regardless of whether or not these two statements are acceptable.

Pending the acceptance of this source, I am certainly open to suggestions on how it could be rephrased to better represent the source if the above statements are deemed not suitable or in need of improvement. Though I think they do represent the source accurately in their current form.Yhwhsks (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My questions would be:

  1. Is there anything to suggest that this website is authoritative in terms of Male Studies, other than its name?
  2. Are there no other scholarly sources to support these assertions?
  3. Why does this need to be in the lead paragraph, rather than a section on activism or activist groups?

-- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 22:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that "men's rights" is actually mentioned only once in the source. The source makes no statements about the men's rights movement as such. The source relies exclusively on rumors and personal opinions, no research is cited, and it's unclear who's responsible for the transcription. Yhwhsks took one speaker's personal opinion that "feminists" (like the whole bunch of 'em or something) believe that gender is a social construct and turned it into "The men's rights movement explicitly rejects..." The speaker doesn't even mention the men's rights movement, let alone what they reject or embrace. The same goes for the "statistical disparities" bit. What we have here is a highly questionable source that doesn't say anything about men's rights activists beyond that they have a "sense of anger or a sense of grievance" (p. 14).
Moreover, the source has been used for what I consider coatracking such as "For example, hardliner feminists oppose men's studies departments capable of balancing women's studies due to this perception". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. and i note, in reviewing the posting more thoroughly, the mention of a "much needed primary source perspective", which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Why would this article need a primary source perspective, anyhow, when one of the core ideas behind WP:RS is the use, to the extent possible, of secondary sources?
I would agree that this is probably indicative of WP:COATRACKing. My suggestion would be to leave the source out entirely. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 00:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Edward M. Stephens, who runs the organization that hosted this conference is regularly mentioned in third party sources as being important to the men's rights movement including the new york times, below is just 4 but more could be found:
[40], [41], [42]

[43]

He is also well credentialed making his statements have more weight http://www.malestudies.org/directors.html
Remember that the assertion being supported is not necessarily what the consensus on the truth is, but on what stance the MRM takes on an issue. This source supports that a certain opinion is taken. it is not meant to support "gender isn't a social construct" as a factual statement. This is not the gender page but the MRM page. This source is adequate to say whether or not the MRM as a group has an opinion, and that is the only thing I am attempting to do with it. Yhwhsks (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
To answer your last question, it belongs in the lead section because this page is about an activist movement, not an issue which an activist group take a position on.Yhwhsks (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The source you provided says nothing about what stance the men's rights movement takes. "Men's rights" is mentioned only once, in passing, on page 14 when a speaker states his personal opinion that men's rights' activists (among other groups) have a "sense of anger or a sense of grievance". Add the highly questionable reliability and you have an unreliable source that does not discuss the men's rights movement, which makes it doubly useless for the men's rights movement article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Multiple third party sources identify edward stephen's as a prominent leader figure for the men's rights movement. As such, statements made at conferences organized by him and his colleagues are representative of the views taken by the broader men's rights movement. Even if the source needs to be qualified by identifying him specifically, it is still a reliable source and can be placed in one form or another on the MRM page. Yhwhsks (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering what is gained by including this source in the lead para if, as you have asserted, more independent sources can be found. I also note that the only one in that list that is WP:RS is the last one, from the NYT.
Again, I think these statements (and perhaps the refs, if secondary ones cannot be found) would only be appropriate in a section on Stephens and his organization, within the article. They seem to me to be pretty clearly inappropriate for the lead para. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The NYT source does not even mention the men's rights movement, let alone identify Stephens as a leader of the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The new york times article highlights the prominence of the people who make up the foundation of male's studies. It also indicates that male studies is on a continuum with MRM by labeling the avoiceformen website (clearly an MRM organisation) as within male studies. The second sentence actually is not in the first paragraph but in the section called "relation to feminism." So please weigh in on that as well.

Just to be clear, it is my understanding that you are saying that this source actually does meet relevant guidelines so long as the specific organization is mentioned as originating this claim rather than being representative of the entire movement? I can live with that. I think that it could be in the relation to feminism section as long as the statement is shown to be that of the foundation of male studies. Can you explicitly state this in an unambiguous way such that those disagreeing on this point on the talk page will accept it when I bring this back over? Also for your consideration, please look at the following

"Last spring, there was a scholarly symposium at Wagner College on Staten Island, intended to raise the movement’s profile and attract funds for a department with a tenured chair on some campus. A number of prominent scholars attended, including Lionel Tiger, an emeritus anthropology professor at Rutgers, who invented the term “male bonding,” and Paul Nathanson, a religious studies scholar at McGill University, who specializes in the study of misandry, the flip side of misogyny. Both are on the advisory board of the Foundation for Male Studies, which Dr. Stephens founded last year.
There will be a second conference in April at the New York Academy of Medicine — right on the heels, as it happens, of the annual conference of the American Men’s Studies Association — and the two groups have already begun jousting. "

It also discusses the gender as a social construct:

The male studies people, on the other had, are what their critics call “essentialists” and believe that male behavior is in large part biologically determined. Men think and act differently from how women think and act because that’s how evolution shaped them.

the website A voice for men, which clearly identifies as a men's rights movement, is described as being part of male studies. This demonstrates that male studies and the men's rights movement are synonymous and exchangeable when writing. At the very least it is part of the same continuum. That is male's studies is part of the men's rights movement and represents the opinion of that group.

Lurking around the edges of the male studies movement, moreover, in Web sites like Paul Elam’s A Voice for Men, is a certain amount of anti-feminist hostility, if not outright misogyny.

I think this is ample evidence for the inclusion in this article as evidence of the opinions taken by the MRM Yhwhsks (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is your unsourced assertion that "male studies is on a continuum with MRM". In fact, here is a reasonably reliable source stating that "Male Studies does not ally itself with men's rights movements". The consortium transcript is of questionable reliability: exclusive reliance on personal opinions, no sources cited, no fact checking, etc. More importantly, the speakers did not discuss the men's rights movement. Please accept that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I am convinced by Sonicyouth86's argument that these are separate entities, and should not be conflated. I have struck my earlier statement about including Stephens' statements in this article, as you can see above. The primary source that has been removed is non-RS and should probably not be mentioned at all in the article. It's a bit of a WP:COATRACK already, tbqh. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 22:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Was that really huge enough?

An opinion piece from a college newspaper describing a relationship between MLP: FIM fandom and 4Chan was recently removed from relevant articles. So I think it's time to think about the Autostraddle essay again.

I believe that the essay is full of personal opinion which is against the reliable sources policy here so should be removed. I also think the related controversy was not huge enough to shake the entire USA; it's hard to find any relevant reliable news reports beside that one. I also remember the user who cited that source even tried to cite TV Tropes wiki entry, also against the policy. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 08:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers (season 6)

I'm still expanding this page. Recently, I found this, first reported by GQ magazine. It says that the cast found their relaxing times by fooling each other around. I'm not sure if it violates WP:BLP or WP:RS, but should I include it there? --George Ho (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Max Müller

A debate has arisen on the Max Müller talk page about whether his middle name should be Max or Maximilian. All reliable secondary sources, including Müller's own writings and the biography written by his wife state that his middle name was "Max". There is a blog at which has documents alleged to be from Leipsig university (I have tried and failed to access this page. it just freezes on me [44]). User:Vacarme says that Muller's name appears as Maximilian on his marriage certificate (see (user talk:Vacarme). There may be many reasons why some documents say "Maximilian" - perhaps Max was not considered a "real" name for some institutions, or clerks just assumed it was an abbreviation, writing out what they thought was the correct full name.

This is what I originally wrote: "An ip editor has been persistently changing his middle name to the "correct" version, which is, according to him/her Maximillian [sic. should have one "I"]. All the best sources I know give his middle name as Max. His wife says the name was taken from the central character in Der Freischütz. See the opening pages of her biography of her husband, The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller (1902) [45]. This is how his name is given in the most authoritative sources, including the published Collected Works Of The Right Hon. F. Max Muller. This is how is name is spelled in biographies of him. This is how his name is spelled in the official archive of his papers [46]. This is how the E.B. spells his name [47]. Against this we have some potboiler short biography in something called "The New Student's Reference Work" [48]. I think it's clear which name should be preferred."

Paul B (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The New Student's Reference Work is a tertiary source, aimed at undergraduates or school students, 100 years old, and never authoritative. We have no reason to prefer it over reliable secondary sources: we have no reason even to cite it if reliable sources show it to be wrong. Andrew Dalby 13:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The marriage certificate is of course a primary source, and likewise to be avoided by us if secondary sources contradict it. (Agreed, errors in certificates often occur for just the reason you give.) Andrew Dalby 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I can see the blog page with the University of Leipzig documents just fine, and I don't doubt their legitimacy, but establishing the subject's "real name" from primary sources carries a whiff of original research. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You are overlooking the fact that the secondary sources might not agree with the primary source because the authors of the former are or were simply unaware of the latter, which is entirely different to saying that (in full knowledge of the facts) they "contradict it". Also, to dismiss a marriage certificate, officially registered with the GRO, as "original research" is perverse. I'm well aware that there are errors in such documents, but in this particular case the implication that Muller, supposedly born Max, decided to sign himself Maximilian on his marriage certificate, or that the marriage registrar took it upon himself/herself to change his name to Maximilian, or that a clerk(s) subsequently transcribed 'Max' as 'Maximilian' in the official registers and/or databases, either accidentally or deliberately, is simply not credible. Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are all very well, but sometimes you have to use a bit of common-sense. Vacarme (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have not seen this document. I do not find it at all incredible that such a document should be in error. On your talk page you write that his first name is "Frederich(k)". This is rather odd. How is it in fact spelled on the document? And does it spell his surname Muller, Müller or Mueller? WP:PRIMARY is absolutely clear that we do not use promary sources to contradict the clear consensus of secondary sources. Yes, maybe you know something they didn't, but maybe they know something you don't. And they are the experts. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The 'Frederich(k) was my clumsy attempt to indicate that in German sources he's Frederich but in English ones such as the marriage certificate he's Frederick, so please ignore. To be clear about the latter document, I am alluding to the transcription available in FreeMBD database (also reproduced by Ancestry.com). I haven't got a copy of the original certificate, but one could easily be obtained. However, you can view a copy of an image of the (handwritten) register for yourself from which the database information has been derived. Go to FreeBMB and just type in the relevant information. Vacarme (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
So they misspelled his first name on the certificate, and this is the document you want us to accept as authoritative for his middle name! Paul B (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and taken together with the Leipzig documents, not forgetting the Vanity Fair cartoon, I would say it makes a compelling case. Does it not at least make you pause for thought? If Muller was an ancestor of mine, for example, and I was delving into the family history, I would be seriously questioning whether grt grt grt grt grandpa Max was really Maximilian and dig deeper! Birth certificate?? The EB biographer Gregory Alles (one of your "experts") seems to be alive still, so perhaps I'll email him and and see what he makes of it. ;-) Vacarme (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, I can just repeat that policy is absolutely clear on this. We go by what the consensus of reliable secondary sources state - that includes the Encyclopedia Britannica for heaven's sake. We do not use primary sources to override authoritative secondary ones, especially as we also have many primary sources that say "Max". Paul B (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
We have at least a few biograpical articles about people whose birth date is subject to dispute which have the widely recognized by independent reliable sources/semi-"official" birthdate included in the lede, with a footnote indicating that there are some sources which seem to dispute that and what they say. So far as I can tell, "Max" is the effective equivalent of that semi-official birthdate for this instance, but I can and do see that maybe adding a footnote indicating the apparently not-really-serious "controversy" about the name. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems western scholars are too scared to look at the primary documents. Of course, those scholars who have looked at the primary documents have correctly noted his name as Friedrich Maximilian Muller. (Max Muller, a lifelong masquerade by Brahm Datt Bharti (1992);Lies With Long Legs - Discoveries, Scholars, Science, Enlightenment Documentary Narration by Prodosh Aich (2004)))
Ah, now you're talking. If a recent biography (e.g. the one by Brahm Datt Bharti) argues that his name was "Maximilian", that's probably worth footnoting in the article. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
No, these are both books by extremist Hindutvadis who have next to no value as reliable sources. What has not been mentioned is that the anonymous author who initiated this is part of a faction in India who have developed a hatred of Muller based on a very confused account of his role in Imperial British culture. All sorts of preposterous accusations are made against him by Brahm Datt Bharti and Prodosh Aich. The later is particularly bizarre, claiming that this world-renowned professor at Oxfoerd University had made up his qualifications and could not speak Sanskrit. To use these as sources would be like using Jack Chick as a source on the Roman Catholic Church. Paul B (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I got a whiff of an anti-Muller agenda :) I didn't see that disputing what his "real name" was moves that agenda forward, hence I was taking this issue neutrally.
There's obviously no chance that the article would be moved, because Wikipedia rather agrees with British law in this point: his "real name" is the name by which he is commonly known. There could scarcely be a more reliable source on that than his biography, written by his wife, based on his correspondence. The only issue that I could see is whether the opinion that his middle "real name" was Maximilian, evidently a small minority opinion, has enough oomph to get into one of our footnotes. Andrew Dalby 12:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm also neutral on the subject and not associated with any "faction in India", but based on an objective review of the evidence I am persuaded that Maximilian was his real middle name. I will keep applying the oomph if necessary. :-) Vacarme (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The reference to the faction in India only came up because the ip was propsing Hindutvadi sources. I am at a loss to understand how Vacarme can be so persuaded when the consensus of reliable secondary sources is so overwhelming and the reasons why such documents can contain errors are so obvious. In any case, there are numerous primary sources in which his name is given as Max. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Paul, I'm persuaded because I'm looking at the evidence. Here's a secondary source for you - an obituary - that begins "Friedrich Maximilian Muller, generally called Max Muller..." in a reputable publication written in 1900 by a retired Bengal civil servant: Charles Johnston (1900) An Estimate of Max Muller (1823-1900). The American Monthly Review of Reviews. Vol XXII, July-December. The Review of Reviews Company: New York, pp.703-706. I've only been looking a few days and the evidence is popping up all over the place! Vacarme (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Surely, there must be thousands of such references( which shows his real name) available . really funny to see 'PaulB' the self declared 'victorianist' is busy defending the 'hindootwavaadis'.85.154.175.142 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's my take as a German: Germany is rather strict about first names, and I guess has long been so. You can't just make first names up, they must have a tradition. Nowadays you can give your child an abbreviated first name such as "Max" or "Fritz", but this was not always so. Even a few decades ago, the general assumption would have been that every Max, Fritz or Tina/Tine is officially called Maximilian, Friedrich or Christina/Christine. Only for some names such as Rolf (Rudolf) and Hans (Johannes), people would feel a need to ask whether the long form or the abbreviation was in the birth certificate. For the former category of names though, long form and abbreviation were essentially considered equivalent. (For some names such as Sepp = Josef/Joseph this is still true today.) See Sepp Herberger for an example. I guess this is because so many Germans had the long forms of these names but used the short forms instead. They got the long form from parents who were thinking of Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria or Friedrich der Große (often referred to as "der alte Fritz") or of a submissive and religious daughter; or they copied an uncle's or greatparent's name to please them. And then these names didn't fit and got abbreviated.

Expanding the name Max to Maximilian on official documents is the default for a German born in 1823. So much so, that even if the parents absolutely wanted the name to be Max, it could still have ended up on the birth certificate as Maximilian. It could even have been "Friedrich Max Müller" in the parish register and the original birth certificate, and "Friedrich Maximilian Müller" on duplicates of the birth certificate issued later. That's because the later scribe would have assumed that their predecessor had a habit of abbreviating middle names and that the dot after it just wasn't visible. And he might well have been correct. It's even possible that he was officially Friedrich Max Müller, but signed Friedrich Maximilian Müller in certain situations because that looked more prestigious and averted enquiries from bureaucrats.

I am not a historian, and all of this is just original research. But it explains why I would be very cautious with every old source that uses the default version Maximilian of the middle name. It also explains why the word Maximilian does not occur anywhere on de:Friedrich Max Müller or the associated talk page. The editors there instinctively understand the problem. I suggest that we here follow their lead but add a footnote, e.g.: "Friedrich Max [footnote: in some sources: Maximilian] Müller". Hans Adler 06:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I did some research too, just now, and it turns out that plenty of students graduated from Leipzig in the 19th century called Max as opposed to Maximilian (lots of them too). Here are a few examples from the archive:
  • Forker, Max Arthur Dr. jur (geb. in Neustadt) promoviert 1869
  • Hartenstein, Max Albrecht Dr. med. (geb. in Plauen) promoviert 1868
  • Blum, Johann Georg Maximilian Dr. jur (geb. in Leipzig) promoviert 1865
  • Friedlaender, Max Dr. med. (geb. in Leipzig) promoviert 1864
  • Huppert, Max Oscar Dr. med. (geb. in Marienberg) promoviert 1864

Are you going to argue that in their cases the clerk was careless and didn't write Maximilian? You can't have it both ways. To me there is sufficient evidence that his middle name was Maximilian and this should be stated up front, not in footnote. Vacarme (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what the clerks at Leipzig were writing 20 years after Müller left? Recent, reliable secondary sources overwhelmingly say that his full name was Max, so that is what the article should say. - Cal Engime (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
So, how do you explain that his middle name is shown as Maximilian on his marriage certificate? Max forgot his own name? The registrar thought Maximilian sounded nicer and changed it? A little implausible don't you think? Before anyone says that the certificate is a primary source, don't forget that it's the original (signed) certificate that is the primary, subsequently transcribed once or twice before ending up in the GRO database, which counts as a reliable secondary source. Vacarme (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Read WP:LINKSINACHAIN. Copies of a primary source are still primary, no matter how many times you copy them. Wikipedia doesn't follow the most restrictive approach of assuming that only original documents are primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I read it. I also read below "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense", not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary"....Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Worth remembering. Vacarme (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they can be, but not when they are being used to contradict the overwheming consensus of specialist secondary sources. You are clearly wrong on this. Paul B (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Read spanish wikipedia on muller - "Friedrich Maximilian Müller nació en Dessau como hijo del poeta romántico Wilhelm Müller, amigo de Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy; Carl Maria von Weber fue su padrino." (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Muller)62.231.238.58 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia no es una fuente fiable. - Cal Engime (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Friends, it seems Even some 'books' got published by him had 'this name' which was later disowned by his 'expert-biographers' as well as his fans. See http://books.google.com/books?id=NzpNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=friedrich+maximilian+muller&redir_esc=y . - 'Lecture on Buddhist Nihilism
By Friedrich Maximilian Müller'. The word 'Maximilian' is printed in the book multiple times ( more than 5 in any case).62.231.238.58 (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, no, not "printed in the book". We've always said when the question arises that Google Books is not a reliable source (it is of course a convenience link for facsimiles of books we want to cite: no problem there). But this is an extremely odd version of the book. Someone filled in the author's name as Maximilian, though on the title page, which is visible, it is of course Max. And when you do a word search, you don't, as usual, get snippets of real pages, you get lots of OCR nonsense, into which the words "Friedrich Maximilian Müller" have been liberally inserted (others, try this and you'll see what I mean). Well, anyone can get stuff on to Google Books, as we already know. So, OK, I have to accept it now: for whatever insane reason, there really is a Maximilian conspiracy. Andrew Dalby 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Apart from out Hindutvadi troll, every single editor has rejected the arguments put forward by Vacarme. It is surely time that we reverted to the proper form of his name, as acknowledged in all serious secondary and tertiary sources and all other versions of Wikipedia. It is not the province of individual editors to personally choose to override the views of experts and the clear statements of the man himself and his family. Paul B (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed: as in all serious reference books and in full accord with reliable sources, the name should appear as "Max". Andrew Dalby 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think you're wrong, but with no wish to prolong the tedium, I defer democratically to the majority. However, neither you nor any other editor has actually provided a good explanation as to why his name has appears as Maximilian is the various cited sources (university register, marriage certificate, French Académie honour, Vanity Fair cartoon etc). If you do revert the article I expect you to acknowledge this glaring anomaly. Thank you. Vacarme (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's fair enough: there are sufficient real sources that the view that his real name was Maximilian should appear on the page. The proper way to do it, on wikipedia, is not to build an argument out of primary sources -- in fact not to build an argument at all, which is why, please forgive me saying so, the above has been a bit of a waste of time :) Wikipedia won't proclaim as a fact what the great majority of reliable sources deny is a fact. It just isn't our aim. But Wikipedia can perfectly well say that "Maximilian" is given as his middle name by some published sources: if a Vanity Fair cartoon did it (I haven't looked) that would definitely be one to cite. Andrew Dalby 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The ease with which western apologist 'paulB' makes such libelous statements such as" both books by extremist Hindutvadis" is both laughable and objectionable. The persons being referred to here are B.D.Bharti & Prodosh Aich , the former was a Political Activist and the latter a life long Academician (still living). Both of them have not involved themselves in any 'sort of extremist activities'. Unless PaulB has some sort of evidence that they are extremists, he should retract these irresponsible comments. 82.178.255.172 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
They represent extremist ideological views. I made no allegation that they were involved "extremist activities", whatever that may mean. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
However hard PaulB tries to hide 'Maxmilian', evidences keep coming up. See this review (which appeared in 'The Journal of Religion';
D. E. Mungello, The Journal of Religion, Volume 83, Issue 4, Pages 585-592

) of Norman Girardot's work 'The Victorian Translation of China: James Legge's Oriental Pilgrimage' From this - "Girardot is fascinated by the contrasting lives of Muller and Legge. Whereas Legge was the quiet, misunderstood, and underrated mission- ary-scholar who lived an austere life, Muller was one of the academic stars of his age, constantly in the limelight and a well-connected "prolific aca- demic entrepreneur" (p. 2). Friedrich Maximilian Muller was born in Dessau the son of a German poet, published a work on Sanskrit fables at the precocious age of twenty-one, studied at Paris, and arrived in England in 1846 to edit Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in London and at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.- Hope PaulB & other Muller fanboys are satisfied with this SECONDARY SOURCE ( this being a western source)62.61.160.57 (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It has already been established that Girardot uses "Maximilian", and that Jon Stone, editor of The Essential Max Müller, criticised him for doing so. Simply thrashing about looking for examples anywhere you can does not help. The point is that the most authoritative and expert sources use Max, the man himself used it, and so do his family. I have great respect for the sincere efforts of Vacarme to identify authoritative primary sources, but it is the clear policy of Wikipedia that we do not override the best secondary sources with our own research. Your own efforts, in contrast, are simply cherry-picking. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Paul B (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Till now User:paulB was crying aloud that only primary sources were available for the middle name 'Maximilian' and thus unacceptable for WP. But now you have a review in a 'reputed journal' where one published work is being reviewed and name of Muller is correctly given as 'Friedrich Maximilian Muller'. after seeing PaulB's suggestions to read WP:RS , WP:V, I stumbled across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles , - 'Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about – perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it's just your hobby. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.' 62.61.188.138 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I said no such thing. In fact you started off with a secondary source, remember? The encyclopedia article. You don't just thrash about looking for any source, no matter how obscure, that supports your viewpoint while ignoring altogether all those that don't, which is what you are doing. As for possessiveness, I brought this issue to this board for outside opinion. Paul B (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Maximilian is his middle name.You just cannot wish it away. There are at least 3 published books and another important book review that asserts that view, in addition to many primary sources such as Marriage certificate, Matriculation at leipzig etc.82.178.178.32 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Muppet Wiki

There is currently a dispute at the Labyrinth film article as to whether the Muppet Wiki (http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Muppet_Wiki) is considered a reliable source. The person who has removed the two refs. that use this site has also removed the ext. link to the Wiki, but ext. links fall under a different set of standards than references, correct? I would like some feedback on this matter. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Refs fall under WP:USERG, external links under WP:ELNO (which is a different discussion). Open wikis as sources have been discussed previously and rejected. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Right. The way to consider whether a wiki might be a special "non open" case is to ask a few questions such as:
  • is there any evidence of a moderating or editorial control, apart from the individual authors themselves?
  • is there any sign that reliable sources cite this wiki or treat it as reliable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Gallant Defender by A R Darshi

The Gallant Defender is a book on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale by A R Darshi. Its status as a worthy source has been disputed by multiple editors, but one particular editor keeps on adding to the article Operation Blue Star.

The book explicitly names the author as a publisher (along with another individual), and in the foreword the author says "Now I am prompted to publish it". So, it is clearly a self-published. However, subsequently, it has been published by pro-Khalistani/Sikh nationalist sources like Sikh Students Federation.

Even if it were not a self-published source, it seems to me a blatant hagiography of Bhindranwale, devoid of any objectivity and full of conspiracy theories. Some quotes:

  • "The Indian government led by Brahmanicial Hindus knew well that the Sikhs were the only martial race in India which has inexhaustible energy, determination and courage to fight for their just rights."
  • "The fanatic Hindus slyly smiled and gleefully rejoiced at the pitiable plight of the Sikhs in Punjab."
  • "This was the wicked mental frame of the Hindu leaders who ruthlessly con­ducted and monitored the brutal military operation."
  • "Bibi Amarjit Kaur, Chief of Akhand Kirtani Jatha and patron of Babar Khalsa, who had dubbed Sant Bhindranwale as a cow­ard, had also hid herself in the same room where other paper tigers had huddled themselves together [...] These shameless traitors of the Khalsa Panth deserve examplary punishment as they have not only betrayed the Panth but also broken the Ardas so sacred to the Sikh religion."
  • "All this naked barbarity, brutality and monsterity brazenly displayed by the fanatic Hindus in carrying out the genocide of the Sikhs is not a new development in their character and culture viz a viz the non Hindus. They have inherited this criminal and outrageous element of character from their remote ancestors, the Indo-Aryans who had invaded the Indo-Pak subcontinent in about 1500 B.C.. conquered it and made it their homeland."

I pretty much classify this as a bad source, but would like others' opinion on it, since the person who keeps adding this source refuses to discuss it on the article's talk page. utcursch | talk 14:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an extremist source. Not usable for anything (except if necessary to show the ideas that some extremists hold). Editors adding it and refusing to discuss are disrupting Wikipedia, and a report to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents is called for. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported statements on a biography: William M. Windsor

William M. Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This concerns the biography of William M. Windsor. He has established a Wikipedia page that makes many unsubstantiated claims about himself. Every external link he has given to support his claims about his business career and current activities, takes you to a self-written article that is unsupported by any outside source.

He lists 12 references to support his biography. References 2-11 are undisputed, but they do not address Windsor’s claims about his business background or current activities. The following two links, take you to self written information:

1. ^ http://universaldomainexchange.com/whoswho/bill-windsor/ This link takes you to a self written bio on an unvetted website!

12. ^ http://www.firstpost.com/topic/place/georgia-bill-windsor-platform-candidate-for-us-house-of-representatives-georgia-video-QcTmAjKixcA-517-1.html This link takes you to a video of Windsor, made by Windsor, claiming he is running for the House of Representatives.

Windsor’s external links include the following:

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com This is a web site owned and operated by Windsor himself.

http://www.NiagaraFallsBid.net This link is dead.

http://www.RoundAmerica.com This is Windsor’s website about a book he planned to write in 2002. No book has ever been written.

http://www.BillWindsor.com This is a dead link.

http://business.highbeam.com/496/article-1G1-83805787/birth-imprinted- This link takes you to a site that re-printed an article from a magazine OWNED by Windsor. The claims of Windsor’s accomplishments as stated in that article, are unsubstantiated.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/apparel-accessory-stores/4444104-1.html This is a dead link.

http://www.google.com/profiles/109895709324497417823 This is another self written unsubstantiated biography

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Windsor_William_-726700.aspx Another self written profile.

http://www.firstinthemindandheart.com/ This take you to a site selling a book that has no apparent connection to Windsor.

While an inflated biography might not be of great importance in many cases, it is important here. Mr. Windsor has established a political party and is taking donations for that cause. https://www.facebook.com/TheRevolutionaryParty?fref=ts

He has also established a judicial reform group, Lawless America, which takes donations.

People look at your page and consider him "vetted". It is important to remove the unsubstantiated information.

Specific facts in his bio that are mere puffery include:

Mr. Windsor refers to himself as a publishing magnate. There is no evidence to support that inflated definition of his career. There is no evidence that he ever owned or operated over 100 magazines as his bio claims. There is no evidence he has ever written a book and he does not offer any information re. a title, etc.

There is no evidence "He is considered by many to be the father of the multi-billion dollar "imprinted sportswear industry"" and in fact, you have a page that names other people as the pioneers of that industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shirt

Windsor provides no citation to the claim: "Windsor is considered by Canadians to be one of the two key people who exposed the corruption".

There is no organization called GRIP and you will note Windsor does not provide any citation to show that there is.

Thank you so much for all that you do to maintain Wikipedia. You provide an invaluable service to all of us!

Susan Harbison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanharbison (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC)

It looks like you have taken care of most of this yourself. External link concerns can be addressed at WP:ELN. Location (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/emails-reveal-justice-dept-regularly-enlists-media-matters-to-spin-press/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_144&oldid=1142502307"