Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115

The book The Making of Modern Israel by Leslie Stein has been cited in 1948 Palestinian exodus, and other hot-button pages, in support of contentious and novel assessments of the historical narrative. I have never before heard of the book or the author, and am struggling to ascertain its reliability. Although there are nearly 70,000 Google hits for the title, almost all are Amazon or other bookshop sites. Looking closely, I have found one critical review on Tikkun, and one, possibly supportive, behind a pay-wall at Social Science Research Network. I have found precisely 0 reviews at Google News archives. Although Stein is described on the Amazon website as a "Senior Research Fellow at Macquarie University", he is neither a historian nor a Middle East expert; his field of studies appears to be development, and in particular the Japanese economy. Given this, and in the apparent absence of any serious peer reviews of the book, can it be regarded as a reliable source for contentious statements? RolandR (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's some stuff I found in a 2 minute search. Not sure how you only came up with Tikkun.

• polity quotes blurbs from various reviews in some reliable sources.
• Israel Studies Review (can't read the actual review, but someone took the trouble to review the book)
• The Australian Jewish News

Then I stopped looking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As TDA notes, Google gives different results, depending not only on geography, but also on previous searches. I had seen the first site you quote, but blurbs are certainly no evidence of anything. I too can't actually read the ISR review. It's significant that the review in Australian Jewish News (which I had not found in my Google search) states "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; this does not inspire me with confidence in the book's reliability. RolandR (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I found these links: . Sometimes Google doesn't give us the best results first time around and different countries may have different issues searching for sources. Stein appears to be mentioned in a few notable places. Of course, that does not make Stein reliable in general. However, there is a tier system of reliability in my opinion and, in this case, Stein certainly meets the threshold for inclusion as representing a prominent view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He should not be treated as an authoritative source on what actually happened, but his views are worthy of inclusion with the typical considerations we give partisan sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How did you came to the conclusion that he is a partisan source?--Shrike (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from reviews: "Stein’s work is in many ways a partisan account of the early years of Israel’s existence"; "While Stein takes pains to declare himself a dispassionate historian, he is clearly making an argument"; "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; "He remains cocooned in his avowedly unashamed sympathy for 'Israel's general plight'."; "Stein is a proud Zionist and never questions the murderous rampage of Zionist fighters against the British before Israel's birth". Thewre is barely a mention which does not note the author's bias, and the author himself states that he is "unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight". This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not. RolandR (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This should placate the editor who opened this discussion

• The book is from a well-known publisher Polity that publishes scholarly texts.

• It is subject to a vetting process and peer review which makes it compliant with WP:RS. It is readily available and verifiable per WP:V.
• The author has published a number of scholarly texts
• The book has been listed as a “good read” on the Barnes & Noble website
• And here is the publisher’s Synopsis and exhaustive list of peer review and accolades (cut and pasted):
  • "Israel moves forward. Palestine stands still. Israel builds its future. Palestine guards its past. Stein's work provides a good introduction to this sad saga for the perplexed and the uninitiated." History Today "This volume could very well last as required reading about Israeli history for the next decade to come." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies "Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel." Democracy and Security "Balanced, well researched and will substantially extend the knowledge of any student of Israeli history." Birmingham Jewish Recorder "Leslie Stein explains in this eloquent, highly readable and well-researched study how the Israeli state overcame the threat to its existence and emerged as the most feared military power in the Middle East ... Stein's account of the events leading up to the 1967 war is one of the most masterly and lucid to appear in years ... There is little doubt that his study will be viewed as an indispensible authority on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time." Tribune "This book can serve as a refresher course for more knowledgable readers and a sound introduction for novices." Hadassah Magazine "There is little left uncovered in this up-to-date and meticulously researched book. Anybody wanting a quick and easily understandable account of Israel's formative years would do well to read this refreshing, informative and concise telling." Canadian Jewish News "He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad." H-Soz-u-Kult "Any reader of this book, however familiar he or she is with the history of this crucial period, is bound to learn something." Jerusalem Post "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her." Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic "With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective. Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University "The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students." Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East "Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom." Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine "Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene." David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The contentious information is :

Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population.^[1] They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.^[1]

As mentionned here above, this is a wp:rs source.
But more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs is pejorative. But the information that some historians argue (this part is important !) that Arab [and some of their leaders] wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book 1948, Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in Nazi Palestine argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... 87.66.170.243 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the author, Leslie Stein is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the reviews above says concerning Stein's book that "Stein estimates that the victorious Israelis expelled half of the 800,000 Palestinians displaced." This doesn't dovetail very well with the text that's being proposed based on this book. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare : on the contrary. It proves this guy is very neutral.

• about half of the Palestinian refugees of '48 were expelled (particularly during operations Nachshon, Dani, Hiram and Yoav). Morry writes this in his book 1948 and this explains why several historians compare or claim Israelis performed an ethnic cleansing.
• but Morris also claims (and several others given here above) that, would the Arabs have won, they would have done the same.

If Leslie Stein reports both these points of view, it is good for his reliability.

(It seems it is a tertiary source).

@RolandR : "This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not."

He seems to look a little bit like Morris. He is one-sided as a person but reliable and more neutral in his profession. I underline I don't know this author but he seems worth reading even if disappointment could come after this reading. A good review by Daniel Pipes is of course a very bad point.

@all : another review : "On the whole, it is not easy to judge Stein’s “The Making of Modern Israel”. He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad. The strong points of the book are to be found when he describes domestic developments and political decision makings. Yet the book is troublesome in the sense, that he is at times overtly Zionistic and thus in his judgments often very one sided and apologetic. Consequently he rejects findings of the so called New Historians like Avi Shlaim or Ilan Pappe right out of hand, with the partial exception of Benny Morris. But even the latter’s works are hardly incorporated when reaching critical conclusions. Thus the weakest point of the book is the almost total declining or ignoring of most of the findings of the New Historians."

91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If Stein says that the Israelis expelled half of the refugees directly, then does Stein really say that it was really the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the area? I think that's a key question. If Stein says both things, then it would be easy to agree with the reviews of Stein that say he's very partisan. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stein doesn't really try to hide his partisan orientation. But I just want to call attention here to what he writes in his preface:

"Based mainly on secondary sources, this book is grounded in a wide study of the received literature, both in Hebrew and English. Hopefully its strength lies in a judicious synthesis of the published material yielding the reader a reliable and novel account of Israel's fateful and turbulent infancy. Although unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight, I have not stinted in reporting the country's blemishes and occasional misdeeds."

Hmm. "Fateful"? "Occasional misdeeds"? So Stein has no training or academic credentials in history, right? And he's not done historical research himself to produce this book, i.e. his comments indicate he hasn't interviewed people who actually took part in the events he narrates, nor has he read, investigated, or compared primary source documents, either. What he did do was read the results of actual historical research and find a publisher for what he thinks is a "judicious synthesis" of what he read. So if any of us did exactly the same thing to produce our own "judicious synthesis" that was "unabashedly sympathetic" to the side we each prefer, how would that be different? And he's "unashamedly sympathetic" to the plight of Israel, but makes no mention of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians? Maybe that's because the conditions they live under are so much better than those Israelis live under? Unashamedly sympathetic, indeed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:HISTRS, Stein's absence of historical training, Stein's poor reviews (Shofar 29.1 2010 says, "for students and sophisticated lay readers. ... revisit in overly lavish detail the few topics which will be familiar to many or most readers, while neglecting topics which are prominent in Israeli culture and society but are somewhat less known outside of Israel." "On some topics, Stein's discussions might have benefited from reference to literary texts or recent scholarship." Don't use, it doesn't represent the standards of historical scholarship. Especially per IP91's review. Why not try Benny Morris One State, Two States Yale University Press ISBN 978 0300122817? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. How does one economist become "some historians"? Even if Stein is a reliable source, this opinion should be reported as "According to Leslie Stein..." or "According to one economist...". Zero^talk 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree. Nothing wrong with using a source like this in most cases, even if Fifelfoo is right to point out that it is not perfect. But for this subject obvious caution is necessary and it needs to be kept quite firmly in mind that the source is not ideal, especially if other editors are raising objections. For partisan (or arguably partisan) bits, attribution can at least be used, but other sources might be better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Based upon the request of another editor, I would like to know if this reference link is acceptable to confirm the actress in question's date of birth. Given that these records are based on those of the Social Security Administration, while they are not 100% accurate due to either human error (I have a sadly deceased personal acquaintance whose date of birth was January 17, 1935, but appears on SSDI as January 18, 1935) or false dates provided, it appears to be a reliable source, certainly reliable enough to use in the absence of any source. Thanks for your advice. Quis separabit? 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the "another editor" (sounds vaguely naughty). I was noting my concern for its use in this particular article as a review of previous discussions on this board revealed a hesitance to fully accept the reliability of many of the online genealogical databases, and it contradicts the New York Times obituary that I had included as a reference. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand Ponyo's concerns but beg to point out that the Associated Press (AP) merely (and I don't know how) provided an estimated age due to a lack of info. Shawlee was not particularly famous and apparently had no close family or children to provide any date of birth so it was not pursued. However she died in 1987, and we all agree the world has changed a tad since then. In this instance there is no competing year of birth from any reliable or semi-reliable source, only an age estimation from the AP from a quarter century ago.

Just to add my two cents (or five cents, whatever the going rate is these days), it is a tad concerning that information gleaned from such sources as the U.S. Social Security Administration (Social Security Death Index), census records (ancestry.com), Burke's Peerage (thepeerage.org) and the General Registry Office of England and Wales (findmypast.co.uk) are apparently seen by other Wikipedia editors and my peers, whom I respect, as generally semi-unreliable sources. There are some editors who rely on Caskets on Parade/Book of the Dead (http://daggy.name/cop/bkofdead/index.htm), which is replete with errors. I believe, as a rule of thumb, then, that unless a competing date/year of birth is proferred from an equally or more reliable source that information gleaned from these sources be allowed to stand until/unless a valid challenge is raised,and then each case be handled on an individual basis. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have commented above about findmypast.co.uk and I will put in a reply up there. The case isn't quite the same (I think).

In general, I'd say, it is useful to be able to cite intermediate sources that mirror or reflect solid reliable sources that are otherwise inaccessible online. I think, if we are confident that the mirroring is reliably done, we should be prepared to use such citations. As we do, for example, with Google Books and archive.org. Of course it's much less attractive, and less useful to our readers, if these intermediate sites set up a paywall. In such a case, they are not in fact increasing the general availability of the information. So, without banning paysites, we should prefer sites that are free and contain reliable information. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I don't like having to spend my own money buying credits, etc. Findmypast.co.uk is £6 for like 50 credits or something (I don't remember exactly) and Intelius is $1.95 per individual search (it's cheaper if you buy a package, but I choose not to since I don't use it that often), but it is what it is. Sometimes curiosity or the need to confirm something leads me to have to pay. Isn't that what information is coming to anyway, like the New York Times's digitization? Yours, Quis separabit? 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm ... I know what you mean; but we don't quite know whether it's going that way or not. The jury's out. There is also vastly more free information on the Web than there was, say, three years ago. Since we as Wikipedians are providing free information, our best friends are other good sites that provide free information :) Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah, so the California Death index at Rootsweb gives the same date but 1927 as a YOB. Perhaps a footnote would work in the article? – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How is www.familytreelegends.com even close to being a reliable source for this date of birth? It claims she was born on 5 Mar 1926, and died in May 1987. The problem with that is the Associated Press article of March 31, 1987 saying she died March 22. So are we planning to ignore the fact they have her death date completely wrong and assume they have her birth date correct? 86.183.59.192 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with all primary sources, but sometimes citing a primary source is acceptable. If it is one filled with errors or there is some other reason for doubt, we can attribute it ("According to...") and let readers understand where it comes from. Note that I am assuming this site is one of those genealogical sites which contains lots of old published records. User generated content on such sites, such as family trees etc, is another more difficult matter. I basically think all Andrew Dalby's comments are about right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: If a newspaper article is a blatant copyvio of a primary source (i.e., a verbatim copy of a primary source), can one claim that the newspaper article is a reliable third party source for the information?

Some context:

1. User:TopGun added several references to back a claim in the article Rashid Minhas.
2. I showed that the original source of the info is a COI/POV source (the subject's employer/Pakistan Airforce), and the other references either copied from it verbatim sans any attribution, or are from the non-RS Pakdef.info site (See here for the consensus on Pakdef.info's non-RS nature).
3. TopGun now claims that, since he considers one of the venues of the plagiarized content to be a notable news source, therefore the information has been "published" by a reputable reliable source, and hence can be used directly without qualifiers.

My question is: when a news article demonstrably plagiarizes from a primary source (and has no content other than the copy-pasted text), does it become (a) a third party source for the information, and (b) a reliable source for the information?

More details of the context can be found here. --Ragib (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A copyvio is not "cured" by saying "someone else committed it". If it is a copyvio, it is a copyvio. If we know it is a copyvio, then it is still a copyvio. Collect (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of a copyright violation, and to call it plagiarism is to misconstrue what is really going on. Having glanced at the RSN Archive linked above, I see more heat than light. I see this situation as comparable to the instances, which we see all the time here, of a press release simply being printed by a news organization verbatim, without it being identified as a press release. The best practice in such instances is for us to treat the publication of something by a legitimate news organization as a RS but, where we know it is a press release, attribute it even if the news organization does not. Fladrif (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If the work is a verbatim copy of a primary source, treat the work as primary (and note in the citation, what the source copied is). Republication of a primary source does not change its primary nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-publication of a press release is not necessarily a copyright violation. People issue them for the express purpose of getting them published, after all.

What changes when the periodical re-published the press release (perhaps verbatim, perhaps with minimal tweaking) is not the primary-secondary-tertiary nature of the source—it's still a primary source, and you may still WP:USEPRIMARY sources in limited ways—but the addition of editorial oversight and subjecting the content to the same (perhaps minimal) fact-checking that the publication normally employs. That means that it is technically a legitimately published news story (and still a primary source).

We have had a problem in the past with editors saying, "Oh, but I magically know that they didn't fact-check this paragraph in this newspaper story, so we can't use that material", and that's Not Okay. If the newspaper editor approved the story, then you have to assume that it meets their (possibly low) standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion here. There was NO press release. The news site essentially lifted content verbatim off the Pakistan Army/Air Force's website without any attribution. --Ragib (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An organization might issue the same text in several forms, for example, as a press release and on its web site. The fact that a newspaper article is virtually the same as an organization's web site does not prove, by itself, the newspaper didn't get the information from a press release. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No confusion. I didn't say this was a matter of reprinting a press release; I said that this was comparable to reprinting a press release. I think that, in this context, the issues and analysis at RSN should be pretty much the same as with reprinting a press release. Fladrif (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because this noticeboard is not about copyright, which is a complicated subject, the most important thing to say is that yes, when something gets taken up and printed by an RS it does give it some respectability. I think the question of whether it becomes "secondary" is a good example of why trying to define reliability based on the primary/ secondary/ tertiary distinction is like trying to define a fixed point on something moving. It is often easier to define whether something has a reputation for being reliable than to say whether it is secondary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do genealogical articles (such as Romney family and Pratt family requires sources for the genealogical claims? Or is WP:PRESERVE paramount over WP:RS? The articles at this point are heavily unsourced genealogical OR and SYNTH as far as I can tell, and past practice has been that Wikipedia does not use commercial "genealogical sites" for sources. Ought this be changed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd start by suggesting that they need sources to establish notability. Everyone has ancestors (lots of them), but so what? If there isn't a source for the genealogy without resorting to WP:OR, we shouldn't have an article in the first place. And with regard to commercial "genealogical sites", given their propensity to scatter disclaimers over their 'data', I'd be inclined to treat them with scepticism until evidence to the contrary is proffered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Posit that the "family" is notable - do claims made in the "genealogy" need genuine WP:RS sources, or is the existence of the family sufficient to obviate the use of sources for genealogical claims? Thanks. Collect (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think not. Genealogies are basically OR performed by various family members, which explains why different family members can come to different conclusions in their own genealogical research. If they ever stuck their heads together and did more serious and expert research, they might discover who is making errors and come up with a definitive, single, version. If such a version were conclusively endorsed by known historical experts in such matters, IOW third party sources, we might be able to accept such a version, but otherwise its basically OR which we can't endorse. We just need to be cautious and depend on third party sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course these articles need citations -- why would they be any different to the rest of the enyclopaedia? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Whereas the Romney family article, mentioned by the OP, is, as of now, reasonably well-sourced in its content, that pertaining to the Kennnedy-Shrivers contains en toto a mere half-dozen citations for its entire, exhaustive listings. Rather than WP's merely appending {{fact}} tags, per wp:PRESERVE, to so many of the names listed, would we be perhaps better off were we to jettis this article's pedigree table and many of the entries included in its various lists and start from scratch? What do other editors think?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reasonably sourced? About half at most - with a huge amont dependent on OR at best. The Pratt one? Virtually all unsourced per WP:RS. Huge leaps of genealogical research based on flimsy material - kuje Mitt Romney saying his or great-great-grandfather was Parley P. Pratt "maybe" and similar strong genealogical sourcing. The policy requires that the unsourced stuff be simply removed - that much is clear. Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

    The policies require that unsourceABLE material be removed, not that unsourcED material be removed. If it is possible to provide a reliable source for the information, then you are not required to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, WP:V states that "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." (my emphasis) Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• And WP:BLP has rather more strict words (not just "may be removed") - recalling that many of those in the "genealogy" are not yet dead. This is not a matter of simply saying "someone may be able to find a source" since the only source proffered in much of this is not WP:RS by a mile <g>. Collect (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Or not: BLP only applies to living people (I'll bet that Parley Pratt has been dead for a number of decades) and it only applies to contentious claims. And even then, BLP does not prohibit you from supplying a reliable source yourself. "The only source proffered in the article" is not the same thing as "the only source that's ever been published in the entire world". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, Collect would be perfectly justified in removing the unsourced material. Anyone who wanted to restore it would face the WP:BURDEN of finding sources to verify it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and there is no need for articles on notable families to carry the whole genealogy. They should concentrate on the notable family members, and if possible should be a narrative rather than a family tree. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many (most?) notable individuals have only non-notable ancestors. Thus including a genealogy at all should only be done for the few that really do qualify. Roger (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The removal of notable wives' names (eg Ann Romney|Ann]], Lenore) names I thought was simple institutional wp:BIAS. But now that the name of principals have been removed, there appears to be an actual bigotry at play. But, pushing that impression aside and resuming an assumption of good faith, I offer the questions: The lede, as sourced, at Pratt family defines it as descended from P.P.Pratt, so what would justify removal of him from ensuing list? And the lede at Romney family (US) defines it as notable primary due to G.Romney, so what would justify removal of him from that article's list?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The P.P. Pratt listing was contributed in the Pratt family article's very first edit in 2005, by User:Dr U and was there for five years, until its recent deletion. Yet in the article's current references #s 2 and 3 (Reuters use of info from Mormon studies scholar Brooks and the article by historian Bowman) are quotes referencing notable familial descents from, specifically, Parley Pratt.
• (And, as for the Romney family article, George Romney, Mitt, or both are mentioned in, for example, just about each one of the article's current first dozen references, so I don't follow the reasoning behind deleting their respective entries in the Romney family article's list, either.)
• WP is a tertiary source and can but rely on the available sources. So, the bottom line is, since the "Romney family" article's sources amply demonstrate that George's mom, Anna's, (paternal) grandfather was P.P. Pratt, this relationship between the two families is what the Romney family article should continue to reflect. Sure, per user:Collect's argument (taking it at face value--which may ohl=enr may not be a fool's errand)...it's absolutely within the realm of possibility--no matter how infinitely small--that George was misinformed/lied about this genealogy. Indeed, if a source is found that calls this relationship into question, then the text can and perhaps should be edited to shade in this doubt arising from the sourcing: eg, via "according to George" or some such formulation. Otherwise, WP should simply state the relationship, per the article's existing, ample sourcing on the point.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This diff is an open-and-shut case of improper removal of sourced content, when user:Collect deleted two citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story when deleting the article's summaries about George Romney and Mitt Romney.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

.....Btw a google search of news sources turn up dozens of hits for "parley," "pratt," "romney." Here's ten I picked out at random:

1. (from 2 days ago) Nat'l Review
2. (from 2 days ago) George Mason Univ
3. AP
4. CNN
5. FOX
6. LA Times
7. Time
8. Boston Globe
9. NPR
10. SLC Tribune

Google Books produces 810 hits. Google Scholar even produces 180.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS does not mean that every article with "pratt" and "romney" in it is a source for specific genealogical claims. Nor does it mean that claims not found in a source suddenly become usabe in any article at all. I fear that is the problem here -- but Wikipedia != Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad statements not hewing to the facts at hand may convince the ill-informed but Wikipedians as a whole will be more convinced by interpretations of logic and events supportable by actual fact.

1. Wrt the erroneous claim that Collect did not remove sourced material: Note the fact that, e/g: (A.) There is a Pratt family article because George Romney's mother belongs to a family that is notable in its own right; yet, despite the score of sources that establish this connection, Collect insist that the two families have no connection. (B.) There is a score of sources that George and Mitt are in the Romney article, some providing individual vitae--yet Collect removed both entries in that article's list, along with the additional AP source, providing an accouting of the Romney clan's genealogy, which source had been appended to both.
2. Wrt the erroneous claim (wishful thinking?) that Wikipedia does not provide notable genealogical information: Note the fact that, e/g, the following categories are among those included below the article on Wikipedia about the Dunham-Obama-Robinsons (a combined article under the rubric of "Family of Barack Obama" because neither the Dunhams nor the Robinson families are notable independently from their relationship to the current US president):

   -Obama family
   -African American genealogy
   -African-American families
   -Families
   -American families
   -Genealogies of individuals
   -Family trees
   -First Families of the United States

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a reason to violate Wikipedia policies. You are using such sources as "jared-pratt-family.org" which are blatantly not "reliable sources" for a genealogy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, a url need not even be provided. But I provide two for each citation. Double. Twice as many as just one. An infinite amount more than the number..."required."

The material in question was pubished in the late 19th century by the Improvement Era magazine and the Deseret News newspaper. The Association merely hosta a transcription of the same. Thus one can access the originals, via the citations, or one can review transcriptions of the same. (Btw, the Pratt Association was founded in the late 19th century by mathematician and scientist Orson Pratt. The associaion's historian, Matt Grow, co-authored (with preeminent Mormon studies scholar Terryl Givens) the biography of Parley Pratt that was published by Oxford Univ. Press in 2011. An entity is considered a reliable source about itself. In this case, the entity only hosts a transcription. The orig- .. -inals are accessible via the citation, along with the transcriptions. How can you delete photographs of 19th-century newspaper articles and an official Improvement Era webpage that hosts a copy of the magazine's old article--merely because the Pratt Association also provides a copy of this information? Is the Pratt Association some kind of tar baby for you that forever mars anything it touches? Things that were valid sources suddenly become invalid merely because the Association also hosts a transcript? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When user Collect engaged in the pointy prank of the removal of entries for Mitt, George, Lenore, Ann, et al, from the Romney family article's list, he simultaneously deleted a citation that was attached to both of the entries for Mitt and George referencing an AP story that had been hosted on the Fox News website. The AP story goes as follows:

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley P. Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico.

Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine colonies established by the church over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.

If Collect has a source calling into doubt that Helaman-Pratt-daughter Anna begat George R., he should bring it to the fore (and we'll inform celebrated genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, who henceforth can asterisk the same!).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and note that the material I removed was unsourced or improperly sourced for the full claims as made in your genealogy article. Please finally read and understand WP:RS and the fact that a source must back up the entire claim being made. The edit you cite as being improper removed a link you created for the "Pratt family" - which was unsourced. It removed Miles Alonzo Romney which was unsourced. It removed Thomas Cottham Romeny also unsourced. It removed Vernon Romnay which was sourced to "politicalgraveyard.com" which is a site run by a single person and is not RS. And so on. Most did not even have an attempt at citing a source. Curiously enough, Wikipedia likes to have claims being sourced. This is not a "pointy" obsession of mine, it is not a "prank" - it is the rules. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

How does a family article that had been on Wikipedia for 6 1/2 years belong to me (who has hardly touched the material at "Romney family")? I am pointing out to the community that you had removed, for whatever your rationale and motivations, notable, sourced data from the article on shaky grounds.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to impute ownership only that this is the article at issue. Moreover, the fact that an unsourced or insufficiently sourced article existed for any period of time does not change what Wikipedia policies state. Lastly, WP:RS is not "shaky grounds." Collect (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the original question of this posting, I think the answer is clear enough? Yes, articles about families should be verifiable and they should not be original research, just like every article. Of course we have many articles with no obvious sourcing, but they do not all necessarily need to be deleted. Many can be verified, and verifying is better than deleting when possible. Deleting things should not be justified by saying "its the rules". Every edit we do should aim to improve the encyclopedia. Consider WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR. If a deletion is contested then in any case it should not be rushed through. Use the talk pages or noticeboards like this one. There should be no rush to delete.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What do we do when we have a paper that is presumptively an RS, but we know that the writer of the article in question, appearing in the paper, is not reliable but rather is questionable. For example, would we rely on an article in The New Republic that was written by Stephen Glass?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The reliability calculation has many factors and is unique to each situation. One thing to look for would be corrections or other responses from the editors. Stephen Glass's reporting was carefully reviewed and the editors determined which articles had problems and which didn't. The fact that he made up some facts didn't mean he made up all of them. So even with that example the answer depends on the exact source and the assertion it's being used for. How do we know that this writer is unreliable?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Which would be nice if we knew whichfacts weren't. Not all problem articles had full corrections made, which means use of such articles is problematic at best, and another source would outweigh it by an order of magnitude. I believe it is dictum that a person once convicted of perjury will not be believed on any issue at all? Collect (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. And this noticeboard doesn't answer hypothetical questions. Epeefleche, do you have a specific question relating to the use of a particular source as a reference for a particular statement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no useful generalizable answer to this question. The specifics of the case must be examined. What writer, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Given the above, I should come back when I have more specifics. I noticed that we have articles that list, inter alia, journalists who engaged in fraudulent activity. See, for example, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair and some (though not all) of the other entries at List of hoaxes#Journalistic hoaxes and Journalistic scandal#See also. I was considering that -- if articles by such authors in RSs are not themselves considered RS material -- I would look to see if we have any such refs at the Project. But before I started looking, I thought I would check here as to how such refs would be considered at the end of the day. It seems that some editors would accept a Stephen Glass article as an RS ref in certain circumstances, and others might instead view him as having rebutted the presumption of reliability by his actions. Perhaps the issue is premature for this page, as a couple of editors suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stephen Glass' articles have been corrected or retracted by the New Republic, as have Blair's by the Times. Reliable sources are reliable not because they never print errors, but because they have a system in place to prevent or at least correct errors which do make it into print. We shouldn't be citing retracted work (unless we make clear that it was retracted). And we should strongly question the reliability of sources which fail to retract or correct errors when they're identified. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. One issue (premature for this noticeboard, I understand) is whether or not the work of an author such as Glass or Blair loses the presumption of reliability (even if published in an RS) once he has been revealed to have written articles of this ilk. As to your point that the RSs have retracted or corrected these editors' error-ridden articles, we have the challenge that our online sources may carry the older articles. And don't necessarily indicate that the pieces that contain fabrications have been corrected or retracted by the RSs in question. See, for example, this article in Highbeam Business, which our wp article on Glass suggests (pointing to a questionable RS?) and which a NYT article indicates was one of Glass's fabrication-laden articles. But I understand that some editors consider this discussion premature.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That's an excellent example of why we need to link the original source, not a copy of it hosted at marijuanalibrary.org or HighBeam. But I think you've identified a real problem, and I didn't mean to dismiss it. The problem isn't unique to Wikipedia - for example, a recent survey of the scientific literature found that retracted papers continued to be cited at an impressive rate, even after their retraction. The bottom line is that we need to be careful with sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is no useful generalizable principle to be found by discussing Glass or Blair. Even for evaluating an article by one of those two there is no generalizable principle. What source, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is an attribute of the publication not the writer. We expect that these publications will publish retractions for errors or false information. TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UT/p>C)

Reliability can be an attribute of a publication or a writer. See the policy page. Perhaps a useful point to remember is that our policies do not say that we must include all things which can be reliably sourced. The policy works the other way around. So whenever we have reasons for doubts about a source, we can rightfully aim to avoid being controversial. Having said this, the area where this can go wrong is if a controversial source is a well-known one which needs to be mentioned in order to avoid breaking WP:NPOV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I came across a citation:

Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Earls of Kent, Holand, retrieved on 2 May 2010

in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter.

On further investigation it turns out to be:

• Cawley, Charles (3 June 2011). "Earls of Kent {1352}-1408, Holand". [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm Medieval Lands]. Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (Contents)

As can be seen by this search Medieval Lands is used as a reference in over 500 Wikipedia articles.

The introduction says:

It must be emphasised that many areas still remain to be checked as the research is still incomplete. When consulting the documents, it should be assumed that any information which does not include references to primary source material falls into this category and should therefore be treated with the appropriate caution.

Also:

The "back-to-basics" approach to primary source material has produced many surprises. It has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By way of example, browse for Æthelberht King of Wessex (ENGLAND, ANGLO-SAXON and DANISH KINGS) and the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary (HUNGARY, KINGS). The approach has also highlighted many cases where little supporting source material has so far been found, despite extensive research, indicating the possibly dubious nature of some supposed connections.

Is Medieval Lands a reliable source? If not then can it be used as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this website is reliable for history. I can't see who the authors are or any affiliation with a university or reputable research institute. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The author appears to be Charles Cawley; the site states that "Charles Cawley is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research". So not a historian or an authority on medieval genealogy. RolandR (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• per WP:HISTRS, nope. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't cite it as a reliable source because (so far as I know) Charles Cawley and his site aren't referenced as scholarly by academic sources. If I'm mistaken there, and they are so referenced, then that would change.

We can certainly cite it under "External links" -- it is an extremely useful site to serious readers because it cites primary sources scrupulously and because it says honestly where the sources have not yet been found. I don't know any site more useful for someone who's beginning to investigate a medieval family connection. If we only have 560 links to it, that's far too few, because many such people would start from Wikipedia and would be helped by a link to Medlands. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not rs, it is hosted by a genealogical website which is run by amateur volunteers. TFD (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then the unanimous consensus from the few who have expressed an opinion here, it is not suitable as a secondary source how about for those facts in the source, where the source cites a reliable source under the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT rule? -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's a middle way among the requirements of Saywhereyougotit, Reliablesources and Wereallydontmuchlikeprimarysources, I don't know what the middle way is. My method has been (a) if I have time, to check the sources that Charles Cawley cites, and cite them; (b) in any case, to ensure that Medieval Lands is among the external links. I expect someone else will come along with a better solution :) Andrew Dalby 12:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As it is not a personal website, given the description of how it is made I see no problem to cite the entries which name the primary sources, as these are the checked ones, (and the other ones comes from non primary sources as I understand it) but then we are basically dealing with a good collection of primary sources. There is no absolute ban on using primary sources, but they are not ideal. When it comes to medieval genealogy I would say this type of imperfect source should not be shunned too much. Even professional writings on medieval genealogy are often full of assumptions and traditions, and the best ones often also just collect primary sources and let readers see the options. So that is probably what we will end up with too in some such cases. (I see no reason to prefer blithe reproduction of traditions such as can be found in well-known publication such as Burkes or whatever, just because they are well-known and frequently cited.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Does citing Amazon.com in order to support the publication info (date, publisher, etc.) or release info for a film or TV show violate WP:NOTADVERTISING? I cite Amazon sometimes in order to support such info, but on editor is arguing to me that this violates WP:NOTADVERTISING because Amazon is a vendor whose sole purpose is to sell things. My position is that just because Amazon is a vendor does not mean that this is our intent in citing it, since we may have a function for an Amazon item page that is distinct from Amazon's function for it. Such links, after all, are always placed in the Infobox and External links section of the articles for such companies, so that would seem to underscore the fact that different people can have different uses for a given webpage or website: The page on the website of a vendor may have a business function for that vendor, but it obviously can, in some limited instances, have encyclopedic value for Wikipedia. The same would hold true, I'd imagine, for WP:EL, which says the same thing about links included in the EL section not being purely promotional. Any thoughts? Agree or disagree? Nightscream (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page. We do not deal with hypotheticals, but in concrete reliability issues. (In particularly I would suggest that deposit libraries and the bibliographic page / credits / object cover are suitable places to find bibliographic information. Amazon's bibliographic perfection is far from inerrant) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Until something is released, it falls into the "crystal ball" category. Amazingly enough, sometimes things are not released on time, or ever. Collect (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What Amazon says about such things is perhaps notable enough that we could use them with an "According to Amazon.com..."?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

While looking for reliable sources that first season of The Looney Tunes Show, this site was brought to my attention. My natural instincts are that this is unreliable as it appears to be a blog run by a guy named Peter Vidani who doesn't appear to have any real ties to the show beyond a simple fanbase. Although, there was a message by one of the show's writers Tony Cervone mentioning the season finale but with no mention of a source. Still I can't be for sure, so what's the verdict? Sarujo (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, it is an unedited blog. The post purporting to be content authored by Tony Cervone cannot be reliably demonstrated for wikipedia purposes to have been written by Tony Cervone, and is published on an unedited blog, and is therefore unreliable. Thanks for your question, sorry about the delay in answering your inquiry. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This relates to research done by a WMF fellow on oral citations. Are oral citations now accepted on en.wiki as reliable sources? They seem to have been used in this article, maybe others as well. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe. Have they been published in a reliable source? (It seems that the answer is "no" in this particular instance.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• My inclination is that they aren't good enough for notability, but are good enough to be used as sources. Even in academic research audio sources are acceptable: notability though is an entirely separate matter, and must be decided separately. In this case specifically I do not feel that it establishes notability, as the person interviewed has no academic authority in the field. He is simply a layperson, who has played a game of unknown notability.NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I guess the question is whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall Ball would suddenly be notable if one of the hall residents mentioned having played it in an interview. The issue isn't whether audio sources (WMF funded or not) are "enough", but whether they establish notability. I think in this case, as with Hall Ball, the answer is no. And would still be no if the interview transcript in question, proving that one interviewee claimed to have played the game, appeared in Nature. Pakaran 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The "oral citations" in this case are primary sources, and the person being interviewed is not an academic authority on the subject. In the absence of multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources, notability is not established as per en.wp standards. Primary sources can only be used under very limited circumstances. There are two other articles incorporating "oral citations": Dappa Kali and Neeliyar Bhagavathi. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. In general, oral citations cannot be checked for accuracy. They are therefore akin to primary, or even self published sources. Because of that, at best they might be used as statements of opinion, but not as statements of fact. That being said, the research raises an important point, what to do when languages simply do not have sufficient printed material? It could be that some day there will be a system developed for establishing fact-checking and accuracy in oral citations, which would open up a new venue of reliable sources. Until then though, I would not consider oral citations reliable.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the other two articles that I have mentioned, one of the interviewee is a school teacher from a village, and the other is a person who has a house in a village. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but commons user Aprabhala is not a professional or academic ethnographer; they're a commons content creator. Aprabhala's content would need to have been published through a minimally reliable ethnographic recording structure prior to being mirrored on commons. Aprabhala's respondent might be an appropriate respondent, but Aprabhala has removed any credibility of their respondent's content by uttering the audio file in an uncontrolled manner. Audio files are just as publishable as any format. Recordings of appropriate respondents could either be primary, or secondary, depending on expertise and involvement; but, you can't just dump audio on commons (an unedited wiki, produced by the public) and have it as acceptable. Also those files appear to be copyvios as the respondants (the copyright holders and authors) don't appear to have released the work from the low quality bibliographic information listed—the English transcript makes this violation of the respondent's copyright obvious. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The respondent in Hindi does say that they do not have any issues with their work being published on Wikipedia, but that release information is neither specific enough nor in writing. So your argument holds. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• What if the person I interview has been in an academic or professional capacity with an organization and can hence give information that is not documented so far in written? Like interviewing a museum director or an on-field researcher working with tribes? Noopur28 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest you get them to release the work (their speech) via an appropriate commons licence. It depends claim by claim. An expert of Australian Professorial standing: ie a senior end career researcher who is internationally field significant at the discipline level; yeah, off hand statements and characterisations by them in the course of an interrogative interview are relevant—particularly where no higher quality source is available. Early and Mid Career academics, of lesser standing, are more likely to make claims that are not publishable, ever. Academics are generally appointed, and promoted, on their capacity to write research findings. When academics do not write and publish research findings either their research is "black" as in government secrets, or their research is irrelevant, untrue or methodologically FRINGE.
  • On the other hand a museum curator discussing an object (or museum!) who isn't making extraordinary claims is a professional doing what they're paid to do. Similarly practicing folklorists, or community elders who are repositories of knowledge, have systems of verifying truth. Now, these don't hold up to high quality reliable sources, like academic publication; and often community truths are falsehoods. So you can say, "Elder X, who is the repository for the Y oral tradition, states that..." and attribute their expert opinion; but I would suggest not writing an article in Wikipedia's voice claiming the facts that X claims.
  • And for goodness sake: get proper copyright releases, and publish them in an edited / reviewed context before mirroring to commons. Establish a society of edited community speaking if you have to. Indicate standards. Indicate rejection and acceptance standards. Commons is not a site of first publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, Commons IS a site of first publication. The huge majority of documents in Commons have not been published before. Yann (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • First publication? For documents simply uploaded there? Mind you, why do we have so many documents there that haven't been published, is Commons being used as web storage? Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Commons may choose to host what ever it pleases: it is an open wiki with its own governance community. "Stuff I found on Commons" is not an acceptable source for wikipedia. Stuff only ever uttered on commons is [in such a vast majority of situations that it nears all situations] not acceptable source material for wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And with an ethos not always shared with other Wikipedias I gather. I don't know what we do about that, nothing I guess. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Commons may need to consider that it isn't a GLAM level repository of cultural data. I'd be happy to curate within my competence audio content on a edited expert supervised common repository of first publication. But commons ain't that repository. Something to take to meta if people really feel the need to publish oral reports from oral communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a good source for the claim in LMFAO (group)? Come to that the Wall Street Journal gossip column actually misrepresents the TMZ (who are the source I was thinking of removing to start with) video. Should we even bother with trivia like this? Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, particularly the one about providing a citation. The citation presents RS/N editors with sufficient orienting information to begin their considerations. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In February 2010, SkyBlu was involved in an altercation with politician Mitt Romney on an airplane during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The rapper stated that Romney attacked him from behind, putting a "vulcan grip" on his neck.^{[LMFAO 1]} SkyBlu was arrested by Canadian authorities as a result of the altercation but released when Romney refused to press charges and caught a later flight.^{[LMFAO 2]} The altercation was mentioned in a video showing SkyBlu being escorted off the aircraft by authorities^{[LMFAO 3]} where SkyBlu and RedFoo give an account of the incident.^{[LMFAO 4]}

The CSM citation isn't any good for the reality of what did or did not happen. That's a blog, that at that time was frequently humor/gossip with little or no effort to verify facts. I guess it's a good source for the fact that the guy made those claims -- but there's little doubt that he made those claims. Trivia like that doesn't belong in an article on Mitt Romney, but that probablu won't stop it.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

While editing on the Freenet, I was wondering how one should add citations that reference a page on the Freenet network. The direct edit I wanted to add was adding sources to statements of existing plugins (their factual description) and the best sources I could find was their official websites, but which is located on the Freenet network. How do I describe the requirement that in order to reach the source you need additional software? Belorn (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a uniform resource locator for these sites, regardless of requiring extension software? Is there a standard address protocol? If so, use that. Then comment in the bibliography or citation that such-and-such capable software is required to access the resource. The sources you're talking about using sound like low reliability primary involved sources though. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this, what is currently note 11 seems to use the URI schema for Freenet. Is there a public web-gateway to freenet? Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

James Tod was an amateur historian who studied & wrote on India-related topics in the period ca. 1800-1835. His principal work was the two volumes of Annals and antiquities of Rajas'han. He has one major biographer - Jason Freitag - who has described that work as being "manifestly biased". Others have noted that it is a "a romantic historical and anecdotal account" (historian, Crispin Bates); "erroneous and misleading at places and they are to be used with caution as a part of sober history" (V. S. Srivastava, Rajasthan's Department of Archaeology and Museums); and that he had a "general reputation for inaccuracy ... among Indologists by late in the nineteenth century" (Michael Meister, an architectural historian and professor of South Asia Studies). William Crooke, who edited the 1920 edition of the Annals and, like Tod, took inspiration for his own studies from folklore etc, said that Tod recorded "the facts, not as they really occurred, but as the writer and his contemporaries supposed that they occurred." Crooke also says that Tod's "knowledge of ethnology was imperfect, and he was unable to reject the local chronicles of the Rajputs." More, his "excursions into philology are the diversions of a clever man, not of a trained scholar, but interested in the subject as an amateur."

Tod is still lauded by those whom he praised in India and his Annals in particular are used as sources across a wide range of our articles, although his name is frequently mis-spelled. Obviously, he will not have got everything that he wrote wrong but the difficulty is that we cannot judge which bits are correct etc. Can we treat him as a reliable source for statements of historical fact etc? Or should the usage of him be restricted. If the latter, what are the limits? - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Use for opinion only given the criticisms his work have received. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All historians were amateur at that period, so that doesn't count against him. And all historians have to be suspected of bias. Mainly, his work can no longer be authoritative, because so much basic research and discovery hadn't yet happened in his time. I agree with Darkness Shines. His opinion, as a classic author in English on this subject, may well be worth quoting, but always naming and dating him in the text ("James Tod, writing in 1829, believed that ..."). Andrew Dalby 12:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I think that I should make it clear without going into too much detail, examples of which are in the linked bio article, that he was plain wrong about numerous things, including genealogies, because of translation issues. He also relied on people from one caste/community - the Rajputs - for his information & translations that gave rise to his construction of a history of a region that included other communities. He also had a day job for > 20 of those years, which is not necessarily true of other historians, ie: he was not a "gentleman historian", so to speak. It is not a "suspicion" of bias: he is recognised as being very biased. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

James Tod article has sentences such as this: "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable." Then the article goes on to seek support from Macaulay. David Kopf (University of Minnesota) says this: "In the first place, Macaulay agreed to go to India and remained there as long as he did primarily to accumulate a modest fortune, which would enable him to pursue a literary career in England. Secondly, while in Calcutta, instead of immersing himself in any of the languages,cultures,or regional histories of the Indian subcontinent,he spent most of his time studying the Greek and Roman classics. Thirdly,he admitted repeatedly that he viewed his Indian sojourn as a period of exile.^[1]". I don't understand how is Macaulay an authority against Tod's accuracy.

I have found Tod to be more often correct in his historical facts than wrong. As others have mentioned let us not forget this work was completed in early 1800's and sure there must be mistakes but are mistakes larger than correct facts? No. If for some particular detail "A" other sources dis-garee with Tod and the evidence is against him by all means don't use him in corroborating "A".

Muhnot Nainsi represented a tradition of very accurate history writing in India. Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler have used Nainsi's Khyat extensively for their two Volume scholarly tome "The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, University of Michigan Press".

My questions are:

Since Tod used local historians and historical Khyats, baats, etc (Introduction to Saran and Ziegler have an excellent survey on this and I am willing to take photos and stick them here if any one is interested) as sources, in addition to using Persian and other Mughal histories, why is that a negative against Tod?

If what Tod says is also accepted by other modern historians why is it wrong to use Tod? Ror Is King (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• When crazy Stu shouts the sky is blue, we don't reference him, we reference a paper that's conducted a scientific analysis of the sky's chroma. Tod's methodology is so abominably out of date that he fails to meet any of the criteria of knowledge generation in history. We cite historians, we don't cite 19th century Grand Tourers of the sub-continent. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tod's methodology is ... out of date" is true, of course. You should be ashamed of the rest of that, Fifelfoo.

This picture of Tod with his research assistant is nice, I think. Andrew Dalby 12:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Would like to point out that some very informed people don't think Tod is crazy Stu. Dr Richard Saran (PhD University of Michigan 1978: Thesis: "Conquest and Colonization: Rajputs and Vasis in middle period Marwar") and Dr. Norman P Ziegler (PhD University of Chicago 1973: Thesis: "Action Power and Service in Rajasthani Culture: A social history of rajputs in middle period Rajasthan") say that : "Tod was among the first British army officers of the early nineteenth century to gain an in-depth view of Rajputs and Rajasthani society. His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms besepeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents." (From Page 1, Volume 1: The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, ISBN:978-0-89148-085-3 Link ).Ror Is King (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ror Is King, the reliability of Macaulay, Nainsi etc is not being questioned here and is a sideshow. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• You have stated on James Tod page "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable.". Nainsi's text is one such text and there are many more such texts in rajasthani language. You are saying all rajasthani history khyats are unreliable. I just proved to you Nainsi, a rajsthani khyat writer is not unreliable. Furthermore you use Macaulay as an authority to demolish Tod when as David Kopf has shown Macaulay did not even read any historical texts in Indian languages. How can such absurd POV be allowed to root on Wikipedia? Ror Is King (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is not about the James Tod article; nor does that article make the claim that you suggest, as has already been explained to you on that article's talk page. Read the sentence that you quote again. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone can see on James Tod that you are using Macaulay to discredit Tod and Macaulay did not read a single piece of Indian history written in Rajasthani languages. You say and I quote from James Tod:"Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable". And then you say: "Macaulay, the historian and politician who held high office in India, wrote in 1835 that "a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia,". How on earth is Macaulay a historian? Did you read Kopf's piece given above? Ror Is King (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• For history articles: don't even attribute, burn with fire, quote only critical appreciations of him by Post-Rankean professional historians, per WP:HISTRS. For articles on Tod himself, quote and reference only where secondary sources on Tod quote and reference him, and use the secondary sources colouring and judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The only Tod quotes that should be used, and sparingly, are ones that are countered or supported by later scholars. Such quotes should have a purpose in the article, to show changing attitudes. Tod should never be used alone to support a supposed fact. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Binksternet's advice is good. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On this RFC a user is saying that one of the sources is of no use. Here is the source MUSTAFA QADRI ABC/The Drum. The source in question is from a well respected journalist. Profile at ABCProfile at The Guardian He is widly quoted in academic books as an expert on the region such as, Fawaz A. Gerges (2011) The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda OUP p175. Debra A. Miller(ed) (2009 Afghanistan Greenhaven p222. Joanne M. Lisosky, Jennifer H. Henrichsen (2011)War on Words: Who Should Protect Journalists? Praeger p252. Is he good for the statement that India has no troops in country.? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems likely he'd get this fact right, but that is an opinion piece. As such, if citing it on this subject, I would do so with an inline attribution. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By inline you mean cited directly after the statement? Or write that he has said such and such? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Either, I guess. It would be better, if possible, to find a source on this that isn't an opinion piece. Andrew Dalby 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another news piece from Time which is also used to cite the statement, thanks for your input. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That news piece says exactly the opposite of this. I'll verify the newly added one too. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Early and Later Israelite Campaigns, where several articles are identified that are sourced exclusively to the Old Testament. Comments and suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:HISTRS. Or anywhere near. And this is something we have a consistent policy on. Many parts of the world have had annals or chronicles; they are primary sources. We can never base articles solely on them. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While the Old Testament is a lovely literary text that makes claims about what happened in the past, like many texts that are a compendium of oral history redactions, assembled for political and religious purposes separate to the veneration of a God, it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia's history requirements as Itsmejudith notes. Scholars primarily inspired by the religious text could write theological or religious history accounts of the importance in the text of such a battle, which would need to be characterised as devotional approaches to the battle. But for historical claims proper, you would need to seek out scholarly histories of warfare in that region. Just because a battle isn't "history" doesn't necessarily make it unnotable. Compare and consider in relation to another war from a devotional literary text: Kurukshetra war Fifelfoo (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not reliable as a source of historical information without corraboration. The OT was written as a religious document, and not as a historical document in the sense history is understood by modern scholars. A lot of the events portrayed in the OT are innacurate, distorted or simply fabricated. that doesn't make them non-notable, as Fifeloo rightly points out. Just not historical. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Old Testment is a sufficiently well-studied text that I would expect to find a scholarly discussion in the literature for every historical event that it mentions. If so, then those should be used. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, and even when the OT corresponds with other contemporary (with the OT) sources, there is often important scholarship on the relevance of the inclusion of the events in the OT. It should be born in mind, though, that the OT is actually not a single source, but many sources rolled into one. It is the nature of "sourced exclusively to" that is important. If the OT is the only documentation that an event occurred, we should still cover it, but we should be citing commentaries as well as the OT itself. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Krant M. L. Verma, who also edits Wikipedia as Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), has written a 4-volume work titled Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna about Indian revolutionaries. He has been citing this book as a reference in the majority of his contributions Awadhesh.Pandey (talk · contribs), who also maintains the article Krant M. L. Verma, has also been adding this book to several articles (e.g. ).

I first started doubting the reliability of this book, when the user Krantmlverma added a claim to several articles that Keshab Chakravarthy and K. B. Hedgewar are the same person (e.g. ). I find this hard to believe because none of the reliable biographies of Keshab Chakravarthy or KB Hedgewar available on Google books, journals or other online sources (other than Wikipedia mirrors) mention this. (see Talk:K. B. Hedgewar#Keshab_Chakravarthy_and_K._B._Hedgewar)

Can this source be considered reliable? The author (probably) barely passes the threshold of notability. Also, I sense a conflict of interest here: both Krantmlverma and Awadhesh.Pandey have been adding the entire excerpts from ML Varma's books or blog posts to various articles (e.g. ). Google returns only yellow-page listings for the publisher "Praveen Prakashan". But multiple Wikipedia articles cite it as a source -- all these citations were added by either Krantmlverma or Awadhesh.Pandey.

Is there a guideline on these kind of sources? I mean, books published by Wikipedians who use them as references to back up their contributions? utcursch | talk 06:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that is a self-published source. If it is to be added then it should be done by an uninvolved person. Equally, I have been digging around on and off since you raised this general point elsewhere a while ago - it doesn't look reliable to me, but that is based on searching purely English texts etc. WP:FRINGE seems distinctly possible. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I share a similar view. The user has mentioned some other sources saying that "Previously he was involved in such type of revolutionary activities. This fact has been disclosed by so many writers". It's not clear to me if these sources talk only about his involvement in "such type of revolutionary activities" or directly support the assertion that Keshab Chakravarthy or KB Hedgewar were the same guy. Either way, these sources seem to be RSS-affiliated publications, and at best, this might be a fringe theory. utcursch | talk 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to remind editors of the very extensive and broad community sanction placed on sub-continental caste and political party articles and attendant discussions right now. Let's stay civil and work out the reliability of this text. I encourage editors to search deposit libraries, and scholarly libraries with a South Asian collection. I also encourage editors to search Indian university libraries. Good luck, I'll keep an eye on this thread. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Worldcat returns this for the publisher: . The specific author's work is here. After finding this, I'm a little less impressed by the publisher's credentials. Clicking on "shopping", it seems they do general import/export as well as publishing. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask if TMZ is generally reliable, since that's been asked and answered here before, and the consensus in the seven past RSN discussions I found (December 2007 May 2009 June 2009 December 2009 August 2010 March 2011 December 2011) seems to be that it generally is, and that even The New York Times called it as such. What was also said was that it should be used cautiously, and on a case-by-case basis. So I want to know if TMZ is reliable for the following three pieces of information that an editor removed from the Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew article, on the basis that TMZ is not reliable:

• [Drew Pinsky] reportedly visited Rachel Uchitel personally in order to convince her to join the fourth season cast. (TMZ citation)

• Carey relapsed and returned to porn, starring in and directing a parody film called Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw, a decision that Pinsky said saddened him. (TMZ citation)

• Michaele Salahi was later removed from the show because, according to TMZ sources, she harbored "no addiction," and thus had "no reason to be there."(TMZ citation)

In the meantime, I will look for other sources, but since I don't know how successful my search will be, I'd like those here to chime in, just to be sure that this is one of the "cases" that they've mentioned in the past. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed much of the past discussions, and thanks for posting them. I agree with editors who say we should use this source, if at all, with the caution mandated by WP:BLP. Some relevant sections on this policy include a link to WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Regarding non public figures, the policy says: exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution.. The above in my mind rules out using TMZ when it breaks a story and is the only source reporting it. As for reliability, I am bothered by the number of links provided in the articles that hint they are providing evidence but are in fact advertisement. This was particularly true for the Carey story which said: "in our behind-the-scenes footage, you'll see there's not much difference between the satirical XXX flick and the actual TV show. The word "footage" was a live link, but none was available. This does not increase my confidence in TMZ's accuracy. I think your chosen course of action is wisest, look for more sources.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

William Lockhart Granted 160 Acres by the Crown of England in the 1700's.

"The Early Settlers of the Bahama Islands with Account of the American Revolution" by A. TALBOT BETHEL (1039)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk • contribs)

The above section was by 66.151.103.8 Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is familysearch.org a :"relaible source" in Romney family"

:::*[[G. Ott Romney]] (December 12, 1892-May 3, 1973) was born in [[Salt Lake City]], the son of George Ernst and Hannah, and died in [[Alexandria, Virginia]]. He was the third head football coach at Brigham Young University, coaching for nine years from 1928-1936. His national positions included Chairman of the National Recreation Policies Committee, National Director of the Recreation Section of the Works Progress Administration or WPA, assignments with the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and membership on U.S. President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]'s Council on Youth Fitness. During [[World War II]] he served as Chief of Recreation and Club Unit Services to the [[United States Armed Forces]] through the [[Red Cross]]. He married Ruth Harding in 1919, and they are parents of three children - two girls and one boy.<ref name=AF>[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp "Ancestral File page on George Romney"], Ancestry of G. Ott Romney. Family History Department, The Church of Jesus Latter Day Saints. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.byucougars.com/staff/athletics/g-ott-romney "G. Ott Romney Staff Bio"], Brigham Young University. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref>

Also are "staff bios" and the like RS for genealogical claims in the same article? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither would be reliable sources for the article, because there is no evidence that there is fact-checking of the biographical information. FamilySearch does provide copies of primary sources that would be reliable, for example birth certificates, but they would be of little or no use for the article. TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. A lot of material in Familysearch is user contributed without oversight. A lot of it is not, but it is sometimes hard to sort out which. Anyway the Ancestral Files are certainly based on user contributions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello I’d like to ask for a favor to the board, it’s a simple question. Some days ago I observed that in the Potato article it says three times that "the cultivated potato was originated in Peru" which I consider breaks the neutrality of the article because for other sources I’ve presented including the ones used to back that claim it is also considered that the area covers a region of western Bolivia.

Consulting with one of the editors this source was presented to me, which undoubtedly is a reliable source but it seems we reached a bottleneck with the way we interpret this source, the abstract of the source says:

• Our analyses are consistent with a hypothesis of a “northern” (Peru) and “southern” (Bolivia and Argentina) cladistic split for members of the S. brevicaule complex, and with the need for considerable reduction of species in the complex. In contrast to all prior hypotheses, our data support a monophyletic origin of the landrace cultivars from the northern component of this complex in Peru, rather than from multiple independent origins from various northern and southern members.

But later in the body of the article I found, what I consider a clarification regarding the actual frontiers of the area defined:

• The topology of the entire data set is in concordance with the morphological (21), RAPD, and RFLP results (22) in defining a northern (species from Peru, together with S. achacachense from northern Bolivia) and southern (species from Bolivia and northern Argentina) clade of the S. brevicaule complex. This geographic split does not exactly follow country borders, but very closely so. For example, the northern clade contains S. achacachense PI 558032 from the department of La Paz, Bolivia bordering Peru, and the southern clade contains S. leptophyes PI 458378 from the department of Puno bordering Bolivia.

My friend Marshal dismisses my observation saying that an abstract cannot contradict the article so the only information valid is the one in the abstract, while for me I don’t think it’d be contradicting itself but that clarification would indicate that the area where these scientists traced the origin isn’t exactly following the national borders and covers a portion of the Bolivian territory as well. That’s why I bring the question to this board hoping someone would analyze the source and provide us a more experienced opinion on the matter.

Additionally if it’s possible I’d greatly appreciate if someone could determine if the sources I presented are effectively outdated or not.

The source is A single domestication for potato based on multilocus amplified fragment length polymorphism genotyping by David M. Spooner*, Karen McLean, Gavin Ramsay, Robbie Waugh, and Glenn J. Bryan, PNAS 2005 . The discussion and other sources cited can be fully read here and here. Any advice, explanation or interpretation would be very welcomed, thank you in advance. Teberald (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The source is the article, not the abstract. Abstracts are not appropriate to read or cite from, when an article is available. Even if the article is unavailable to you, it is inappropriate to cite the abstract. It is certainly inappropriate to cite a source without having read it in full and digested the variety of statements within it. So no, don't cite the claim from the abstract, cite the claim from the body of the article having read and considered the full article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quickness of your response and would you consider the first sources I used are outdated or are they still valid? I mean these ones Teberald (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full citations for the sources you want us to look at. See the top of the page, or a style guide for academic writing, for how to format a full citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you use a paper as a source for the author's opinion, it becomes a primary source and you need to establish the degree of acceptance of those opinions. Generally papers are good secondary sources for opinions of earlier writers. For example, a paper will say, "While most writers believe x, I shall argue y." While we can use the paper as a source that most writers believe x, we do not know what weight, if any, should be given to y. See WP:MEDRS which explains the proper use of sources in medical-related articles. TFD (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry using the templates they'd be:

• Hawkes, John (1987). "The evolution of cultivated potatoes and their tuber-bearing wild relatives". Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 36 (1): 189–208. doi:10.1007/BF01986960.
• Miller, Joseph; Spooner, David (1999). "Collapse of species boundaries in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (Solanaceae, S. sect. Petota): molecular data" (PDF). Plant Systematics adn Evolution. 214: 103–130.
• Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, National Research Council (1989). Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation. Washington D.C. United States: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-07461-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Francis, John Michael (2006). Iberia and the Americas: culture, politics, and history : a multidisciplinary encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851094219.
• International Potato Center. "Potato".
• Luján Claure, Lauro (1996). "Historia de la Papa" (PDF). Revista Papa, Órgano Informativo de la Federación Colombiana de Productores de Papa, FEDEPAPA (16).

I have some doubts about the last one, it's in Spanish but says it was first published in the journal "Potato, Informative Organ of the Colombian Federation of Potato Producers FEDEPAPA" just in case.

And thank you also TFD for the link it was quite useful to help me to give the journal articles a proper use.Teberald (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I would just like to point out that I find Fifelfoo's claim awkward ("Abstracts are not appropriate to read or cite from"). Abstracts are part of the article (a summary, and generally also used as the introduction). Citation guidelines exist for referencing abstracts, and it's certainly not inappropriate in academia to reference abstracts.

Teberald's question, which is quite clear after reading his message, is for someone to provide an analysis of the source itself. Given the question, the responses provided so far do anything but answer it (Potatoes are not medicine; well, not conventionally).

My view on the matter is that the information found within the body of the article, when read along with the abstract (you're supposed to read them; it's not just a randomly filled space), clarifies the position that potatoes originate in southern Peru. Added that, after finally being able to access the article, I found the following quote:

• Page 5: "A 'single' origin is here supported to mean an origin from a single species, or its progenitor (S. bukasovii), in the broad area of southern Peru."

The book Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology (Academic Press, 2009), a secondary source, has also presented the findings of this article.

I hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what institutional or disciplinary culture you come from, but from a humanities perspective, you are suggesting something both ludicrous and obscene. We don't cite summaries of texts we've read, and the divergence of the abstract form from the actual content is often quite remarkable due to constraints, non-specialist target audiences, and the short form. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it surprising that you honestly believe that it is "ludicrous and obscene" to cite or read abstracts (unless you are recanting your claim about "reading" abstracts?). The purpose of citation is to bring forth the information used during the research process, either as a direct citation within the text or in the bibliography. If the abstract was used during the research process, it should be mentioned. As long as the information is backed up by stronger material, no need exists as to why anyone should fear citing abstracts.

I also do not appreciate you questioning my credentials. In any case, I assume that the following sources must have only read the abstract as well?

• Jai Gopal and S. M. Paul Khurana, Handbook of potato production, improvement, and postharvest management (Psychology Press, 2006), page 7: "Spooner et al. (2005) supported a single origin of potato from a wild species progenitor in the S. brevicaule complex in southern Peru."
• John Reader, Potato: a history of the propitious esculent (Yale University Press, 2009), page 25: "In particular, DNA sequencing has enabled a team led by research botanist David Spooner to trace the origin of all modern potato varieties to a group of about twenty morphologically similar wild species, known as the Solanum brevicaule complex, grown by farmers in Peru more than 7,000 years ago."
• Alison Krsgel and Alison Krögel, Food, power, and resistance in the Andes (Lexington Books, 2011), page 34: "Recent genetic analyses of wild species of the potato point to a single point of origin for the tuber's cultivation to the north of Lake Titicaca, approximately seven thousand years ago. The research botanist David Spooner argues that all modern-day varieties originated from a widl species known as Solanum brevicaule complex, thus contesting the multiple-origins argument."

I believe these sources are recent and secondary enough to certify the origin of the potato's domestication in southern Peru. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)