Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172

^[1]in article Mufaddal Saifuddin

However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.

The above post was by User:Rukn950 on 27 March. Date stamp for auto archiver. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Fifelfoo, I cannot understand what you want above? the paragraph stated above does not exist in the mentioned article now.Rukn950 (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have found content attributed to Gregory Douglas in four Wikipedia articles:

1. In Carmel Offie, the sentences "Heinrich Müller, a German recruited into the CIA, called Offie 'a screaming fairy' in his diary entry for January 5, 1951" and "Müller's diaries support Offie's contention that he was framed as well" are attributed to Heinrich Müller, The CIA Covenant: Nazis in Washington (Müller Journals), Gregory Douglas, ed.
2. In Georg Betz, the sentence "After the war, a dictated order dated 20 April 1945 by Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller was discovered setting out a flight plan for Hitler's transportation to Barcelona, Spain. Hitler was to have been flown there by Betz in a Ju 290 long-range aircraft" is attributed to Douglas, Gregory (1996). Gestapo Chief: Heinrich Müller. San Jose, CA: R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 0-912138-62-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
3. In Heinrich Müller (Gestapo), the sentence "After the war, a dictated order by Müller dated 20 April 1945 was discovered. It set out Müller's plan for Hitler's transportation to Barcelona, Spain. Hitler was to have been flown there by Georg Betz in a Ju 290 long-range aircraft" is attributed to Douglas, Gregory (1996). Gestapo Chief: Heinrich Müller. San Jose, CA: R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 0-912138-62-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
4. In Georg Konrad Morgen, the sentence "During October–November 1943, Morgen looked into rumors that SS-General Odilo Globocnik, former commandant of Jewish labor camps in the Lublin district of eastern Poland, had assembled an enormous personal trove of valuables confiscated from the inmates" is attributed to Gregory Douglas (1995). Gestapo Chief - The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Mueller, Vol. I, pp. 90-102, 255-57.

The premise of this listing is that the author, whoever it is, makes stuff up. The first of the four sources above note that the author is Heinrich Müller; however, there is nothing to corroborate that Müller even kept a journal.

Hayden B. Peake, curator of the CIA Historical Intelligence Collection, has briefly referred to "Gregory Douglas" in at least two of his "Intelligence Officer’s Bookshelf" columns posted at www.cia.gov. In reviewing a book by R. J. Stove, Peake criticized Stove's sourcing as inadequate and flawed: "The source for this extraordinary assertion [that Heinrich Müller worked for the CIA after WWII] is Gregory Douglas, putative author of Gestapo Chief: The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Müller. Douglas also writes that Müller had dinner at the White House with President Truman and knew Alan Dulles, both patent falsehoods." In the footnote for those comment, Peake wrote: "Douglas has used the pseudonyms Peter Stahl and Walter Storch on the Internet. He claims a former CIA officer is one of his sources, a claim that officer has denied to me. The documentary evidence he purports to have remains his secret. Those facsimile documents he includes in his books are said by experts to be of his own making and cannot be found in the National Archives. Whatever happened to Müller, the one certainty is that he never came to America." In a review of a book by Tennent H. Bagley, Peake referred to "the strange case of Gregory Douglas—an author who claims US intelligence was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy and that the never-captured Nazi Gestapo leader Heinrich Müller had been brought to the United States by the US Army and became a close friend of President Truman".

Even others who make outlandish claims seem to be critical of him, too. Mark Weber, director of the Holocaust denial organization Institute for Historical Review, wrote a lengthy reviewing stating that the series of books are "the product of an inventive mind and much hard work" and "an elaborate hoax". Weber wrote: "The man who crafted this series of books is a known fabricator of documents who has used a variety of names over the years, including Peter Stahl, Samuel Prescot Bush, and Freiherr Von Mollendorf. His real name, apparently, is Peter Norton Birch or Peter Norwood Burch." Conspiracy theorist James Fetzer voiced much skepticism about the material in a Kennedy assassination conspiracy book credited to Douglas: Robin Ramsay (editor) published an article in Fortean Times entitled: "The Conspiracy Fabricator: A look at the dubious scribblings of one Gregory Douglas".

Various sources of questionable reliability (e.g. ) also indicate that "Gregory Douglas" is behind the website www.TBRNews.org which currently gets 24 hits in Wikipedia. I did not check out the TBR website link in every article, but I received a "404 Error" for the five that I did. There is no official attribution for TBRNews.org, so I think that should be a slam-dunk.

Those who contributed the above material to the four articles may not have been aware of these issues so I have invited them to this discussion. Location (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made appropriate changes to Carmel Offie. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made the appropriate changes to Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) and revision to Georg Betz. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The article has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:

http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi

It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.

Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).

The above post was by User:Summichum on 27 March. Datestamp for auto archiver. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The mentioned website is a digital library. Thousands of books are translated into different languages.Mhhossein (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Staff writes. "Al-Risala al-Dahabiyya fil Tibb (The Golden Dissertation in Medicine)". Sibtayn.com. Retrieved 18 June 2014.

• Sayyid Zainul Abideen Razavi. "The Medicine of Imam Reza (A.S.)". Imamreza.net. Retrieved 19 June 2014.

• Staff writer. "Seasons of year and foods for good health". Jaunpurazadari.com. Retrieved 19 June 2014.

• Staff writer. "The Unique Medical Dissertation by Imam Reza(A.S.)". Imamreza.net. Retrieved 19 June 2014.

Thanks! Mhhossein (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. These are all on the level of personal blogs, unless if they are used as a source for an article about the owner of these websites. Shii (tock) 03:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How reliable is the above website for its interviews with reputed authors? I did not see any discussion in the archives on this, so asking. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not generally reliable. The words of the interview subjects might be usable for information about their own work, subject to WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. I wouldn't use it for anything biographical at all, even the subjects themselves (since it's not the subject publishing here.) It was recommended by PBS as a book club resources, so that's a plus. But it still looks similar to other enthusiast/fan sites with interviews that have come up here lately, and it looks like it's run by one person with no indication of editorial oversight (the person calling herself "Executive Editor" appears to be the same person who did all the interviews.) so the material on the site falls under WP:SPS, and I'm not seeing any indication that the site-runner qualifies as a subject-area expert. If there is a lack of sources, the words of the interview subjects may be useful for background/creation type information for book articles, but I wouldn't count on finding WP:GA consensus for a low quality source like this, and it's in my opinion not at all up to WP:FA standards of sourcing. Siawase (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Cheerleading, and saw a list of "Notable" members of cheerleader squads. Many of them have no Wikipedia article. That seems like a good test of whether someone is notable enough to be called that. ???Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like most have articles. This is mostly covered under WP:CSC. This type of list (notable examples) should be made up of people we have articles for, combined with some minority of people we reasonably could have an article for (per Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.) The criteria for whether a person is notable enough to have an article are the same whether they currently have an article or not.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Basically, would any given example pass WP:N according to a consensus of editors? The ones with articles are assumed to, the one without articles depend on consensus that a future article on them would survive consensus if anyone bothered to put the work in to start it. There's no time limits involved with redlinks and not-yet-started articles, it just depends on consensus on whether the subject meets WP:N. If you think they don't, you could probably boldly remove them from a list; if people disagree, come to a consensus about whether or not they meet WP:N, then include or exclude them based on that collegial discussion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, because there are lots of articles about people who do not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Furthermore, what meets Wikipedia guidelines may not necessarily be the same as the ordinary meaning of the term. TFD (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Can you advice if the following is a reliable source?

I don't cite anything yet in content but just want to know if source below is reliable, independent and affects draft article's notability. Thanks

• Source: http://www.vse.cz/vskp/show_file.php?soubor_id=1079958
• Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FloraQueen

That appears to be a Master's Thesis using the FloraQueen company as a source. According to past discussion (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Masters_Theses, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_107#Theses, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Reliability_of_Master_Thesis_as_a_scholar_source) Master's Theses aren't considered reliable sources unless in exceptional circumstances (such as being republished in a journal or something). So it also wouldn't suffice to establish the company's notability. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Mark Wahlberg article contains the following text:

At fifteen, civil action was filed against Wahlberg for his involvement in two separate incidents of harassing African-American children (the first some siblings and the second a group of black school children on a field trip), by throwing rocks and shouting racial epithets. At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious while yelling a racial epithet. That same day, he also attacked another Vietnamese man, leaving the victim permanently blind in one eye.

Just prior to a few days ago, this text was wholly sourced to unacceptable sources such as modelminority.com or primary sources, notably court documents hosted by "The Smoking Gun". Some felt that TSG is a RS, but my opinion is that with the absence of any critical analysis about the documents, the link to TSG remains a primary source.

An editor replaced the unacceptable references with a reference to a book called Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America written by radio-personality Larry Elder. However upon examination of the source, conveniently available here it is apparent Elder relies solely upon People Magazine and "other sources" and uses terms like "reports", "claims" and "allegedly" which makes the claims being made about Wahlberg being reported as fact on Wikipedia downright specious.

I wouldn't object to the sources being referenced by Elder being used, if they say what he purports them to say, but I can't say that I have any faith that this book should be used as a source to make these statements. I'd appreciate your opinion on whether or not this source should be used in its current manner. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source for the last attack. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3601842/Mark-of-a-man.html http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2001/08/mark-wahlberg-200108 (two different publications, but the articles seem identical word for word in many places). --GRuban (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If a source is rs, then we do not question its sources. Presumably authors of reliable sources are able to provide judgment in picking sources. However, it is an odd source for an article about an actor. Why would anyone who wanted to learn more about Wahlberg, who is a well-known actor, look at a book called Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America ", written by a highly controversial radio-personality of all people? TFD (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GRuban and TFD. When the article unlocks, I will attempt to rewrite the section using the more mainstream sources GR provided.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to ask whether the following source can also be used at Yamna culture >like this<.

• Mario Alinei (2003), "Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis", Quaderni di semantica, vol. 26.

Or is it limited only to the arcticle Paleolithic Continuity Theory? Thanks a lot. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is reliable depending on how it is used. If God stepped down here to give us some perfectly reliable source on all information, Wikipedia would still only consider it reliable depending on how it is used. The paper in question is far from that, however. There's the issue of undue weight. A single paper advocating a minority position does not get the same weight as a full book (which would have consulted numerous papers and books) describing the mainstream position. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

So, it is limited only to Paleolithic Continuity Theory then? --Ragdeenorc (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's limited in how you present it. When you attribute it ("according to Mario Alinei"), and make clear it's a minority point of view outside the mainstream ("According to Mario Alinei, who's research does not represent the accepted scholarly view on this matter"), then maybe you can use it. See Indo-Aryan migration#Concurring views: "They are rejected by mainstream scholars, since they neglect linguistic research,[1] and are contradicted by a broad range of research on Indo-European migration.[98]". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this revert on Douglas Ousterhout of my removal of four self-published patient testimonials about the physician's skills. In 2010 these were discussed as being COI promotional but the discussion fizzed out. I've removed one before as primary source and it was reverted as not primary source; then I realized all 4 were SPS. It's been up for discussion for a couple weeks and no one has responded except the editor who reverted, so bringing it here. Clearly vs. RSN and BLP. (Note: I assume that all such RS questions are covered by Sexology Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions and I won't have to come here for repeated violations of the policy on every one of the dozens of incidents of use of SPS in BLP on this issue. Sigh...) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What we have here is a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, exaggerated claims and Carolmooredc's personal agenda to eradicate any mention of a third party she apparently doesn't like. The article in question is about a plastic surgeon in San Francisco who pioneered facial feminization surgery. The patient accounts have been there four years and are simply that, first person accounts of what the experience was like. They actually say very little about Ousterhout himself except the obvious, that he performed the surgeries and this is what happened. There is absolutely nothing about any of these patient accounts that might be considered libelous or defamatory (these are happy patients) and the only part that's contentious is that Carolmooredc wants them gone, doesn't have a consensus to support removing them and is acting out.

Charges of COI are simply fantasy and Carolmoore has misrepresented their substance. This flimsy claim was originally made 4 years ago, as if by throwing mud at a wall, by blocked sockpuppet User:Trinity1rose of blocked editor User:Janemillert, who claims on her attack webpage to have had a bad outcome from Ousterhout. Trinity1rose claimed without evidence that Ousterhout's assistant, Mira, was editing the article and using it for promotion and went on to make the ridiculous claim that because one of the patient accounts is from a software developer who posted it on her software site, that this is COI because it promotes her software. Janemillert was eventually blocked indefinitely for WP:OUTING.

Carolmooredc's first edit of the subject page was part of her agenda to eradicate any links to Andrea James's websites from any article here on Wikipedia. On June 18, she removed these links from 11 different articles, always with the same comment, "remove non-rs advocacy source run by a topic banned editor". In all but the Ousterhout article the links were in the external links sections. I don't personally believe the removal was justified anywhere. Most of the links predate any controversy over James's activities on WP, many if not all were placed there by other editors and, most pointedly, just because we topic ban someone from editing on WP simply does not mean we should eradicate citations and links to any source connected to them. We do not decide controversies, we simply report them proportionately, which is to say, we may not let you work your POV here as an editor, but if your publications are out there and are legitimately part of an encyclopedic discussion of a topic, we will report it. We don't operate like the Soviet Union under Stalin, editing people out of photographs, or out of existence as sources because we don't like them as editors.

But I let Carolmooredc's edits in these other cases go because these were in the external links sections and pointed to whole sites, not citations to individual pages. But that was not the case with the Ousterhout article. To the contrary, the link on the Ousterhout page was to a specific article which happens to be the earliest known published patient account. James had the procedures in a series of surgeries in the late 90s and was the first to offer a contemporaneous report of the experience and how it changed her life. So I reverted with the edit remark, "Andrea James's page is cited here because it was the first published patient account of Ousterhout's FFS procedures."

Carolmooredc is now unhappy and has apparently decided that if she can't get rid of the James account, she'd like to remove them all. Unfortunately for her, she does not have a consensus and that's why we're here.

There's no question that these patient accounts are primary sources regarding their personal experiences but they are secondary to the subject of this article, which is Douglas Ousterhout, not them. They are also independent. These patients bought his services with their own money and, so far as I know, no one, repeat, no one believes they received any sort of consideration or other benefit from Ousterhout for having published their accounts. I concede these accounts are WP:SPS and thus do not meet our criteria as WP:RS. Otoh, that is not the same as unreliable, especially as one of the accounts is by Lynn Conway, a relatively famous professor at University of Michigan who also happens to be an IEEE Fellow and a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and another is by Rebecca Allison, a well-known cardiologist and chair of the AMA's advisory committee on GLBT issues. The Hamilton account is the earliest account of anyone undergoing the entire set of procedures in one day, as is now common. This rationale was explained on the article talk page at Talk:Douglas Ousterhout#The patient accounts four years ago and has never been questioned.

Fundamentally, there is no there there to Carolmooredc's complaint. Only notability requires reliable independent secondary sources. Once notability is established, we conventionally accept lesser sources unless there are specific reasons to reject them. But Ousterhout is clearly notable, evidenced by the book citations 1 and 2, if not already as a creative professional. There's also genuinely nothing wrong with these patient accounts except just that Carolmooredc wants to get rid of them because she'd like to get rid of any links to Andrea James's sites anywhere on WP. She should be instructed to go back and seek a consensus on the article talk page and if she doesn't get one (she's not going to), she can't make the change. That's how it works here. Msnicki (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was silly for me to use the "topic banned editor" rationale when SPS advocacy site should be more than adequate policy argument. There are a bunch of other SPS advocacy sources similarly used in BLPs throughout this topic area; hers was just first I thought to use since I noticed it in the Sexology arbitration and thought it would be easiest. In any case, it all seems like Wikipedia:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion to me and since there were only two editors discussing it currently, I sought a third opinion here, per WP:Dispute.

{added later} Also flooding your response with a lot of ancient history and questioning of/accusations about my motives is just the kind of thing that I believe the Sexology arbitration was trying to discourage. See the principles section re: conflict of interest, battleground behavior, off-wiki controversies and BLPs, etc. Note that in one article I did notice that a patient's account published in a RS medical journal was used and I was fine with that.

The bottom line is, imagine if blog entries by former dental patients were useable or blog entries by former students of professors were useable or blog entries of former drivers of electric automobiles were useable, Wikipedia could become a center of commercial promotion. Even if the blogger themself is an dentist or professor or singing coach, that doesn't just obviate the principle: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How completely disingenuous of you! You accuse me of "flooding [my] response with a lot of ancient history". Do you think that might have something to do with you saying something about COI in the second sentence? If you don't want your own motives questioned, don't start with mine. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm quite flummoxed as to why there is even an argument about whether or not these are appropriate sources. In the context they are being used, they are clearly not. None of the sources in question are being used add any information whatsoever to the article that could not be added using better sources. Given that, there's no need for one, let alone all four. Msnicki, you are correct that once notability has been initially established we accept sources for facts that we might not count towards notability, but we don't pile large numbers of indiscriminate 'sources' that the article doesn't actually draw on in to our articles. Such practices are almost always done either to make someone look more impressive than they in fact are, or to covertly advertise on Wikipedia. I will be removing extraneous sources shortly, and potentially resourcing some stuff cited to the testimonials (like the sentence "His specialty is facial feminization surgery for transsexual and transgender women,") to his own website, which is a preferable source. If there details that are truly important enough to use from the testimonials, then I would've expected them to both have been talked about in secondary sources as well, and for someone to have added them at some point during the four years they were in the article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I take exception to your characterization of the accounts as testimonials. They are not offered as testimonials, they are offered as personal accounts of the individuals' experiences which, btw, are different in each case with different observations. It's true that their accounts are positive, but that's merely what the facts were. As for removing them "shortly", I don't think you should and I hope you won't because you also don't yet have a consensus for the change and should presume an existing consensus for what's there, especially given the discussion on the talk page that been accepted for 4 years. I think even your claim that these accounts are "piled on" is unfair insofar as this article is a stub. Four citations is simply not piling on anything in most non-stub articles. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Msnicki: - I referred to them as testimonials because his own website refers to some of the exact same sources you cited as testimonials. There's no reason anyone should use four different self-published sources in an article to support one statement that could better be cited to his own webpage. Moreover, I would point you here - we have a policy that explicitly categorically forbids using self-published sources in articles about living people unless the subject of the article wrote them themselves. I've already commented on the talk page of the article in question and significantly revamped the article to bring in higher quality independent secondary sources and to take out selfpublished sources that were not even truly being used as citations. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to pursue it further. I concede you haven't simply removed content, you've replaced it, with what I agree is a better SFGate source. Msnicki (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This link has been used as reference on many en.wiki articles. I doubt its credibility because when you look carefully into the information that they have provided, it is often impossible to discover the content from other sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This and similar sites come up all the time. They are user created by amateur genealogists and therefore are not rs. However, their pages may include copies of reliable primary sources, for example birth and census records. Do you have any examples? TFD (talk)

@The Four Deuces: Never mind, they had removed those links, . But yes we shall agree that it should be avoided. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Information taken from premierpostal.com has been added to numerous websites (eg Point Lookout, Queensland, Port Douglas, Queensland, Plainland ). As far as I can tell, this is the commercial website for a philatelic auction house. The auction house has listed a post office opening dates for multiple different countries on its various websites, presumably as a form of Google bombing. The website doesn't note where it obtained its dates from; as I can see they may have been invented by the person who owns and edits the websites. There's no evidence of any fact checking process or editorial process either. In fact there's precious little information about the organisation itself.

Since the editor that added references to that website to dozens of pages has reverted my changes that removed it, I need some sort of consensus as to whether it meets reliable source status.

Thanks, Mark Marathon (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The information may well be accurate, but the website doesn't cite any sources. I'm dubious about accuracy, given that items are being offered for sale. Maybe there is some commercial benefit to manipulating the information, maybe not. I would hope we can do better. --Pete (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree here with Pete there has to be a better source. Best this is not spammed all over if that is the problem at hand - have only seen it on one page and in that case the link did not support the info at all. Many many other sources for this info can be found. The source should be replaced were possible ..we are not here to help an auction house sell there stuff..plus think link rot will occur very quickly as items are sold etc.. -- Moxy (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

:::see my comments at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board (this will also answer the maybe we can do better question above) no link rot, this is a permanent and complete ref; as it stands now you do need to use the alpha search box to access the detail (wasn't always so) Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC) their stuff

Perhaps we are missing something here - for example the source used for Port Douglas, Queensland takes us to a page that says "1/9/1877" that is all no other info or sources provided. This does not seem beneficial or will facilitate more knowledge of the topic at hand. From what I see its just a date with no source. -- Moxy (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please help to review my article on the above-subject matter, particularly the external links.

Thank you.

• Mike Ozekhome. Wow. Totally blocked by OTRS for copyright issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We can just examine two sources for now and thus narrow it down accordingly to avoid further confusion in the article. So please specify which part of this source does not support the addition made in the article:

Here's the sentence:

The Sabancı (and Koç) family, like many of today's Turkish entrepreneurs, benefited from the Armenian Genocide and the elimination of the Armenians and the Armenian competition by taking part in takeovers of old minority-run ventures, which were encouraged by the government and which led to the creation of a new Turkish Bourgeoisie.

If you feel that the sentence should be split up, I propose amending the sentence this way:

The Sabancı family, like many of today's Turkish entrepreneurs, benefited from the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide as a result of the elimination of the Armenians and with it the local Armenian competition.[Ungor source][Bugra source] Such takeovers were encouraged by the government at the time,[Bugra source] and ultimately led to the creation of a new Turkish middle-class during the early years of the Republic of Turkey.[Ungor source (pg. 80)]

Is the post on the article talk page. Question -- are the sources proper and sufficient for the claims that editor seeks to make? I suggested that connecting a living family with any genocide is, in fact, a contentious claim, and I suggest further that the sources provided are insufficient for the claims made. Other opinions are welcomed. Collect (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect (talk · contribs) Sorry, a correction needs to be made. I cited the same source twice in the talk page. The second source should be Ayse Bugra: State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study. SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82. Would appreciate if you can just change the second source from Ungor back to Bugra. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I cut-and-pasted your exact post. If I recall correctly, the Bugra source was previously discussed and found not to be usable for the claims you wish to make. The Armenian genocide was horrible, but ascribing complicity in any way to living families is against WP:BLP without far stronger sources than you have heretofore provided. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't updated the Bugra source as the reference to the second quotation. And again, how can the reliability of Ungor's source even be questionable? The publisher, Continuum, is well respected in academia. Ungor himself has written dozens of peer-reviewed articles. He's considered a specialist in studies in ethnic cleansing and mass violence. He's closely affiliated with organizations such as Centre for War Studies (Dublin) and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (Amsterdam). This book has been cited numerously by many peer-reviewed articles and other academic publications. As for Bugra, it was not usable source for the Koc family, since it didn't talk about the family. However, it's a good source for Sabanci and I don't think anyone ever questioned its reliability. And again, you're still accusing me and others asserting that Sabanci and Koc were complicit in the Armenian Genocide. I'll repeat what I said at the talk page of Vehbi Koc here: "Complicity in genocide" means taking part in a genocide = killing people due to their ethnicity (geno=genes/race, cide=kill). Not one single word in the actual section of the article can be interpreted as "the Koc family took part in killing Armenians and committing genocide". The addition to the article clearly states, that "he benefited from the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide during which he acquired wealth through the appropriation of abandoned Armenian property". Nowhere does it say he took part in the genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not "correct" posts made by others when I "cut and paste" them. If I did, I would find people complain that I edited their own words. Period. Saying a family "got its wealth from the genocide" or "benefitted greatly from the genocide" is, in fact, making a claim that they have some responsibility for the genocide - if they have no connection with the Genocide then the genocide should not be mentioned in their article. Simple. This desire to show how evil wealthy Turkish families are and that they "benefitted from genocide" is not in compliance with the Wikipedia requirement for strong sourcing for any claims of criminal acts (yes - getting money from genocide is a crime) and "neutral point of view" for wording of claims. We are not here to "right great wrongs" and if that is your goal, you are in the wrong place entirely. Cheers - but this bit about connecting people to the genocide in articles is getting a tad tendentious. Collect (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I amended my comment at the talk page after you copied and pasted it since the source I placed in the second quotation box was incorrect (should be Bugra). I have never called these families "evil", nor have I ever said that they "greatly" benefited from the genocide, and neither have I ever called you "anti-Armenian", as you may have claimed when shopping for admins here. Such accusations are entirely baseless and if you think you're indeed justified in them, please provide the diffs and defer all arguments on my talk page or on an appropriate noticeboard, not here at the RSN. As far as I can see, the only person that calls these claims contentious is you. Every controversy has two sides. So do you have any source that opposes the attribution of the wealth of the Sabanci family to the elimination of Armenian competition in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide? Sorry to say, but it appears that your opinion is only shared by yourself, unless, as I have already said, you have a RS source that calls these claims 'contentious' or outright opposes them. And just because it was a "crime" (which it wasn't since the Turkish government encouraged such ventures, see pg. 82 of this source), doesn't mean it shouldn't be an addition to an article. And just because the family is alive today, doesn't mean we shouldn't make such additions to the article. Nowhere in WP:BLP does it say that. As long as we have reliable sources and the additions properly convey what these sources say, then there's no problem in adding them. There's more than enough sources that verify each claim and thus make the addition notable in itself. Yet, you propose your argument as though I am the only one making such accusations. I'd like to make this clear, I have never done any sort of WP:OR nor have I conveyed my personal opinions in any of these articles. All my additions in articles reflect what the sources say; that's our job as Wikipedians. The sources themselves are clear and don't get anymore reliable than this. Yet, I have asked you countless number of times how these sources do not support the claim and why do you believe they are "weak" or "unreliable" but you have yet to have responded. Again, how is the Ungor and Bugra source not "strong"? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You aver that saying specific people "benefitted from Genocide" is not a "contentious claim. I suggest it is "contentious" under Wikipedia policy. You use sources saying that in 1942 a person bought property which had been owned years earlier by Armenians, and that this means they "benefitted" from Genocide. I suggest it means they bought property years after any Genocide occurred, and that anecdotes that a person bought property in 1942 is insufficient to claim in Wikipedia's voice that they "benefitted" from Genocide. You aver "The RSN discussion never resulted in anything conclusive," while I aver that it most certainly did.

These sources are not reliable for the specific claims made, for the reasons you give. Please refer the editors here if they do not understand. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is not a reliable source for these claims. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of these editors have any ax to grind in the Armenian Genocide issue whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

From the article talk page:

I am going to remove the sentence about wealth being a result of the Armenian genocide. The sentence looks simplistic on its face, and I also want to see direct citations from the sources. I found an obituary of Sakip Sabanci in The Guardian, 2004 and the Armenian genocide is not mentioned there in the history of the family grew rich. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I also notice that Hacı Ömer Sabancı was aged 9 at the time of the genocide in 1915. Mtpaley (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to provide a genelogy service, and inclusion of a list of largely unsourced living people in the context of "profiting" from "genocide" seems particuarly problematic per WP:BLP. Please do not restore most of that content without better sourcing and more nuanced, and again, sourced, statements about any connection between the individuals involved in genocide. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Indicating that the "they benefitted from Genocide" edit warriors do not have any consensus for such claims in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Varlik Vergisi and the Armenian Genocide are two separate events that are decades apart from each other and have little to do with one another. I have never attributed the sentence "benefitted from Genocide" to the properties Koc had appropriated during the Varlik Vergisi (Wealth Tax).

The RSN was opened up for an entirely different reason. Those sources did not talk about the Koc family specifically. It's no surprise that the initial response to such a nomination by Itsmejudith was to dismiss them. But when I stepped in and provided more sources to help verify the claims specifically related to Vehbi Koc, Itsmejudith changed his response to "OK, it seems that we need to go through these one by one" and that "I think both sides (because unfortunately there are sides at the moment) need to go back to the article talk page" (this was agreed by Markus and myself). Capitalismojo never provided his reasoning as to why these sources are unreliable and his comment was more related to the content of the source and the article. Hence the reason why we eventually moved back to the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"I also notice that Hacı Ömer Sabancı was aged 9 at the time of the genocide in 1915." - That's just an honest misunderstanding. No source ever said that Omer Sabanci benefited during the Armenian Genocide. The sources specifically say that he benefited after the Armenian Genocide with the elimination of Armenian competition in the region. I must also note, that the last Armenians who forcefully emigrated out of Adana was in the 1920s, in the aftermath of the Franco-Turkish War with the victory of the Kemalist forces. Omer Sabanci settled in Adana thereafter.

Once sources were provided for Iselilja, he changed his remarks here: "Thank you. I'll look more into it later, but my spontanous thoughts is that when/if you reinsert it, you should be more nuanced and specific about the impact of the Armenian genocide, maybe attribute it to the sources you have, and it shouldn't be stated like it is the whole story about their fortune." Which I agree with.

Joe Decker just removed the list of names of family members. He never said profiteering from genocide should be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Even a source devoted to listing seizures of Armenian property can't even bring itself to mention Sabancı in the same paragraph as any particular confiscation. To make the step from "Some cotton farms were confiscated from Armenians'" + "Sabancı was in the cotton industry" to "Sabancı profited from genocide" is completely inappropriate. Stop this pov-pushing. bobrayner (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobrayner (talk · contribs) The sources are clear and reliable. I'm doing nothing but reflecting what the sources say. But if wording is a problem, here's a proposal:

The Sabancı family, like many of today's Turkish entrepreneurs, benefited from the elimination of the Armenians and the Armenian competition after the Armenian Genocide.

Much less descriptive this way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

But is it really that great a leap in logic? Ugur Umit Ungor and Mehmet Polatel are respected scholars on the genocide and in the source quoted above they clearly note that Sabanci the patriarch profited from the extermination of the Armenians and Greeks after the genocide. Their industries and factories (such as the Simyonoğlu thread and cloth plant, later known as National Textiles) remained idle after they were massacred or deported and people like Sabanci and other Turks eventually came to take over their possessions. See also this http://ejts.revues.org/4411 article] published by Bedross Der Matossian, which speaks a little more on this poorly-studied subject.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this discussion has little to do with the reliability of sources and I don't know why article content should be discussed here. It's best to initiate a RFC on the talk page of the article. If that doesn't work out, dispute resolution may be another avenue. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This really is a BLPN issue. Unless there is evidence in RS that a family actually colluded with the government to commit a crime it shouldn't be there at all. If an RS says families happened to benefit from removal of competition or from buying land later, with no collusion proved, it's something that can be mentioned in passing in very short form, saying something like: "Later land was bought by local families, some of which have gone on to become very wealthy, such as NAMES." Obviously this has happened all through even current history, often with people on both sides being evicted and ending up taking property of others who did the evicting. But Wikipedia is not a place to name them all, is it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is to include this information in the article about the Sabancı family. I can't see how this could possibly meet WP:BLP given the poor sourcing and the fact that the allegations are actually about individual family members who are now dead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Argentine site , if you understand Spanish some aspects are NSFW due to profanities. This is a website run by an Argentine nationalist and conspiracy theory nutter. It promotes a number of conspiracy theories eg the "sinking" of HMS Invincible in the Falklands War, the claim that Britain "tricked" Argentina into invading and as an WP:SPS I would say inherently unreliable. Bringing here for review, I've just removed a link on an article and from past experience with the editor who added it, likely to edit war it back claiming its reliable. WCM_email 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like an unreliable source, without a reputation for accuracy, for the material.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A user is trying to insert information in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict posted on Electronic Intifada, a clear POV, controversial, militant and unreliable source. It's like if a use HonestReporting for entire POV paragraphs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It doesn't make sense. The 'copy-past content' from Electronic Intifada is this:

The first factor of the agricultural dispute is the physical attacks from Israeli soldiers.^[1] Locals from the border areas reported that daily shooting from Israeli soldiers makes their lives difficult because they are unable to farm their lands without the risk of injury or death.^{[citation needed]} The frequent Israeli attacks leave wells destroyed, water contaminated, and farmland charred from fires and bombs.^[1] The Israeli attacks range from fire, bulldozing, bombings, and gun fire.^[1] Since 1967, over 800,000 olive trees have been uprooted by Israeli forces (see also: Brad's page). Around 80,000 families in Palestine are reliant on the olive tree's for their income loose around $12.3m each year because of the destruction.^[2] For many of the farmers living in the borderlands, the cost of the destruction has totaled more than they are able to replace.^[1] Sixty percent of the agricultural lands in Gaza were reported useless due to Israeli destruction in February 2009.^[1]

The second factor of agricultural loss is the Israeli West Bank barrier constructed between Israel and Palestine.^[3] In the areas of Palestine that sit next to the barrier, anything from homes, farmlands, and water wells within 35 feet of the barrier is subject to destruction by the Israeli Army.^{[citation needed]} The barrier can in some places be 8 meters high, covered in barbed wire, with a surrounding 4-meter wide trench. A military zone also surrounds the barrier and controls the entrances and exits through it.^[3] This zone is called a "buffer" or "no-go" zone and is continuously increasing in side. As of 2009, one-third of the agricultural land in Gaza was included in this zone and restricted locals' access to it.^[1]

--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a disagreement over whether this blog is a reliable source for including criticisms of ResearchGate. Pinging user:BlueMoonlet. The "Criticisms" section also appears to rely heavily on primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on this source was reached here. The discussion included myself, User:Chire, User:Millionmice, User:Amaurea, and User:JNorman704. The rationale is based on WP:BLOGS and WP:NEWSBLOG, as this source was posted on the official blog of a university library. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of low quality sources, there is a lot of contradiction in the news sources. For example, many sources say he studied computer science at Leibniz Universität Hannover, but in his own vita he gives FernUniversität Hagen (whose wikipedia page also lists him as alumni). There is a lot of incorrect information in these news articles...

In the crawford source you added, it was claimed that "30000 members joined" from Sigma Xi. Closer research showed that the organization went into a partnership, and all members were joined, unless they removed their account. Note that Sigma Xi currently claims to have 60000 members, so it seems that half of them opted out?

In contrast to your claims, Ijad Madisch also said in an interview that the company was founded in both Boston and Hannover (where Sören Hofmayer was at that time, one of the other founders)... and he titles himself "Scientist (Virology)", so why should we title him computer scientist? I could not find any details on the computer science degree.

As you can see, the "news article" sources are not half as good or neutral as you think them to be. More often than not they are heavily biased by the marketing efforts of the companies.

The university of florida study only showed it is useful for librarians to answer questions, which isn't really the intended usage...

On other sources, you also left out important details --Chire (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

For any uninvolved editors from the board, Chire is referring to citations I added from BusinessWeek, The New York Times and academic journals. CorporateM (Talk) 22:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Another error you added is in here: - the account was not a "fake" account. The account is trivial to identify, and not a fake account (only "dormant", i.e. not used). "fake" implies to me that this was done on purpose to sabotage ResearchGate, which it obviously was not. They just clicked on the invitation spam, and created their own (!) user profile, which happens to have a common name. And then RG attributed various things to the account which they did neither add nor confirm. IIRC nothing in the source said it was a "fake" profile (but instead, it was titled "case of the dormant user") --Chire (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

For this source you neglected a relevant conclusion: "Finally, a majority of respondents said using SNSs may be a waste of time".

(I do, however, like your renaming the section to "Reception".) --Chire (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment about SNS being a waste of time was about social networking in general and not about RG specifically. Please discuss whether a source is reliable here - if there are errors, the easiest thing to do is simply correct them. CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is general, but it in particular applies to RG, which is named. Not including this overall result makes it sounds as if the study found a positive impact of RG, which it apparently didn't - it found RG to be second most (?) used, and found people to be very sceptic about the benefits. This is an important result, even if it applies to both Facebook and RG. --Chire (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A source for a Game of Thrones episode was referenced from io9's "The Observation Deck". Have others encountered sources from that part of io9? It looks to me to be user-created space within io9. Can material within it be considered a reliable source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking for some input from editors… - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a confusingly laid out forum. Shii (tock) 03:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I like to edit articles about animation, which isn't always an easy topic to find in-depth sources for. I recently discovered this excellent interview on the website Animated Views. Unfortunately, the site's "About" section only provides contact information. I sent them an e-mail a week ago, asking them who runs the site and what kind of editorial oversight they use. They haven't replied. The site seems very well put together, and the CGI photo of Dopey is pretty strong proof that the interview is authentic (in case that's a concern) - the photo is from an unproduced film, it seems very professional (I couldn't imagine a low-profile website having the resources to create something that looks as good as this photo does), and after doing a Google search for the image, I'm convinced that it was first uploaded to the internet for the purpose of this interview.

If authenticity can be demonstrated, then I think that it would be kind of silly to treat an interview as unreliable, no matter where the interview comes from. But I assume that a lot of people on Wikipedia would have a problem with using a source like this, and I try to respect widely-held views when I'm editing. I didn't want to give up on this source though, so I did a quick Google search to see if any other publications have used it.

This is what I've found after just looking through the first few pages of search results:

• (Book) The Galaxy Is Rated G: Essays on Children's Science Fiction Film and Television by R.C. Neighbors and Sandy Rankin; published by McFarland

- Uses two interviews from the site as references

• (Book) Disney Stories: Getting to Digital by Newton Lee and Krystina Madej; published by Springer

- Uses a review from the site as a reference

• (Book) Walt's People: Talking Disney With the Artists Who Knew Him by Didier Ghez; published by Xlibris Corporation

- Identifies the site as a "great resource"

• (Website of a professional animator who has worked for Disney, DreamWorks, and Sony) Eckols.net

- Links to and reprints an interview from the site

Is this enough to establish Animated Views as a reliable source? --Jpcase (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at Animated Views website and given that it is used in several books as a reference, and given that animation is not a controversial subject, I see no reason why it would not be a reliable source for the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The external references to the interviews are encouraging, and site does seem reliable enough to use the words of the interview subject about their own work, but not much else. The things I posted above re: Bookbuffet.com pretty much go for this site too. In particular if you're looking to take the article to GA or FA status a low quality source like this is far from ideal and may not find consensus. Also keep in mind not only WP:V but also WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Enthusiast sites often delve into minutiae in a way that is well beyond the scope appropriate for an encyclopedia. Siawase (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Cwobeel and Siawase. The Mike Disa article is a long shot for FA or even GA, but still, I don't have any interest in adding information to an article if that information would hold an article back from promotion.

I'm not ready to give up on Animated Views though; it has too much potential. WP:USEBYOTHERS seems to indicate that a source can be established as reliable if other high quality sources have treated it as such. So I've done some more searching and have found these:

• (Thesis by Michelle Pabalate submitted to Jacksonville University) I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas: Animating with Digital Clay

- Uses an interview from Animated Views as a reference. I don't know if college theses would count as "high quality" sources, but this seems to indicate that Jacksonville University is okay with Animated Views as a source.

• (Website for a freelance animation studio) Austinvisuals.com

- Calls Animated Views an "amazing" blog that aspiring animators should follow

• (Blog of a professional animator who works at Dreamworks) Pierreperifel.blogspot.com

- Links to an interview that he did with Animated Views, and says "I have rarely seen a press release that's this close to what I actually said! Impressive!"

Perhaps more importantly though, I came across this page on Animation Views, detailing the website's history. It seems that the site is currently run by three people:

• James R. Whitson, - He created an earlier website in the mid-nineties. I'm not sure what it was called, but apparently it was featured in a 1998 book called Best of the Web, as well as several magazines and a local newspaper.

• Ben Simon - He created a short film called The Message in 1993, which won awards at international film festivals. He went on to start his own small company, which seems to have had something to do with film. He then pitched a film idea to Disney, which was almost made. He wrote for a different (unnamed) animation website, before joining Animation Views.

• Randall Cyrenne - He wrote for the same animation website that Ben had worked for. This site eventually merged with Animation Views.

The page also identifies one of Animation View's primary interviewers, Jérémie Noyer, as a journalist who had previously worked for a European film/music magazine. Noyer contributed to the above mentioned book Walt's People: Talking Disney With the Artists Who Knew Him. Josh Armstrong, who had conducted the interview with Disa, is briefly mentioned as a co-founder. Nothing is said of Armstrong's previous credentials, but he has since left Animation Views and joined another website, Animation Scoop .

Animation Scoop seems to meet the reliability criteria, so even if Animated Views is unusable, I'm pretty sure that Armstrong would be considered an expert in his field. However, I'm still interested in the overall reliability of Animated Views. Does any of this new information impact your opinion? -Jpcase (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The question really is how you are intending to use the source. With all that you posted above, I think we can assume that they do indeed render the words of their interview subjects accurately, but I'm still not seeing any indication that Animation View has meaningful editorial oversight or a fact checking process. And Josh Armstrong may qualify as a subject area expert now, but I don't think that status can be applied retroactively. But really, again, it depends on how you want to use the source. A couple of statements/quotes from the subject with in-text attribution to augment/give more depth to the article, fine. Building entire paragraphs or sections in Wikipedia voice, sourced to this one self-published article/interview? Not appropriate in my opinion.

(And, just to clarify, it's not that using a source like this would disqualify an article from GA or FA, where if you removed it the article would otherwise pass. It is that articles should be built using the highest quality sources available, and usually when you need to reach for lower-quality sources like this, it's because the quality sources required simply do not exist to build an article to FA (or possibly even GA) level.) Siawase (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup Siawase. I did a little more digging, and found this page. Although it seems that Animated View's "staff" is all volunteer (possibly with the exception of the above-mentioned site runners), they do employ some editorial oversight: "Although there is no outright payment, we do adhere to a professional approach with standard guidelines that we request be followed. As such, you’ll be working under an established group who reserve the right to edit pieces for style purposes, while on content issues the writer will be consulted. Although all roles are essentially voluntary, your accepted application constitutes an agreement that we expect to be taken seriously." Does this make any difference? --Jpcase (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Unforturnately, that doesn't sound like the level of editorial oversight and fact-checking we expect from reliable outlets, ie "on content issues the writer will be consulted" sounds like they still largely leave the factual accuracy of each article up to the individual writer, meaning for Wikipedia purposes they fall under WP:SPS. Siawase (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me like what they're saying is that stylistic edits are generally made without consulting the original author, but in cases where the factual accuracy of a piece is in question, the author will be notified of the issue before changes are made. Do you think that it means something different? --Jpcase (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is they don't specify what they mean by "content issues" (it can mean many things aside from factual accuracy) nor how exactly they handle them other than consulting with the writer, so we still don't have a clear indication that they do fact checking/have the editorial process expected of secondary sources. Siawase (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the sentence is that "content issues" is being used as a catchall term for all issues the term might imply, including factual accuracy. The sentence says that the website edits articles for style purposes - I think that it's very safe to assume that they also edit articles for content purposes. It just seems that they run these changes by the author before making them (or perhaps they notify the author of what needs to be changed and then let the author make those changes). If their wording is too vague for you though, then that's fine. I understand your hesitancy. I might do a little more digging to see if I can find a clearer explanation of their editorial process. In the meantime, it sounds like you're saying that interviews from the site can be used, as long as it's made clear in the text of the article that the information is coming from an interview - is that right?

Oh, and I know that this isn't going to make much of a difference, but just to add to the sources above, I found this article by The Christian Science Monitor, which quotes an Animated Views writer.

Thanks for all of the advice that you've given on this! :) --Jpcase (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

After repeatedly trying to post information in the Melissa Ann Young article sourced to https://fundanything.com, and being told that the self-published website wasn't reliable, Benrudin is now back trying to insert the same dubious information sourced by http://www.thepageantplanet.com. I can't even get the thepageantplanet.com website to open. Considering that there is not one single online source to this information to be found with a Google search, it seems highly likely that thepageantplanet.com simply got its information from fundanything.com. Could someone take a look at the thepageantplanet.com website to see if it's just copying information from the fundanything.com and if not, whether the website is reliable? Thanks. 32.218.38.81 (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this newspaper a reliable source for opinions expressed in an interview?

The edit in question is which appears to state an opinion of people interviewed, and the response by Mr. Berlat to that opinion.

In the past, "opinions properly cited as opinions" have been held to be reliably sourced to interviews even ones by "Moonie rags" as one editor opined.

Are interviews in "Moonie rags" usable for opinions cited as opinions, or are they attaint by the mere virtue of being "Moonie rags"?

Prior discussions are at:

which reached no solid decision on a matter of fact.

has no conclusion other than "Moon is bad".

found it reliable for its own editorial opinion

None have found the Washington Times to not be a reliable source for opinions expressed as opinions, and none have accused the Washington Times of not being a reliable source for contents of interviews expressing opinions. That I can find, of course. Collect (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet a million euros that this turns out to be a WEIGHT or NPOV issue that doesn't belong at this noticeboard. Formerip (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable. It's a modern, western newspaper following good journalistic practices.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Formally reliable maybe (depending on the context), but following "good journalistic practices"? Please ...., the paper belongs to the moon sect and is or was in many regards hack with anything but "good journalistic practices".--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact checking, editors, request for comment, yes yes and yes.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hell no--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightened commentary.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not an rs issue, it belongs at NPOVN. It is not clear btw whether the story is a news article or an editorial, since it is by Robert Stacy McCain who wrote both op-eds and news articles for the Sun Myung Moon newspaper. Oddly, some of his work included, according to the SPLC, sympathetic coverage of the neo-confederate League of the South, to which he once belonged. TFD (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The material is actually from an interview. Thus interviews are generally considered usable -- the person quoted in the interview has an opinion, thus such opinions are citable as opinions. The issue is not about whether the source is an "editorial column" at all. Is the interview usable? Or is it attaint because it is written by a person who worked for the dreaded Moonies? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A more subjective term than "identify" might help resolve the issue. For example, replacing "identify" with "claim" would clarify that Wikipedia is not saying the claim is valid: " In a critique of the LaRouche network, John George and Laird Wilcox identify Berlet as an example... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 July 2014

The following content was added to the Neonicotinoid article in this dif:

"In June 2014, in the most comprehensive scientific assessment by The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides researchers have concluded that excessive use of neonicotinoids has contaminated the environment across the planet to the extent that global food production is at risk. The team observed that the pesticides harm bees and other pollinators, which fertilise about three-quarters of the world’s crops, and the organisms that create the healthy soils needed to grow crops."

Sources provided for that content were:

• http://www.tfsp.info
• http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/insecticides-world-food-supplies-risk

Discussion on Talk page is here.

I reverted this because the content is garbled and nonencyclopedic, and the sources are not reliable for claims in the proposed content. It turns out that the Guardian article is based on a press release) which says: "*The full WIA {NB: the actual scientific publication - the "comprehensive review" mentioned in the content} will be published in the Springer Journal within the next few weeks. Date to be confirmed by the Journal". This is a case of science by press release which is widely considered bad form in the scientific community. The mission of WP is to provide reliable information to the public, so we should wait for the article to publish and for the scientific community to react to it; we don't jump on the bandwagon generated by the press release. Others disagree. Hence this posting. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither a press release nor a newspaper article are suitable sources for the kind of weighty scientific information conveyed by the proposed edit. If indeed a piece of research is going to appear soon in a scholarly publication, there is no harm in waiting for that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Source. EllenCT (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the published article. That is a draft of part of the article, posted by the group that generated the article on their website. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that they are not a reliable source for the assertion that their article has been accepted for publication? EllenCT (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

no that is not what i am saying. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see an rs problem. News media are generally poor sources for science articles because of weight issues. So an article "Scientists claim possible link between eating carrots and living longer" is not generally used not because it is unreliable, i.e., wrong about what the scientists did or said, but because it has not yet gained significance for the topic.

Incidentally, the report is not a primary study, but a meta-analysis from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which has Official Observer Status at the UN That they have made this claim is significant.

TFD (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TFD. The issue here is that the actual review article (I agree it will be a secondary source) has not published yet and so the only support for the proposed content at this time is the press release and Guardian article; the rs question is whether they can be used to support the proposed content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was published in The Guaridan, one of the world's most respected newspapers, and was written by their head environment writer, who has a PhD in earth sciences. How is it unreliable? TFD (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. So you think that the proposed content is fine, with the sources provided. That is surprising to me. Can you please say a bit about why you think it is OK in WP to discuss scientific findings that haven't been published yet? I work on a lot of health stuff and in that field, there is no way that we would include health-related content based on a press release and a follow up article in the popular media (no matter how prestigious the newspaper). The popular media is not considered reliable secondary sources for health content. Very interested in reasoned perspectives on how to apply in RS in this field, which is also biology-based. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't answer your question directly. The actual source is the scientific article, which hasn't published yet. The Guardian report hews closely to the press release I linked to above. In my view, when WP is doing its best, science-based claims are supported by reviews in the scientific literature; in this case - the review article, which we cannot cite yet. As an aside I also think that science by press release is pretty reprehensible - a politicization of science. I'd rather that WP not partake in it, no matter if it is coming from "the good guys" or "the bad guys". In WP:MEDRS we have specific guidance against using press releases and media follow up on them as sources for content (see here if you are not familiar with that bit) that defends WP against this. I get it that editors who want to ban neonics are excited by the buzz that TFSP has succeeded in generating (a very slick campaign!) and want to run with it; but this is not WP at is best (nor how it should be at all). The review will publish in good time and there is no deadline; we are not a newspaper. That is my reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not as if we were using it as a source for a scientific fact, saying something like the "use of neonicotinoids is responsible for colony collapse disorder", with no qualification or "In-text attribution." We are merely reporting what a group of scientists rightly or wrongly claim. There is no doubt that the sources support what they have said.

MEDRS anyway does not apply. There is no claim that neonicotinoids directly harm humans, rather the claim is that they harm bees. Certainly that may indirectly harm humans, but then so do wars, crime, poverty, and many other evils. But no one insists that only medical journals can be used to report those topics.

TFD (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. However, I did not say that MEDRS applies and was careful not to... I did say that I think MEDRS is very sound wrt to the way it handles science and the media! You make a very good point, that the proposed content doesn't try to make claims about reality and instead does in-text attribution. Thanks for that. You are not addressing the "science by press release" thing, nor how we should handle science-based content outside the field of health, and I can only take that as signalling that those are issues that you don't want to get into. In any case thanks again for the discussion - we don't agree but I do appreciate the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How would you compare the relative effectiveness of science communication to that of science by insertion of manufacturers' paid advocacy sources designed to appear to be literature reviews? Which is more likely to achieve more widely shared beneficial goals? EllenCT (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unclear what this has to do with whether the sources provided are RS for the proposed content.Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead having a lengthy argument about the guardian or the press release it seems much more prudent to me just to wait for the actual scientific report/article to be properly published. Then we can have a look at it and eventually/most likely use it. Arguing now about the guardian and the press release seems like waste of time as those two obviously very inferior sources and the whole situation would need to be reevaluated anyhow in a months or so when real article is published. In short don't use guardian/press release now and wait for the real thing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you think the authors are not a reliable source for the assertion that their article has been accepted for publication? EllenCT (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

that is neither the problem nor the point.Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Source reliability is always framed in the context of the specific statement that the source is being used to suppport, in this case the statement:

• has contaminated the environment across the planet to the extent that global food production is at risk.

Is incredibly sensational and not supportable by a popular media article giving its impression of a press release of an unpublished scientific article. There's plenty of published data on the harm caused by neonicotinoids on various invertebrate populations including european honey bees important for pollinating agricultural crops, native bee populations, and various worm populations, let's stick to discussing these things rather than emulating the sensationalized tabloid style of presenting information.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if the real complaint is not whether the study is accurately reported but how it is described. The article already covers the claims about alleged environmental effects of neonicotinoids. Can't we just add that a yet to be published paper has been reported to strengthen these claims? TFD (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Polemically speaking previous review studies/secondary publication tended to "downplay" the negative impact of neonicotinoids due to the fact that most of the studies indicating harm did so by using unrealistic dosages/conditions and neonicotinoid article reflects that appropriately. Now if the most recent review article/meta-anaysis puts a strong emphasis on the negative impact of neonicotinoid might shift the WP article significantly. Hence this might be a particularly important source with a significant impact on the article. Imho that is all the more reason to wait for its official publication rather than using newspapers or press releases.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't normally bother with general assessments of a sources reliability, but focus on whether it is reliable enough for specific claims. That said the study is *not* accurately portrayed by this source, and this post by the IUCN much better characterizes the study

Opening line

• Guardian: The world’s most widely used insecticides have contaminated the environment across the planet so pervasively that global food production is at risk, according to a comprehensive scientific assessment of the chemicals’ impacts.(doesn't give source of info, doesn't specify which insecticides are being used and casually speculates about pervasive global contamination and endangerment of our food production)
• IUCN: The conclusions of a new meta-analysis of the systemic pesticides neonicotinoids and fipronil (neonics) confirm that they are causing significant damage to a wide range of beneficial invertebrate species and are a key factor in the decline of bees.(Gives source of study, specific info on pesticides and the harm they are causing)

Conclusion of the study as reported by both sources

• Guardian:Billions of dollars’ worth of the potent and long-lasting neurotoxins are sold every year but regulations have failed to prevent the poisoning of almost all habitats, the international team of scientists concluded in the most detailed study yet. (We still don't know who these people are, but apparently nearly every habitat on Earth has been contaminated by these insecticides whose identities have not yet been told to us)
• IUCN: Already stated in their opening sentence

Description of methods:

• Guardian: The new report, called the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on Systemic Pesticides, analysed every peer-reviewed scientific paper on neonicotinoids and another insecticide called fipronil since they were first used in the mid-1990s. (It is highly dubious that they analyzed all those papers)
• IUCN: Undertaking a full analysis of all the available literature (800 peer-reviewed reports) the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides (giving a number is good, also good that they choose "all the available literature" which doesn't limit the study to peer-reviewed literature, especially since if this report is thorough it will make use of at least some of the substantial grey literature in this field)

In general the IUCN article is more detailed and accurate and would be a much better source for this article than the Guardian article. If any mention of this study has to be made before it actually comes out then I would recommend using the IUCN article. While the Guardian may be a well-known newspaper, newspapers usually have difficulty covering scientific topics, and often over-sensationalize and over-simplify their articles.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, AioftheStorm. To be clear, I and others have argued that we should wait til the scientific article publishes. The IUCN piece is a press release. It too is science by press release and WP should not be jumping on bandwagons this way. When the scientific article - which promises to be a review - a secondary source - publishes, we should read it and generate content based on it. Not on the press release by TFSP nor the press release by IUCN (which created TFSP) nor on the Guardian story which is based on the press releases. (Both the TFSP and the IUCN press releases fail WP:INDY, btw) Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and only mentioned usage of the IUCN article because I realise that sometimes things just don't end up optimally and users may want to input some mention of this review and if they do I would recommend the IUCN article over the Guardian article. I really would prefer no science by press release at all and always just waiting for articles to come out.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

gotcha, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I wish to use this link http://www.wncn.com/video?clipId=10181442&autostart=true as a reference for my draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org. I have been advised that it is borderline, and to come here to ask for the opinion of experienced editors. I appreciate input and discussion about it's reliability for the article. Thanks in advance. LauraMcAliley (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Recently an IP editor proposed a change in a paragraph of the Ugg boots article and as one may expect from the troubled history of that article, he encountered an objection. The source is the Peoria Journal Star, the daily newspaper with the largest circulation in downstate Illinois (62,000), and WP:NEWSORG would seem to fit like a glove:

[small]"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ..." [/small]

The Journal Star, like any other major daily, has fact checkers and there's no indication that the statement in question failed to be submitted to fact-checking, or that it failed to pass such scrutiny. No contradictory claim from any other reliable source has been provided.

The objection claims that for a statement of fact about world market share, one must use a source specializing in business and financial reporting. Evidently only a publication like The Wall Street Journal or Money magazine would do.

I don't see any language supporting such a claim in Wikipedia policy. If the objecting editor wishes to argue in favor of a change of Wikipedia policy to support his claim, then he should do so in the proper channels. Until he succeeds in obtaining such a change in policy, the edit to include this reliable source should stand.--Factchk (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is about this edit? Then I have to ask, how does this article back the statement "The manufacturer of this style of footwear with a dominating share of the worldwide market is Deckers, which reportedly has 95% of the worldwide market share."? I don't see the 95% number in the article. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that's not in the article. This source is obviously not reliable for a claim it doesn't make. It could probably be a source for some of the claims it does make. That sentence should be recast, rewritten, or removed. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Business Insider references a CNN article making the 95% claim. ETA: The claim might be in the CNN video, I'm not watching it just now.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect the 95% claim might be corporate marketing. I see "95%" all over the place in blogs and Ugg related sites, but so far nothing verifiable. And considering this company allegedly attempted to "schwag" celeberity guests attending Phillip Seymour Hoffman's funeral with Ugg footware, I vote for extra care being placed on claims that may have originated from this corporation.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The CNN article cited does not make the claim either. It's a ridiculous claim on the face of it. If you define "the footwear" as Deckers Officially-sanctioned/licensed Boots, they have 100% share, just as Coca-Cola ultimately has 100% share of Coca-Cola sales. If talking about the boot style, there's no way one company has 95% global share. This is promotional copy gone wrong and should be removed or re-written somehow.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing ridiculous about the claim because it's from a reliable source. All of the above is speculation about "corporate marketing" and "promotional copy." This fact had to survive fact checking at an established news organization and according to WP:NEWSORG policy, it is reliable. The reliable source is here: Nobody has provided a source supporting this "promotional copy" claim. There is no contradicting claim, saying that it's less than 95% in any reliable source anywhere that has been provided by the opponents of this edit. Policy has to count for something, because it represents the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community. The blogs and other sources mentioned in this discussion probably got this 95% figure from the original Journal Star article or from the Wikipedia article, both of which do exist, and not from any alleged "promotional copy" which has not been proven to exist. Speculation on one side unsupported by any sources, and reliable source policy on the other side. This is an open and shut case. 2602:306:C56F:500:A41D:BA2:E497:CB62 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As anyone can see, the claim does not exist in "the original Journal Star article" you are trying to use. Nobody can impugn the Peoria Journal Star's general reliability, but they don't say what you are saying that they say. Maybe you didn't read the article before you started defending its honor?__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"By 2010, all of the Australian manufacturers combined added up to only 5.9 percent of Deckers sales for Ugg boots alone." If you'd like, I can paraphrase that and put it into the article, citing the source. Agreed? 2602:306:C56F:500:A41D:BA2:E497:CB62 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have based your edit on a math failure. That isn't talking about global sales, that's comparing Australian manufacturers with Deckers alone. It gives no sense of how many shoes of that general style are made by non-Australian/non-Deckers manufacturers. All that says is that Australian manufacturers are not global powerhouses in footwear production. You can't use that to extrapolate global production. Editors especially can't do that if they're attempting to promote a specific company. You're demonstrating the dangers of WP:OR and fudging statistics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't what the edit said. You just moved the sentence from the beginning of the paragraph to the end. It seems that the only "promotional copy" is on behalf of the Australian manufacturers (5.9% of the world market) in an effort to diminish the notability of Deckers (94.1% of the world market). Deckers is more notable by a factor of 19 to 1 and should be mentioned first, in this paragraph and in the paragraph that preceds it. Reliable 1too (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Where does the source say "world market"? That is not in the source. It is not what it says. Those words are just being added by editors (I think possibly just you, if you are the same as the dynamic IP and Factchk? Have you switched usernames?) Again, saying "Australian manufacturers produce a fraction of Deckers sales" is not statistically or otherwise equivalent to saying "Deckers are the only people besides Australian manufacturers making a style of footwear". We say what's in the source without misrepresenting the statistic.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we moved past any objection to the reliability of the source. Thanks for that. At this point we're discussing what the article should say, based on that source (and others). For that we have the article Talk page. Reliable 1too (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Back to the reliability of the claimed source, noting that it may or may not support the claim being made by the editor, I fail to see how what is in effect a local newspaper can be considered a reliable source for matters of worldwide trade. Does this newspaper have any reputation at all in fiscal circles, especially of global significance? If this claim were justified there would be similar claims available in sources with real reputations in the area, which we do not see. This one just does not cut it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, we've already moved on, and consensus is clearly against you. See Elaquete's remark: "Nobody can impugn the Peoria Journal Star's general reliability ..." This is a previously uninvolved editor. The question was taken to the RSN board as you requested, and we have the answer now. It's a reliable source. So let's move on. Reliable 1too (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Although it would be nice if you didn't misrepresent me or quote me out of context. The part you leave out of that sentence was that it shouldn't be used to back up material not found in the source, and it should, of course, be paraphrased in a way that does not run afoul of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Is Deckers a large manufacturer of UGG brand footwear? Yes. Can we extrapolate that beyond what the sources say? No. The reliability of a source for a particular claim sometimes (not always) depends on its timeliness and I admit I would question a source from nearer the height of the Ugg fashion fad as being necessarily true regarding sales statistics of today, when Uggs are clearly not as popular. It would also be nice, on a separate note, for you to clear up whether you've changed user names, or if you have any COI to declare. Your replies seem to be a continuation of earlier conversations. This is the second time I'm asking. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm the "dynamic IP editor." I created an account. I am not Fackchk. I do not have a conflict of interest. The source is clearly defining its time frame as 2010 and it's been accurately represented that way. The paraphrasing is painstakingly accurate now. I'm sorry if you feel you were quoted out of context or misrepresented, but you appeared to find this source reliable, and Factchk clearly finds it reliable, so it appears we have consensus, noting Nick's lone dissent. Can we move on? Reliable 1too (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the issue has not even been discussed here, let alone been resolved. Furthermore this discussion appears to have been held without any notice to interested parties - for example on the article concerned talk page - why was that? The discussion about whether the newspaper in question is a reliable source for the claims being made has not been addressed in the slightest. For the newspaper in question to be considered to be a reliable source for the claim being made, it needs to be established that it has a reputation in that area. The fact that there appears to be little or no corroborating reports from other sources suggests that in this case the newspaper may not be the most reliable source at all. Frankly the item in the newspaper reads like a fluff piece. It finishes with "Jim Davis is a Glendale Heights resident who graduated from Peoria High School and Illinois State University. He presently works in information technology at a Chicago law firm and does freelance writing on the side" This does not inspire confidence that the article is anything but a veiled advertising blurb on behalf of Deckers. Even the most reputable newspapers contain articles written that fall into this category. The article is not from the editorial pages of the newspaper and there is no evidence that the author has any expertise to make statements about international trade issues. There is no way that this item can be considered on its own to be a reliable source for the claims being made.

Oh, and please learn how to indent your posts correctly. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.pjstar.com/article/20111227/News/312279892#ixzz36Aink9IV

That article is insufficiently clear for the point you wish to make. Does it refer to ugg boot sales in the United States, or for the whole world? Does it refer to all ugg boot sales up to that year, or only for 2010? It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to make such vague and sweeping claims, sourced only to an unclearly written puff piece for Deckers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the consensus here is that this source is not backing up the claims being made.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit (actually, more than a bit) of an issue going on at Talk:Metamodernism that I hope can get resolved here. metamodernism.com is the personal WordPress blog of two men named Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker who, since roughly 2010, have taken up to promoting an ideology they mostly invented labeled "metamodernism". The actually definition of "metamodernism" is so vague (I've had a bit of a concern that uninvolved editors are avoiding commenting because they may not fully grasp what the actual definition, if any, of this concept is) that it is extremely futile to even try to briefly summarize it, though to anyone actually interested in trying to decipher some of jargon on the site, I would recommend you check out our Metamodernism entry, which uses mm.com as a primary source for about 70% of the page's information. This is where the concern on the talk page has stemmed from. There are a handful of instances of "metamodernism" being mentioned in established publications, but the information provided in those probably isn't enough to warrant an article, thus a squad of mostly SPAs has been working on writing the article based around the posts on mm.com. I'm taking this here because the stance of the article as stagnated as no consensus can be reached on the article's talk page, and none will be until it is decided upon if this is a reliable source or not. The argument in favor of mm.com being a reliable source is that Vermeulen and den Akker have had some of their works (though, not those on the site) professionally published, though I personally argued against this saying that, despite any personal notability of the owners, a blog is in no way a means to publish quasi-academic material if the writers wish for it to be regarded as such. felt_friend 15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this "metamodernism" actually notable? I know gooogle can find several sources which talk about "metamodernism" but are there enough sources (which are independent and reliable) that talk about this particular meaning of the word? Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

From the extensive research I've done (started out just personal then did more for the sake of the article), there is no actual established definition. The term originated from a 1975 paper which was dragged out again sometime around 2002 or so, and finally ended up in the hands of Vermeulen and den Akker, who used it to define their own vaguely coherent writings. This was another issue that arose in the article: the few publications (including mm.com) that attempt to provide a definition all, in one way or another, conflict with each other. Additionally, no established reliable sources provide any kind of solid definition. I personally feel the topic to be non-notable and I've explained my thoughts on that much further on the talk page (don't feel like getting into it again here since that would take up much more unneeded space in this thread and it's not particularly relevant to whether or not mm.com can be considered a reliable source). The reason I brought this up here, to reiterate, is to finally conclude whether or not mm.com can be used as a source, which would largely help determine the future of the article. felt_friend 19:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

How should non-RS be cleaned up? I think that replacing the source with {{cn}} would be the way to go in most cases. Perhaps with {{dubious}}, in others. Special:Contributions/Bobrayner shows Bobrayner has been doing a bunch of cleanup. Cleanup is good. But the pattern of this edit concerns me. "300 tonnes a day" is supported by this RS. So, my question is, when we have a non-RS, is it appropriate to simply remove the unsourced claims? When I entered "fukushima water" into google, it completed with "leak per day", and brought up the Guardian piece. I see an edit pattern starting here. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 01:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no general answer to that, one needs to use common sense and consider the given context. Principally unsourced content can be removed, but that should be understood as wholesale, "mindless" removal of content anytime sources are missing or are not RS. Instead you should assess the content if possible and if the content is likely to be true or you know it to be true, then the tags you mentioned above should be used and the content should not be removed. If however you have good reason to believe the content being wrong, then remove it. Also libelous content and negative assessments in biographies should always be removed if not sourced properly, that is by a RS (see WP:BLP for that).--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I generally agree, though I think it would be inappropriate to use {{dubious}} in the way you suggest; I'm guessing you didn't meant to suggest that, as a dubious claim is one that is not likely to be true. It looks to me like there's a pattern of deleting the non-RS, and removing the unsourced claims, without assessing the content. I'm not sure what to do about that. I would just like Bobrayner to be a bit more cautious when deleting, in accord with your answer, and put back the "300 tones a day" supported by this RS. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 19:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Graff, Gary; Durchholz, Daniel (1999). MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-1-57859-061-2. is a reliable source that is suitable for use in music articles. Is there any reason to think that its not reliable or notable enough for use on Wikipedia? Harmelodix (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about modern music, but I do know a few things about sources. Visible Ink Press has an article, seems it's been around since 1989, and is not a vanity press. Gary Graff has an article, seems to be an established music journalist. Daniel Durcholz seems to have written for Rolling Stone. The two of them have written at least one other book about modern rock music together. So a book from a real publishing house by two expert authors. Looks like a fine reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, GRuban. That's what I thought! Harmelodix (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

see also: WT:WikiProject Medicine#Acupuncture and pseudoscience

In the article Acupuncture, is the source:

• "Hard to swallow". Nature. 448 (7150): 105. 2007. doi:10.1038/448106a. PMID 17625521.

a reliable source for the statement:

TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.

TCM = traditional Chinese medicine. I'm assuming that the standards of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) are the appropriate requirements in this case. Thanks in advance, --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There was previous consensus to use the statement, but to use in-text attribution because the source is an editorial, and the text uses the pejorative "pseudoscience" to describe a traditional, pre-science system of medicine. I don't believe the editorial should be used to establish a contested fact, which would mean we (WP) are establishing that as an uncontested fact. I would prefer to either eliminate the text, or stick with the previous consensus of in-text attribution.Herbxue (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the policy that says we use in-text attribution because a source is an editorial? WP:NOPV is clear:

• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Where's the discussion that established the consensus you claim?

Why is pseudoscience 'pejorative' when applied to traditional Chinese medicine? TCM is based on concepts such as meridians and flow of qi, which are pure nonsense in scientific terms. That's the very definition of pseudoscience - how does that make it pejorative?

I'm sure you would prefer to eliminate the text, but do you have a policy-based reason for removing a well-supported fact from a reliable source? --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, it says it in the WP:NEWSORG section of WP:RS...

• Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

That said... While the statement is an Editorial, it isn't a NEWSORG editorial (but from what is arguably the single most respected scientific journal in existence). I would definitely consider it one of the rare "reliable for statements of fact" exceptions to the rule. However... to my mind there is no harm in attributing... Nature is so well respected, that attributing actually bolsters the statement that TCM is pseudoscience and gives it more weight than if we simply said it in Wikipedia's voice. It makes it clear that this isn't just our opinion... but the opinion of real experts. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Blueboar a Nature editorial must surely be reliable in this context. Whether we should include the word (which has two meanings, one as in the usage of the Nature editorial a pejorative, meaning nonsense, and one specifically meaning that it looks like science but isn't, which doesn't seem to have a RS in this particular case) is of course a matter for discussion elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, while my gut very much agrees with the statement sourced from the Nature editorial, that is a very slim reed on which to hang a claim in Wikipedia's voice. For those very committed to having the statement in Wikipedia's voice, I recommend finding something more authoritative, like a medical textbook or a statement by a major medical or scientific body. If all you can bring is an editorial, it should be in-line attributed. The prior consensus on in-line citation, mentioned by Herbxue seems to be the correct position. I do not agree with Herbxue that "pseudoscience" is pejorative and strongly urge him to back off that stance, to avoid running afoul of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's no bad thing to say pseudoscience is pejorative, because something that involves misrepresantation -- like fraud -- probably deserves to be pejorated. FWIW... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I sense an eagerness among editors to label TCM as pseudoscience that is not matched by the Nature source, whose topic is drug discovery and TCM. In context, the quote (below) isn't that strong of an assertion.

To get a sense of the editorial's emphasis, just look at each of its six paragraphs: 1 & 2 = Pharmaceutical interest in TCM. 3 = limited success so far from standard "reductionist" (their word) approaches. 4 = why no success? & quote which we cite (below). 5 = economic & regulatory environment. 6 = non-standard ways of studying TCM formulas; but they're skeptical of this; see 2nd quote below.

Now here's the full quote for our citation (para #4):

"So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."

That's more of a point-counterpoint thing, although it's clear which side they're taking. Still -- as Jytdog says -- not the strongest thing upon which to hang WP's voice.

Later in the editorial they say (para #6):

"Constructive approaches to divining the potential usefulness of traditional therapies are to be welcomed. But it seems problematic to apply a brand new technique, largely untested in the clinic, to test the veracity of traditional Chinese medicine, when the field is so fraught with pseudoscience. In the meantime, claims made on behalf of an uncharted body of knowledge should be treated with the customary scepticism that is the bedrock of both science and medicine."

So again, it's obvious where they stand -- but again, given the content, it's not the central point of the paper.

I'm sure there are other sources that call TCM pseudoscience, but they haven't been proposed as a source for speaking in WP's voice, perhaps because they're not as prestigious as Nature. I sense an overreaching among editors, a grasping at whatever is most likely to justify calling TCM pseudoscience -- but these things take time and the literature has not reached the point homeopathy did some time ago. Likewise, the skeptical blogosphere's eagerness to label TCM pseudoscience is not matched by the same enthusiasm among scientists who study TCM treatments.

The best sources would be those most qualified to comment on demarcation: scholars, including historians and philosophers of science, as well as scientific academies who periodically make such statements to educate the public. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We have an account also editing as an IP at Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon adding material from a personal website as follows: Work by Dr Robert A. Pate, PhD using correlation of native records of the Mayan chroniclers with the Book of Mormon narrative has provided additional insight (i.e. Annals of the Caqchikels & other sources). Every major Book of Mormon site has been identified. Over 80 percent of the total number of sites (Nephite & Jaredite) have been localized. The GPS coordinates are published: ,

• Mormon Footprint in Mesoamerica, 2012, Robert A. Pate, PhD, MormonTopics.com For GPS coordinates, see sections: ALPHABETIC LISTING, Place Names and Geographical Descriptions. pp. 129-150.
• The process began with: Mapping the Book of Mormon: A Comprehensive Geography of Nephite America, 2002 by Robert A. Pate, PhD , Subsequently, as additional discoveries were made other volumes have followed: Mormon Names in Maya Stone, 2009, which documents the names of a number of prominent Book of Mormon personalities as captured in Maya glyphs & codices,, Mormon Key to Maya Code, 2012,wherein the strong Chinese silk connection and other surprising Book of Mormon related discoveries were identified. , and finally, the more precise codification of many of the most prominent discoveries from the first three volumes: Mormon Footprint in Mesoamerica, , a PDF copy of which can be freely downloaded.
• Each book includes addition discoveries, not found in the previous volumes. Please note that other than several small corrections, and refinements, discoveries and clarifications, the process has been a continual process of verification, substantiation, and renewed intensification from the first book through to the fourth.
• Not Everyone agrees. But the issues raised and their relevance, has been addressed: For the critics: Perfect vs. Close-Enough, Solving Mormon's Puzzle, Rebuttal to Brandt A. Gardner and Allen J. Christenson. , FARMS vol 15:2 and FARMS vol 16:2.
• General Rebuttal to Critics, Solving Mormon’s Puzzle, “Perfect vs. Close-Enough”.

I removed this once and posted to User:BofM.MP8 about sources but the material was added again. It's also been added to Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting. There's also the issues of WP:NPOV wording and WP:UNDUE but I thought I'd raise the source issue. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr Pate appears to have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. I see no reason why this would qualify him as a reliable source on Mayan chroniclers, or indeed of anything else beyond his doctoral field. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources There are 3 primary sources whose reliability I question.

1. , Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament
2. Jan van Tuyl A New Chronology for Old Testament Times
3. Bible Horizon article and the quote of Oswald T. Allis found there.

Article Kurkh Monoliths

Content This primary researches were used to claim in the lead of the article, that "scholars disputed "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" as a proposed reference to Ahab of Israel." However nowhere I have found such dispute in academic scholarship, "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" represents the only Assyrian text referring to Ahab and Israel under this name. Shigeo Yamada explains why not the common Assyrian term for Israel (mar Humri) was used."The indication of a single state by two alternative names is not unusual in the inscription of Shalmaneser, as witnessed also in alterations between Patin and Ulqi, between Samaal and Bit Gabbar and between Yahan and Bit Agusi...N.Nadav suggest that Yehu designation as Mar Humri was deliberately made by Shalmaneser in order to legitimize the new Israeli king, who adopted pro-Assyrian policy"

Ahab, the king of Northern Kingdom Israel/Samaria was described by Bible as minor, negative polytheistic ruler. However historic science regarding Northen Kingdom (Israel Finkelstein Nadav Neeman and others) dispute this. In my opinion,the main reason why this creationist theologians would try to negate that the Kurkh Monolith refers to Ahab of Israel is because this inscription contradicts biblical accounts. (Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History's Intriguing edited by Steven L. Danver P.308) Ahab was capable to assemble a large force to Assyrian war coalition according to the Kurkh monolith . Also. Shalmaneser III of Assyria wars, are fully extra-biblical events and the Kurk monolith inscription contradicts biblical accounts. The 3 sources that question this translation are the following:

• Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones.Although little can be found about Dr. Jones on net, he has been described as "Floyd Nolen Jones is a Christian author. He has recorded a bible study for twenty years,[1] and has written several books on Christianity. He is an apparent Young Earth Creationist who supported a beginning age to life on earth of 4004 B.C" In the summary of this book it was wrriten"Author Floyd Nolen Jones carefully and thoroughly investigates that chronological and mathematical facts of the Old Testament, proving them to be accurate and reliable" His personal site describe him as "Dr. Jones is currently engaged in ongoing biblical research and the teaching of God’s infallible Word He writes: God’s salvation is qualified only by our response. God elects whosoever elects to accept His invitation, those who choose to respond, God chooses to save. The unregenerate is not ignorant of God’s call; rather they choose to ignore it in favor of their own wisdom, and God let’s them do so as His Word reveals."
• The second source questioned is Jan van Tuyl, He and the book used as reference is described by the publisher as "Jan van Tuyl, is not a professional biblical expert, but he is a dedicated, intelligent, and thorough scholar who has gone out of his way to include both secular and spiritual texts, well-known and rare treatises, and modern and ancient translations to examine the period of 5500 years that ran from the arrival of Adam in the Old Testament to the birth of Jesus in the Gospels A New Chronology (when it pops) is an absorbing, amusing, historical narrative—relatively spiritual, but not above cracking the occasional joke. Van Tuyl raises questions that may mirror those of many curious readers. Did Moses really float down the Nile in a basket? Where did Adam and Eve get their clothes? How culpable was Pilate in Christ’s crucifixion? How prevalent was inbreeding in the lives of the biblical patriarchs? Did Ezekiel ride in a spaceship? One must give van Tuyl credit: when he follows his better instincts, he can resuscitate biblical content that doesn’t exactly leap off the page. Who knew angels might have procreated with humans?As one might expect from the title, van Tuyl is obsessed with numeric details, such as Noah’s age when his first son was born, how many years passed when God was creating the Earth, how old Sarah was when she conceived her notoriously improbable child. The down side to this obsession is that after a while, one doesn’t necessarily care that five sources disagree on how old Abraham was when he had his Bar Mitzvah."
• The third source is an article in bible horizons which quotes Oswald Thompson Allis an American Presbyterian theologian who has been described as conservative Christian theologian who believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Skilton, "Oswald T. Allis," P:129 His book "God spake by Moses. An exposition of the Pentateuch, with emphasis on the Mosaic authorship by Oswald Thompson Allis (1951)" is used by Presbyterian church.

-Contrary, to this creationist theologians modern scholarship does not support that the translation of "Israel" is contraversial: Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction By Nadav Naʼaman, Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives By Jonathan Michael Golden P:275 Shigeo Yamada The Construction of the Assyrian Empire P:193, The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn P.10. L. Grabbe "Ahab what we know" etc. I believe that creationist theologians and their primary sources, are not reliable sources regarding historical artifacts connected to biblical figures due to 1) lack of formal education from historic fields 2)conflict of interests 3) Because they are not mentioned or quoted by extra-theological scholarship --Tritomex (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A splendid example of "opinions must be cited as opinions" as the key issue -- if the creationists are "notable" by Wikipedia standards then their opinions may well also be notable, but such opinions in any case should not be given as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this creationist are not notable according to Wikipedia standards. This are all primary sources and primary researches, as secondary academic sources do not even mention them. Also, their primary research went directly to the lead of the article implying that there is scholarly dispute about the translation. While the translation is supported by numerous academic sources, those who "dispute" it, are this creationist theologians and a creationist author without any formal education from biblical history --Tritomex (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If they aren't notable by Wikipedia criteria and their only apparent notability is self-described from their own websites, then we can't use them as reliable sources. If these guys aren't known outside their own book blurbs then God knows there are any number of actual respected biblical scholars and historians we may turn to. Why use the equivalent of a Speakers' Corner spruiker with a box of self-published tracts? --Pete (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Horizons should clearly not be used. Its website says " Biblical Absolutism, which means that the Bible is absolutely authoritative wherever it speaks and is the sole ultimate authority for our thinking. Along these lines we affirm such things as the importance of six-day creationism and Biblical chronology as God’s way of restructuring our wayward understanding of science and history, Biblical symbolism as God’s way of teaching us how to interpret the world,". Even though our article on its director James B. Jordan calls it a " think tank in Niceville, Florida that publishes books, essays and other media dealing with Bible commentary, Biblical theology, and liturgy". That article needs work. I don't think the others are appropriate either. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Floyd Nolen Jones's PhD appears to be in theology (as that's all he seems to get away with throwing "PhD" after his name on), not archaeology, history, or even anthropology. He does not appear to be any authority whatsoever on what mainstream historians think.

Van Tuyl's work is self-published and not about him, and there is no possibility for a policy-based argument for including his claims.

The Biblical Horizons page could potentially be a halfway reliable source only for citing the Oswald Thompson Allis quote, but it is in no way reliable for historical information, and Allis is not reliable for historical information (hell, his "Five Books of Moses" is written as a rebuttal of history so widely accepted that even the Vatican doesn't argue against it).

None of those sources are reliable for that article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)None of the three sources appear to pass basic RS criteria. The Van Tuyl book is published by Author House, a UK-based vanity publisher. This means it is unusuable per WP:SPS. The Floyd Jones book is published by Floyd Jones Ministries, so ditto. Biblical Ministries is also not usable, per Dougweller. Formerip (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

While reliable sources do not necessarily need to be written by experts, there is nothing about these sources that meets criteria for reliability. Also, while the books may be rs for the opinions of the authors, no evidence has been presented that they are significant views. TFD (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I will discount the somewhat biased phrasing of the question (the fact that the authors may be creationists is irrelevant... a person's views on the origins of the universe has nothing to do with his/her potential expertise on post-exodus kingdoms of Israel and Judea). That said, I have to agree with what others have said ... I don't think any of these sources are reliable in the contexts in which they are used. They may be reliable in some other context... but not the ones described. They seem to be fringe pseudo-historical views that do not merit a lot of weight. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. These sources may be used to describe the opinion of these authors (if these authors are notable on their own merits), but not as sources in other contexts. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with that. The question might be posed in a biased fashion, but depending on the context creationistic beliefs do matter. While at first glance you might argue indeed, that a person's notion on the creation of the universe has nothing to do or no impact on his expertise on the historic kingdoms of Israel and Judea. However depending on the exact branch of creationism (for instant those who take the bible content as factual statements) it may very well influence the quality and reliability of their historic scholarship (and hence their usability for WP). If somebody considers the bible as the literal word of god and statement of fact it actually outright disqualifies him as a historic scholars and hence as a source for WP other than sourcing a common creationist belief.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. A recent discussion at the Fringe noticeboard was shut down and it was proposed to open a new thread to look specifically at sources I had gathered.

The root of the dispute is the categories Category:Violence against men and Category:Massacres of men, both of which are being proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Massacres_of_men (feel free to weigh in there if you like).

The sources in question have been gathered at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Additional_sources_that_cover_the_topic_of_gender-based_violence_against_men and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Further_sources. For the first link, I gathered a few key sources and pulled some quotes so people wouldn’t have to download PDFs, for the second link I just have the links to the sources and I grouped them thematically - though I should note in my research I focused on sexual/gender based violence in conflict, there are a lot of other sources around domestic violence which I didn’t include.

So, the question for this board is, do the sources provided above SUPPORT the claim, which is as follows:
Sexual and gender-based violence against men (the stated scope of the category) is a topic that is encyclopedic, that is studied in the literature, and could support a category whereby articles could be fruitfully classified underneath

In response to the categories, some of the contents, the sources I have provided, and my defense of these categories with these sources, I and others have been accused of shilling for the MRM, pushing a partisan POV, being a misogynist, having a sexist agenda, cherry-picking sources, quote-mining, and so on. Again, we are not writing an article, ONLY defending the continued existence of a category, but unfortunately none of those who want the category deleted are actually detailing their problems with the sources, or explaining in what way I'm cherry picking, so I'm hoping to get other views.

You can read here to see some of the attacks and vitriol Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#MRA_fringe_material - unfortunately the main discussant was unwilling to provide sources to back up their claims, or to disprove my claims, so the discussion had no point any more.

At the CFD discussion, one editor said “just another example of MRM soapboxing and POV-pushing. Wikipedia is being used to promote a sexist, misogynist agenda.” The accusations of POV pushing for defending this category are legion. It hasn't been stated clearly what the POV is, nor how existence of a category promotes that POV.

So, I’m asking you reliably reliable people here, to take a look at the sources, look at as many or as few as you like, and make a judgement as to whether the claim above is supported by those sources, and whether the sources I’ve provided above are reliable, and whether I am using or misusing them to promote a POV in so-making this claim (e.g. that the category should continue to exist)

A secondary question, if you'd care to weigh in, is whether Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) is a reliable source in the field of genocide studies, because the work of Adam Jones on Gendercide is especially useful in helping to define the parameters of the Category:Massacres of men and Category:Massacres of women categories. Specifically, can and the case studies be used (in part) to defend Category:Massacres of men and the claim that such massacres are an instance of gender-based violence, that men (or women) are targeted for death because of their gender, and the claim that reliable sources talk about or group together such gendercide or sex-selective massacres separately from other massacres? Two editors have claimed that Jones is not a reliable source or that he is FRINGE.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi @Obiwankenobi: Without commenting on the primary question, I would consider Adam Jones a reliable source in most contexts related to his professional interests. Not every single one of his beliefs is completely inline with mainstream academic thought, but that's true of pretty much every academic in the world. He's a full professor at a very well regarded university, his work is cited by a pretty solid number of people, and he's written some texts that are quite widely used. I know of no reason why he would be broadly disregarded as a potential source. I editconflicted with you while writing this response, so it's formulated to answer your original post instead of the specific question you pose about one of his works now. I'm a bit too sleepy to want to do enough analysis to give a good answer to the specific question you've posed, but I'll do so tomorrow if no one beats me to it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• JPS's argument doesn't seem to make much sense in light of the sources you provided. I don't think the FRINGE argument holds up. Shii (tock) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You really ought to notify people when you mention them. What do you think my argument is? Can you provide a diff and explain it? jps (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed. The men's rights movement exists and the literature is fairly extensive. Just two examples: MSNBC reported on a men's rights conference in Michigan and there's an article in The Atlantic. These are progressive mainstream sources, not right-wing sources. The movement appears to be substantial if not massive, and whether feminists like it or want it to exist is immaterial. 2602:306:C56F:500:A41D:BA2:E497:CB62 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; however the question is about gender-based violence against men, not the men's rights movement. Any thoughts on that topic, given the sources above?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm the "dynamic IP editor" above and I created this account (see UGG boots discussion above). Your question seems to be whether "Sexual and gender-based violence against men (the stated scope of the category) is a topic that is encyclopedic, that is studied in the literature, and could support a category whereby articles could be fruitfully classified underneath" is supported by the sources. My answer to that is "Yes." Reliable 1too (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• One more piling on. Obi-Wan has provided a mountain of reliable sources that this is a subject of serious study. --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So which source in this mountain do you see as the most reliable for establishing that the broad subject of "Violence against men" is a subject of serious study? jps (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sarah Solangon & Preeti Patel (2012). "Sexual violence against men in countries affected by armed conflict". Conflict, Security & Development.
    • Eric Stener Carlson (2006). "The Hidden Prevalence of Male Sexual Assault During War: Observations on Blunt Trauma to the Male Genitals". Br J Criminol.
    • Sabine Piccard. "Masculinities and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings – Addressing the Gap in Violence Against Men".
    • Sandesh Sivakumaran. "Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict". Eur J Int Law.
    • Wynne Russel. "Sexual violence against men and boys" (PDF). Forced Migration Review.
    • Dustin Lewis (2009). "Unrecognized victims: Sexual violence against men in conflict settings under International Law". Ws. Int'l L. J (1).
    • R. Charli Carpenter (March 2006). "Recognizing Gender-Based Violence against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations". Security Dialogue.
    • Mervyn Christiana, Octave Safarib, Paul Ramazanib, Gilbert Burnhamc & Nancy Glass (2011). "Sexual and gender based violence against men in the Democratic Republic of Congo: effects on survivors, their families and the community". Medicine, Conflict and Survival.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Marinussen, Anne (2010). ""Gender-based sexual violence against men and boys".

It's pretty clearly a subject of study by a diversity of academics in different journals. --GRuban (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I asked for only one, so since you don't seem to make any claim to primacy, I'll assume you think every single one of these sources is just as good as all the rest. I'll deal only with the first source for now. That source does not separate, categorically, violence into "violence against men" and "violence against women". In fact, it does quite the opposite. Quoting from the abstract: "This study concludes that gendered binaries and strict gender roles are primarily responsible in accentuating sexual violence against men in terrorising and humiliating victims, and must be addressed." The authors actually argue that instances of sexual violence against men are also instances of violence against women. So are we to label every single article with both categories? Do you consider that a reasonable reading of the entire text? If not, where in the text do you find the authors are arguing that there are instances of violence that is perpetrated only against men that would justify the categorization of an article into solely that category? jps (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with such a cat? After all, "Men were victims of just over a quarter of incidents of domestic violence in 2010, according to the British Crime Survey" Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you decide what belongs to such a category especially when the topic is being used as a political football by MRAs? Seems to me that the sole purpose for the category is a WP:POINTy WP:GEVAL move and I don't see the actual text in the above list as being indicative of being able to categorize any article as "violence against men" independent of other considerations. jps (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely a particularly bad article. I have thought about taking it to AfD as a WP:POVFORK, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Yes, one could find examples of articles on Wikipedia which are MRM staging grounds (such as the one you point to), but that's not a very convincing argument to me. We aren't Mensrightsapedia, after all. jps (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not. We're Everythingapedia, and "everything" includes men's rights. If you think the article is bad, improve the article. That's far more constructive than complaining about it and trying to get it deleted. Reliable 1too (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hard to know whether this is a parody or a serious comment. I guess that just shows how shit this subject has become at this website. Anyway, thanks for backing me up whether you intended to or not. jps (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is a men's rights movement, which possibly justifies a category. But "violence against men" is a concept in the men's rights movement which they use to interpret events. So for example, the Nazis murdered the men at Lidice, but deported the women. I suppose one could interpret this as showing the Nazis had an anti-male, pro-feminist agenda. But that is a fringe view. So the proposed categories are inherently POV. TFD (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So they're claiming that forcible deportations of women when accompanied by the slaughter of men belongs only in the violence against men category? Do I have that about right? jps (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CAT:

The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.

So, what are the defining characteristic of articles which will belong to this category? Further, can someone please point me to a guideline which describes how we are to evaluate whether or not a category should exist? Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You've done it just now. WP:CAT. A category should exist if it is realistic that readers should want a way to get to all our articles about incidents of violence against men because they are men. It seems clear that is realistic. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That criteria seems rather fuzzy. How do we know if it is realistic? Are we to look at some kind of metrics? Or is it a matter of the number of reliable sources out there discussing a category as applied to some minimum number of distinct subjects?

I thought perhaps we could apply our guidelines for notability here. This is from WP:PAGEDECIDE:

Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).

So maybe instead of just discussing the notability of the topic, we should also be looking at the amount and kinds of pages which will be included in this category. SueDonem (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question. Would this | incident be representative of such a category? What about a "justice" category (though this seems more like Batman style justice). I'm perplexed as why there is vehement opposition to this category. That there is violence against men simply because they are male, should not surprise anyone. The claim that pro-male advocates may misuse the category doesn't negate the existence that there is violence against men and can be thus categorized.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• This doesn't appear to be a good fit for this would-be category. The violence wasn't targeted upon the person because he was a man, but rather because he was a rapist. Per my question about, I would be most interested in a list of potential articles for this category. SueDonem (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Source: Quinion, Michael B. (2 January 1996). "My fellow Merkins". World Wide Words. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
• Alternative Source: Pratchett newsgroups FAQ The section titled 'What is a "Merkin"?' about 4/5ths the way down. (excerpt here)
• Article: Merkin#Other usage of the term
• Content: In "Other uses" section: Internet slang for inhabitant of the United States of America.

This content has been removed by Niteshift36 (diff) stating the World Wide Words source was not RS and that the content was trivia. The assertion of trivia is a POV issue I think, but I want to clear up the RS issue first. Is the FAQ ref better? Should I cite both? Are neither good enough? Thank you for your input. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Some more sources are mentioned in Talk:Merkin#Some evidence on Merkin and American including the OED. I do not see the sense in use the OED as a ref to support content about internet slang, when we are on the internet and can just look at closer sources. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think the entry is trivia, as are several things in that section, and should be removed. To the issue here, I think the author is an expert in the field, but that doesn't make everything he writes a reliable source. In this case, it's more of a blog (first person, using anecdotes and a little OR) than the academic work he's engaged it. Blogs or social media don't automatically become reliable solely because a notable person wrote them. I'm not going to fight this hard because I could see the case for allowing the source. I also think that Richard should have actually tried having this discussion at the article talk page instead of running straight to a noticeboard. And that is where we should have the discussion about whether this trivia should be included at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If the OED thinks it worth mentioning the slang usage (referring to Americans), I don't think that usage is too trivial to mention in Wikipedia. However, the slang usage is definitely not the primary meaning of the word... so I would not give it all that much weight in the article. The slang usage merits no more than one or two quick sentences tacked on at the end of the article. No need to cite lots of sources for that... the OED is enough. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• The NY Times mentioned that Taylor Swift cancelled 4 shows because of illness. . We don't put that in the article either. Just because it's mentioned somewhere notable does mean we should include it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked the OED 2nd edition today and I did not see any such definition. I am hesitant to use OED without somebody confirming that the current edition has a definition for this use of the word. Can someone check more recent editions, please. Niteshift36, I am uninterested in discussing this. I am a busy man, who likes to help out. I do not have time for what is and is not trivia discussions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Gee Richard, I'm sorry you're too busy to discuss it, but that IS what we do here at Wikipedia. If you don't have time to properly discuss what does or does not belong in an article, then maybe this isn't the ideal use for your very limited free time. Inclusion is the true issue here. There could be a consensus on the reliability of this source, but it doesn't make including it a done deal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at Talk:Gill clan#Improve referencing about whether ethnographers who operated in India during British rule are reliable. The particular source in question is a book that analyses a census, by Punjab province's Superintendent of Ethnography, Horace Arthur Rose, and it was used to verify the existence of a Punjabi clan, their history, their religious customs and the regions that they inhabit. An editor suggested that his work is unreliable, along with that of other ethnographers from British India. Is there already any consensus to this effect? --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I typically find Sitush serving as a fair but stern limit on excesses in Indian subject, but in this case the Gill clan article is not making an extraordinary claim, having taken some straightforward facts from the Rose book. Rose is cited in modern caste and tribe books along with the subsequent reprint by Sir Denzil Ibbetson. The failings of Ibbetson and Rose are in their belief that the informal pre-Raj caste system could be codified and cemented into place as an administrative structure, which is what was done. These failings do not take away from the research into Indian tribes and their histories. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between mentioning Rose and citing him as a reliable source. I'll try to deal with this over the weekend, if people can wait that long. As I said on the linked talk page, there is a widespread consensus that we avoid these Raj "ethnographers", who were actually gentleman-scholars documenting things as a sideline to their main functions as civil servants of the British Raj. People who go around using colour- and nose-charts to assess the ethnicity of people do not deserve too much attention and, indeed, do not get it except in a historiographical context. Alas, historiography and fact tend to meld into one when it comes to caste-related articles. FWIW, Ibbetson, on whom Rose and McLagan based their work, admitted that his findings were inadequate. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're likely to get my response in semi-coherent dribs and drabs, sorry - much to do.

• For starters, these Raj ethnographers had no formal academic training and were generally unable to speak or read local languages. They relied for much of their research on one or two Brahmin or other upper-caste people, who acted as a conduit and who were prone to editorialising.
• The ethnographers were working with a fixed, narrow agenda: to document in order to control the population and prevent a recurrence of the 1857 Indian Rebellion/Sepoy Mutiny/First Indian War of Independence. Their works have to be considered in the context of the census enumerations. H. H. Risley is probably the best-developed article on the subject (disclaimer: I'm the major contributor to that).
• Aside from generally subscribing to theories of scientific racism, these people also subscribed to the Out of India theory and other generally discredited pseudo-academic devices.
• They rarely questioned: if a respondent claimed to be of X caste or clan then they accepted it at face value. They ignored the very significant issue of aspirational groups seeking to manipulate their "studies" for personal gain and were frustrated to find in their census enumerations that social groups mysteriously came and went within a decade. Some modern academics would say, these people effectively created the environment for development of sanskritisation. Thus, in the Raj period there were around 1,200 identified castes but nowadays there are over 4,000. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Using books written a hundred years ago as sources is almost never a good idea in Wikipedia articles. However, modern scholars often use antique texts as primary sources, which is quite acceptable, and these modern works can then be used as secondary sources. So for example, modern scholars on Rome may base their conclusions partly on the accounts of Tacitus, Caesar, Suetonius, and other ancient writers, but we should not use those accounts as sources for articles about ancient Rome. TFD (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can only comment based on previous discussions I've followed on this subject, and the consensus (as far as I can remember it - sorry I don't have any links) has been that they are unreliable sources, pretty much for the reasons Sitush explains. These were professional soldiers/politicians/civil servants first and amateur ethnographers second. Their purpose was political and not scientific, they swallowed a lot of now-discredited racial theories, they were very selective in who they listened to (and those talking to them were likely biased towards sucking up to the Raj authorities), and they had a habit of largely unquestioningly accepting what these not-disinterested reporters told them. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We should rarely be using any history sources from before 1945 because racist and ethnocentric assumptions are rife within them. This applies across most countries - certainly applies in Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)