Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 185

An editor is claiming that this book The New Atheist Denial of History by an academic historian published by Palgrave Macmillan is not a monograph, and therefore not peer-reviewed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT that book would be counted as a monograph under the Palgrave Macmillan publishing categories (don't see why that is relevant though). In any case, Palgrave says that all their publications are peer-reviewed and as a respected academic publishing house, I don't see any obvious reason to doubt that. The author himself is a history professor, and though he does not seem to have a extensive bibliography of original work, a JSTOR search shows that he has written quite a number of book reviews for history journals; so he is definitely qualified to review the writings of Harris, Dawkins et al. Given the author and publisher, the book would pass the basic reliable source test. On the other hand, I didn't find any reviews of the work (not surprising given its specialized topic and recency), and it is held by only a few libraries, so be wary to giving the work undue weight and be sure to attribute any opinions you cite. Abecedare (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur. It looks like a book by a historian writing about his area of expertise, albiet on a controversial topic. If the point is whether it's "peer reviewed", there's no indication in the book whether it was reviewed as part of the publishing process. But that's normally the case – academic publishers don't disclose the names of their reviewers. And the lack of a formal post-publication review isn't disqualifying either, as it is still a new book. But given the nature of the topic, the author's qualifications are 100% certain to be challenged. So without the imprimatur of reviews by other historians it should be used with attribution – an academic book by a Christian historian on the errors made by non-historians (atheists). – Margin1522 (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

@Margin1522: As per this link, the book is a monograph[], which their website specifically states are peer-reviewed, and as per this link Rigorous peer review is vital to this. We will support you with a thorough but fast and responsive peer review process. provided by Abecedare, all of the academic press's publications are peer-reviewed.

The book was only published three months ago, so there are no citations of it, not even a review as far as I can tell. He is a mainstream historian writing in his field of expertise. Yes, he is an Episcopalian lay priest, but he acknowledges that in a sort of disclaimer in the preface stating that he is writing as a career academic historian, follows that with a statement opening the Introduction as to his position on Harris, and cites other mainstream historians in supporting his statements, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubts the book is peer reviewed for it's historical content, I just simply doubt it's an academic monograph rather than a book for a public audience (they may also call them monographs but that's hard the point), a point you seem unwilling to concede. I've seen plenty of academic monographs (albeit not in history) and they don't read or look like this. It's clearly for a public audience. It seems to me to be the equivalent of trying to treat the the Selfish Gene as an academic monograph (OUP also peer review their books). As I already stated here: , the book is also just out and lacking reviews/citations. You are also using this book to say a generic statement like "Harris is bad at history for some reason according to someone", which as I have already mentioned, is just a lazy way of writing (and to clarify, I'm saying you are making the lazy additions, not that the author of the book is lazy). Second Quantization (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Could we have some context here? Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Context: Ubikwit has been editing the Sam Harris (author) article with the apparent intent of adding critical or negative content (he has complained that he is combatting "whitewashing"). Harris is an outspoken atheist who is particularly critical of Islamic religion, which is presently a rather active subject in news cycles. Ubikwit has introduced this book published 90 days ago by a priest/ex-history teacher which purports to criticize "new atheists" (including Harris) for their lack of knowledge on, or disregard of, history. Ubikwit says he hasn't read the book, but has found Harris mentioned in it through Google searches, and has quoted on the Talk page passages from the book which criticize Harris' knowledge of history. Ubikwit did introduce a single sentence and a citation to the book into the Harris article to, as far as I can tell, introduce and lend credibility to lesser quality sources he wished to use (Lears):

• Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.

It's yet unclear as to whether Ubikwit intends to cite the Painter book for assertion of fact. Hope that helps. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm curious to know which editor is claiming it's not peer reviewed. Perhaps you should notify him or her, Second Quantization (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As Abecedare noted above, Palgrave-Macmillan does publish peer-reviewed texts, but also non-peer-reviewed texts (contrary to Ubikwit's assertion) in the academic fields like History/Historiography. While the text doesn't have all the hallmarks of being peer-reviewed (the preface and introduction mention only that his wife and daughter reviewed it), I haven't personally worried about whether the source is officially peer-reviewed or not yet because, frankly, I am more concerned about what specific information from the book we're talking about using. If the proposed information is somehow problematic, maybe then I will look further into the credentials behind the source. A quick phone call to confirm if it was "peer-reviewed" informed me that Chris Chappell, the Palgrave representative who handled the publication of that book, is no longer with the company, but I was assured that "the book passed their basic academic review". When I pressed for specific confirmation that the text underwent a peer review process rather than a publisher review, the question was sidestepped and I was asked instead if I had a specific issue or concern with the publication they could help me with. Of course, none of that matters until the original poster informs us as to "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting", per Step 3 above. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic:

• As I said above, even though the Painter book, given the author and publisher, should be regarded as a reliable and pertinent source for the Sam Harris article its arguments and conclusions still need to be properly represented, summarized, attributed, and not given undue weight... which is best discussed on the article talk-page. I don't think you and I have any disagreement on that point.
• However some of the other issues being raised, such as whether or not the book is a "monograph", or whether the concerned editor at Palgrave still works at the company (?!) etc are non sequiturs not really relevant to the issue of reliability on wikipedia. Most of the sources currently cited in the Sam Harris article are newspaper/magazine articles that aren't always written by specialists; aren't peer-reviewed; and don't receive post-publication reviews. Yet, barring exceptional circumstances, they are generally considered reliable sources on wikipedia for such contemporary biography articles. Of course better sources should be used whenever available, and this book as a lengthy review of Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens work by a history professor and published by an academic press is one such preferred source. I am not sure why novel standards are being invented in judging this particular source.

Abecedare (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you have said. As I'm sure you are aware, when contentious information is proposed or introduced, the sources for that information will be scrutinized — nothing novel about that. I've seen in discussions here where an author's personal history is reviewed; funding sources questioned; educational institution is compared; publisher's reputation is evaluated; and, yes, whether or not the source was subjected to rigorous academic peer review and post-publication citation. The intent is usually to qualify or disqualify the source. So why the judging of this apparently otherwise reliable source? As evidenced below, and as I mentioned above in my context summary, this book is being used primarily as a vehicle to usher in Lears material as a credible source. Objections have been raised to that because Lears has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science (see positivism). While Painter does cite Harris and other atheists when presenting his criticism, his overall critique is of New Atheism, so that article is probably where such information should be introduced. Both text proposals below, Ubikwit's escort of Lears version, and Abecedare's much improved but equally vague version, say nothing other than: "Historian says New Atheists distort history", without informing the reader as to how or why. But that is indeed a matter for the article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I just noticed Xenophrenic's misplaced comment, which is why I didn't address it in my previous response.

He has again, flagrantly, misrepresented Lears by insinuating that he "tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics". Repeating that misrepresentation is extremely tendentiousness. Xenophrenic is the only individual to make such "objection" again here in a misplaced comment. I'm going to post the relevant text from Lears at AN/I.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Again with the lies, Ubikwit? Lying doesn't work here, as everything you say can be easily looked up and checked. A quick look at Lears review of Harris' book shows that he has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science:

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.” Every schoolkid knows about what happened next: the catastrophic twentieth century. [...] The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. [...] The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, injected positivism with a missionary zeal. [...] one cannot deny that [Hitchens] embraced, from a safe distance, the “war on terror” as an Enlightenment crusade. He was not alone. Other intellectuals fell into line, many holding aloft the banner of science and reason against the forces of “theocratic barbarism.” Most prominent were the intellectuals the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists, a group that included Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. [...] As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire.

Xenophrenic (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's some additional context. Painter is a secondary source for Jackson Lears, who has written an a comprehensive review of three of Harris' books, first of all. Both Painter and Lears are "mainstream historians", and academics.

NI haven't read the book yet, so I've proposed using only minimal information from the previews.

Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.^[1] Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book

and then states that

his [Harris’] abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This matter is best debated on the article talk page, but Ubikwit, I don't think your extract is very good in terms of conciseness or readability (besides missing some required quotation marks). For example my summary (having only read the intro to Painter's book) would be along the lines, "In his book The New Atheists denial of history historian Borden Painter Jr argues that Sam Harris, and other New Atheism authors, present a selective and distorted slice of history that does not match the historiographical practices or understanding of mainstream historians." Now the exact language and content is best discussed on the article talkpage, but this is to give you an idea of what I would consider fair and comprehensible. Abecedare (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK, thanks for the advice. (Talk discussion)I haven't read the book, which seems fairly involved, so I primarily cited it as secondary source support for Lears, whose comprehensive 17-page review is available online, and to frame the perspective of "mainstream historians", which both painter and Lears are. There are also insuficient secondary sources that cite statements by Harris in addressing his positions, so the quote seemed to help balance per DUE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Concern: The book is self-described as

"This book is the first to challenge in depth the distortions of this New Atheist history. It presents the evidence that the three authors and their allies ignore. It points out the lack of historical credibility in their work when judged by the conventional criteria used by mainstream historians. It does not deal with the debate over theism and atheism nor does it aim to defend the historical record of Christianity or religion more generally. It does aim to defend the integrity of history as a discipline in the face of its distortion by those who violate it."

thus it specifically intended as an attack on the named authors, and not as a general objective review of the topic. That a book which is stated to be intended as an attack on named persons actually attacks them is a tad useless. I would be far more interested if it did not attack them. It is not stated to be a neutral source of any sort here, so I find it not to be especially useful when all it does is what its purpose was. This appears to be Painter's first book on such a topic, thus we do not know whether it will gain any scholarly acceptance at all. As there is no deadline, I suggest the best course is to lay it to the side for possible future use when it has been examined by others. We do not use initial studies even from peer-reviewed journals as a rule.

Our goal is to "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." and "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields." Collect (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. I am myself a theist and no particular fan of Sam Harris, but I would think that we in this case can wait for further comments either about the book itself in reviews or comments about the points it raises in the relevant academic journals. No rush here. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it is a peer-reviewed monograph, and per WP:RS

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.

The fact that it is an initial "in depth" study does not mean there haven't been others, with Lears being representative, as per Steve Pinker, Martin E. Marty, Painter and others.

Secondly, the book has not been used for anything controversial unless stating its premise, with reference to a quote from Harris, is controversial, and introducing Lears via another mainstream historian, instead of through Pinker.

The source is absolutely usable at present according to policy, and it is somewhat tendentious to state otherwise. The current state of academic consensus is well represented by Lears and Painter. If you dispute that, then bring reliable sources.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I correct that the only proposal you've given (so far) for the use of this Painter book is to introduce another source (Lears) as credible, and to make the rather uninformative and un-encyclopedically vague assertion that the New Atheist case against religion conflicts with the "conclusions of mainstream historians" (without mentioning anything about what those conflicts entail)? Also, I am seeing some conflicting information as to whether the text has been "peer-reviewed"; could you point me to the specific information you have on the review for this work? (Note: I'm not disagreeing that Palgrave-Macmillian is generally regarded as an academic press.) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The book is a primary source for the author's opinions - as for its eventual weight when examined by those scholars knowledgeable in the field, we have no idea yet. So let us obey the Wikipedia deadline - and wait. Collect (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia deadline", that's a fabrication of a false pretense to try and prevent the use of a high-quality source that legislates against the promotional screed supported by primary sources that bloated the article before I arrived and cleaned it up.

Now you're trying to prevent the use of a peer-reviewed monograph by an academic representing the current state of scholarly consensus against the pseudo-historical rantings of a media icon whose Wikipedia article appears to serve as an advertisement for that, though popular, have been widely criticized by academics in the and scholars in the fields to which the topics of Harris' books published by the non-academic press Simon & Shchuster relate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:DEADLINE which is a frequently mentioned essay. That you seem not to have heard if this before is odd, alas. I understand that you main goal in life is to attack the pseudo-historical rantings of a media icon but such wording appears on its face to indicate that you might actually be promoting your own personal point-of-view to an excessive degree. It is better for us to adhere to WP:NPOV than for us to rail about those whom we "know" to be loony so that we may make sure readers only get the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is RS, and only advocates are trying to exclude its use. Stick to the sources, and don't falsely accuse others of editing for the truth when you are one of those out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on the article by excluding the critical statements of academics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am frankly appalled and more than a little disgusted by the last comment above. It seems to me to jump to any number of absurd and unsubstantiated conclusions for no other purpose than rhetoric. At no point has anyone said anything about "excluding" anything, despite the false accusation above. What has been said, so far as I can tell, is that there is no particular rush as per WP:DEADLINE to include information almost immediately upon publication. It could well be, and, honestly, I think is likely, that in the next few months this book will receive significant attention of some sort, either positive or negative, in the relevant academic journals of all sorts. That tends to be the case, actually. If, in so doing, they support the book, then by all means we can not only include the statements from the book but also the indications of their support. If the statements are found to be "fringey", then we can say that. If, as could well be possible, one of the journal articles presents maybe even a better or more damning criticism of Harris, then there would be no reason not to include that stronger criticism. All that is being said so far, from what I have seen, is that there is no urgent immediate need to have this content added immediately. We can wait, as we regularly do with matters regarding topics where there doesn't exist any real hard "evidence" like in some sciences, and I think the concensus opinion around here on this thread is that in this case the consensus is that we can wait a few months to see how much material regarding this, and possibly other sources which might arise in that time, when the academic community has published its opinions on the book as it had been published. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the Talk page and AN/I threads before making errant statements based on your own misguided opinions.

WP:TE is a more applicable essay than DEADLINE, and RS is the policy that matters here.

I haven't bothered to read add the text or a different representation of it along the lines of the suggestion of Abecedare because the text I inserted from Lears hasn't been challenged, but that was not the statement deemed most contentious. I'm currently reading other collaborating academic sources, and will re-add the source when that information has been collated. The consensus here is that the source is RS, and that means it can be used now.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be most straightforward to simply link to another, dormant, mediation page [sources/Noticeboard archive 109] (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_109#talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy), the remainder of the somewhat acrimonious discussion is already archived.

To summarize: user:Spearmind cited a work by James Howard Kunstler which advanced a certain view. The book, "The Geography of Nowhere," is a polemic social commentary on the suburbanization of the US, which has some scholarly dressing. The cite was stovepiped back to a source which all the other active editors had agreed was not reliable.

The editor first denied that there were any reference cites in the piece, claiming that the work was completely original to the cited author. When shown what the cites existed, and what they actually said...well, I think it would be best if you just read it below. He does not seem to see any problem with indirectly citing a refutation of his thesis as proof of it. He has now, since, placed other cites with the same issues of bad underpinning on the article.

The other editors currently involved are user:PeterEastern and user:Trackinfo. Issues involve reliable and unreliable sources, and due weight to each source. The block quote below does not look quite right; feel free to change the format as needed.19:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

From []

Anmccaff (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Its really difficult to work with the editor. He tries to delete stuff again and again, adds personal notes to the article instead of searching cooperation and agreement in discussion in advance, and without adding material in a constructive way and works against the majority of editors. PeterEastern and Trackinfo are the "dinosaurs" here. Dont think that he has informed them properly about the new subject here. Furthermore he is using terms like "conspiracy theorist" trying to discredit people und uses far from neutral subject names, see articles talk page: "dubious" "not a good source" or even using usernames in the subject. It is really my opinion that the editor is overweighing his personal opinions and thats not in favor of the article, trying to discredit voices not representing his personal view on the world. I think that PeterEastern and Trackinfo worked so great for the article spending hours of their private time. And I think they earn some respect.

a) I ask again that he tells exactly where Kunstler quoted what from who and why this is explaining terms like "dubious" or "not good source". I have no clue why he comes up with whole blocks of citing Flink and dont know what it has to do with Kunstlers statements reasonability.

b) "The editor" (*thats me) first(*?) denied that there were any reference cites in the piece." Thats correct, the sentence represents the authors very own opinion. I always! denied the opposite. its about that sentence:

"James Howard Kunstler says, in 1925, with the acquisition of the Yellow Coach company, the General Motors Corporation undertook a systematic campaign to put streetcar lines out of business all over America. According to Kunstler, GM erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses.[5]

There is no polemic at all in this sentence. Understand it is based on the articles content just above:

"In the early 1900s, General Motors' long-time president, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., began implementing a plan to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, Sloan established a special unit within GM that was charged with, among other things, the task of replacing the United States' electric railways with cars, trucks, and buses. Consumers who no longer had the option of taking the streetcar turned first to the bus lines and, eventually, to owning and driving their own automobiles.[1][2][3][4]"Spearmind (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've provided Kunstler's references cites above, and an easy way to verify the. Kunstler uses a cite that explicitly refutes his own assertion. That isn't a very good sign.Anmccaff (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagreed: I will not stop to ask you that question: where Kunstler quoted what from who and why this is explaining terms like "dubious" or "not good source". I have seen no answer at all. And thats the way this always goes around and comes around. Please inform now the other users involved by putting a note on their page, its simple, since you opened up just another bottle here.Spearmind (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've started looking into this. The author does seem to be more political commentator and advocate than neutral academic, however I agree that no claims about his source of information should be made without a very specific link and compelling evidence. A couple questions: Are there other sources with similar information? Also, are there other sources independent of this book author regarding his views on the controversy? CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many other sites, and cites. They tend to be very poor quality; almost all of the central scholarly work disputes it, and most of the anti-Big "C" Conspiracy cites are good. One major exception: there's some lock-step government-can-do-nothing-right writers who work from their political beliefs out to the facts, instead of from the facts to a reasonable conclusion. There is also real support among some serious scholars -George Smerk is the best, I'd say- that GM's sheer size, and integrated YMAC and GMAC financing, had a disproportionate effect on transit.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• That said, this is a staple of conspiracy believers, and has wormed its way into tangential scholarship, and into politics and political activism. (The whole concept grew out of a Nader-related attempt to prohibit yearly model changes, believe it or not.) It's also a mainstay of a certain set of Urban Legends. Finding cites for it is quite easy; finding cites with scholarly weight for it reduces you two 3 names out of a hundred-odd.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Flink's The Automobile Age is digitized at several university libraries, and very rapidly will confirm that the Kunstler's use is an "anti-cite" that refutes rather than supports his position.Anmccaff (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think he is a political commentator (and he never said so) but you may have another opinion. A personal label is not something really needs to be discussed. See Here. he is described as journalist and novelist. There are some statements about him you can watch them. See the the content in the article built around the sentence, thats the context building a bridge to the cite. Notice that the user tried to open a case at the DRN board about Kunstler which is in archive by now. It remains unanswered why for only one user Kunstler is "not a good source" or "dubious" or not a reliable source, well for a short statement made.Spearmind (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: "Kunstler uses a cite that explicitly refutes his own assertion." This kind of argument is WP:SYNTHESIS. You are putting A and B together and saying they are contradictory. But if Kunstler makes an assertion, that's his assertion, and he asserts it while using the cite. If you can find another source that says he's contradicting himself, we can use that, but we shouldn't say it. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at it? It isn't a judgement call, or a tendency. It's a flat-out refutation. That doesn't happen much in quality sources.Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Or, to put in better Wiki-ish, it's a question of Evaluating Sources If ever there were a question of unclear and inconsistent, that am it.Anmccaff (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, TLDR. I will look at it later. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, now I see, this is the General Motors streetcar conspiracy article. I have already stated my concerns with that article on its talk page, that it reads like a debunking article and has problems with its non-neutral tone. According to the dispute resolution discussion cited above, editors are having trouble working with each other because of that. That's beyond the scope of what we can deal with here, so all we can do is hope that this dispute gets resolved in some way that's acceptable to all parties and that they abide by it.

As for Kunstler, yes, IMO he is a reliable source for his assertions, which after all are the topic of the article. The assertions may be wrong, but that is not grounds for keeping them out of the article. If that is the question here, other editors should be allowed to describe his assertions in a neutral way, without hedging them with warnings to the reader to the effect that "Watch out folks, this is wrong." If necessary, which it probably is, they can be attributed to Kunstler instead of being presented as facts. And anything that the article wants to say about Kunstler should be attributed directly to secondary sources who are specifically talking about Kunstler. It is not acceptable for the article to say that Kunstler relies on Snell, and Snell is unreliable, and therefore Kunstler is unreliable. We need to quote someone else saying that.

As to whether we can use that reasoning on the talk page to decide what should appear in the article, yes, that is OK. But there should be a consensus. I think this will be settled if and when the dispute cited above gets settled. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, As I see it, the problem is that the Streetcar conspiracy doesn't have a subject. It has at least 4 of them, and the ones that involve attitudes rather than fact have to be given a certain amount of leeway with regards to sources. Kunstler's a perfectly good example of a vector of the story from its '90s revival, but several other names, Jane Holtz Kay, for instance, would be better. (Notice, BTW, that Kunstler's brand new to the subject, and the article has been around for at least a decade.)

If this were, say, the "Vaccination Controversy" article, where it's understood that the subject is about a controversial idea that most medical experts feel should be mentioned only to condemn, that would be fine. When it comes to public presence, I'm sure Jenny McCarthy has as much notability as Jonas Salk. But this is also like an article on real immunology, and for that, Moms Mad at Mercury doesn't have a place.

Kunstler has no standing as a historian, and the ideas he's quoting have an obvious provenance. They are not reliable sources of fact, yet they are being used as such. I suspect as the other editors see just how bad the stuff recently sourced is, most of it will slowly make its way out of the article, until it comes back in from a new source, which, ultimately, was probably based on old, bad info from Wiki; and a new editor, who also doesn't understand why citations are important, lols his way through the article; "diligently" adding more self-published, self-contradictory, low-weight "facts."

Thus endeth the rant.Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: the citation problems, which are why I brought this in here, are not normally treated in articles about mainstream research as OR, are they? I'd like an authoritative answer on this, even if means digging up Jimbo's sacred great-great-grandmother's bones, and letting a conjure woman divinate with and over them. If ordinary, plain-vanilla scholarship is seen as "original research" and A Bad Thing, then Wiki is doomed.Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a Fashion Police edit reverted and the reverter said that Radar Online is not a reliable source. How or where is/was that determined? Is there a list of sites not to use? Wickorama (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• A 2009 discussion of Radar Online here suggests that it can be used, with considerable caution, for pop culture content. A few more recent threads such as here and here assume that it's not a quality source but don't go into details. But with respect to the current Fashion Police edit, you have the added concern about reporting something that's expressly reported as unattributed gossip ("insiders told Radar Online that . . . ") and relates to a living person. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact that RSN continually finds Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch unreliable for bare statements of controversial fact, at Shaar HaNegev school bus attack we have users re-inserting the claim that "Hamas released a video of the attack, which confirmed the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." So here I am again, asking RSN, "are these sources, which are known for their agendas over their journalism, reliable to state anything like this as fact?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The farthest I think would be allowable with those sources is a statement akin to "Hamas released a video of the attack, which claims to show the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." That sort of wording would be allowable with such sources, I think, since it places it on the source and doesn't state it as fact. Silverseren^C 01:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your comment more addresses whether or not Hamas is a reliable source, but we also need to consider the likelihood that Arutz Sheva and PMW are not accurately reporting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(@Silver seren:)–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you questioning the reporting on whether Hamas released a video with said claims? Or that the source is misrepresenting the claims in the video being reported on? Silverseren^C 20:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Either or both. There's a video on Youtube, but these sources are not strong enough to link it to Hamas or report on its content. RSN has found repeatedly that these propaganda organs are not reliable for controversial statements of this kind. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them propaganda organs. There's no Israeli government news organ that I know of, or even standards of censorship in Israeli news publications thee days, just a bunch of sensationalist news organisations that regularly engage in yellow journalism and tabloid reporting. I would say that, all except possibly Ha'aretz, are poor quality publications though you can rely on them for many Israel-related non-political local topics like archaeology and new public works projects (I actually don't know of any news source anywhere where you can get neutral political news about Israel). Artuz Sheva/Israel National News though, I would not trust for anything, especially things relating to Palestinians, Arabs, liberals, Tel Aviv, etc. as they are known to hate all these things, and the settlements, where they are the official news source, and understandably feel threatened at times, and write as such (though even if it's understandable, it's no reason to use them). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Adar 5775 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No one ever (as far as I know) have accused PMW of faking a video and the video is similar to many others released by Hamas. The logo is there. The terrible Hebrew scary quote is there. I am not sure about the 'Kornet' statement - What does israelnationalnews bases their analysis on? Though it does look like the picture on 9M133 Kornet page.

[Here is a similar video which became |viral in Israel. The Hebrew is awful :) Ashtul (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva, which began and persisted as an illegal settler propaganda organ outlawed in Israel, and, when 'legalized', was returned to that status by the Israeli Supreme Court with overturned the Knesset, thrives on reporting extremist claims, such that the Obama administration is penetrated by Muslims,(see also here); that when major Israeli newspapers, relying on direct videos of the abduction, were attributing the Kidnapping and Murder of Abu Khdeir to settler revenge, they persisted in holding out (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182494#.VPXOhps5Dcu implicitly) for the (Arab) pedophile killing rumour. This place customarily gives a hard time for any site like the Jewish liberal-left Mondoweiss, that has excellent reportage, yet is relatively at ease with Arutz Sheva. Consistency in principle would suggest that nothing from Arutz Sheva can be cited as a fact.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Palestinian Media Watch is widely regarded as a reliable source. major news sources including the Chicago Sun-Times^[1][2] the Associated Press, ^[3][4] The Telegraph^[5][6] and the Washington Post ^[7] cite it regularly for it's reliable translation or the Palestinian Arabic-language press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Arutz Sheva is a national news source with a large readership/listenership. It is neither more political not less reliable than Fox New or The Guardian (i.e. not always). It does sensationalize in a Daily Mail, New York Daily News sort of way. The remedy to this is not to brand it as unreliable, but to write "According to Arutz Sheva..." or "According to The Guardian..." taking all news sources with a grain of salt since they all have biases. And striving to source facts to multiple sources. However, we have to recognize that the biases of newspapers show most vividly in the matter of which stories they choose to cover. Sometimes a biased source like Al Jazeera or Russia Times is the only source for a fact. In that case you write "According to..." But you do not, as Rosecaleese is attempting to do here, attempt to disqualify a news source in a country with a feisty, free press simply because you do not like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Arutz 7 articles about Abu Khdeir doesn't include the word 'pedophile' 'gay' or 'homo'. The article about Obama reports of a story on 'Rose El-Youssef'. Ashtul (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If their reports were reliable, much more newspapers and other reliable sources would refer to them. What I mostly see are that some refers to statements others give there etc. and a few other mentions and this is nothing in such a well-covered conflict. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't so much a question but an unusual problem I came across that is relevant to this board so I thought I'd share it. Lately, there has been a flurry of blocking of socks of Jemima West and they were primarily working on an articles called Alisha Heng, Alisha Heng (I), Alisha Evelyn Heng and Alisha Estelle Heng, all of which were deleted because they were created by socks. I was curious to know who this person was so I found a cached version of the last article on Google and the article had plenty of references for acting credits for this 17 year old model/actress. When I checked up on them, Heng was mentioned by the reviewers and sometimes singled out for praise. But when I checked IMDb, it was if she didn't exist. How did this teenager end up in all of these movie reviews from regular film reviewers who review dozens if not hundreds of films for these sites and newspapers?

Later today, I discovered that although she didn't have a fleshed-out IMDb profile, she did have one on Metacritic and I guess it is possible for a user to add themselves to the casts of films. Then, I'm guessing, when these film reviewers went to get details about the movies they were reviewing, they just took it directly from Metacritic without checking to see if it was accurate. So, when she created her bio article on Wikipedia, she had all of these movie reviews (from the U.S. and UK) which substantiated her career when, it appears, she has never been in a film.

It just makes me wonder how often this has been done. It actually shows how, because it is consulted regularly, IMDb can have more accurate information than other film sites. If I added myself to the cast of a major film on IMDb, someone would connected to the film or a fan would notice and correct it. But I guess, as long as you credit yourself to a supporting part of a film, on other sites like Metacritic, no one checks to see if the information is accurate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic should only be used as a reliable source for the aggregate film review score that it produces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds wise, TRPoD. I searched the archives to see if Metacritic had been discussed as a reliable source and couldn't find much. I thought it was important to get this website manipulation noted in case questions come up in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

On Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir the following statement appears "On Thursday evening, Palestinians of Shu'fat reported that four settlers from Pisgat Zeev had attempted to kidnap a 7-year-old local child, Muhammad Ali al-Kiswani, and had fled on being thwarted". The source is Ma'an News which seems to be identified on WP as RS.

The issue with this particular article is that it states "Locals said" which to me seems like a disclaimer of - we didn't verify this story. Basically the equivalent of Wikipedia to WP:Attribution but to 'locals' to whom one may believe or not. In other words - not RS.

It contains paragraphs such as "Witnesses told Ma'an" and according to witnesses". But clearly Ma'an wasn't comfortable enough with the quality of information to put they name behind it and say it actually happened. So if Ma'an didn't WP:VERIFY it, the fact they report it as an WP:RS is meaningless and it should be deleted. Ashtul (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ma'an is a RS for what the locals said. The fact that needs to be verified here is, did the locals say that or not? Whether the event actually happened is another question. Ma'an rightly does not claim that it did, and neither does Wikipedia. We say that Ma'an, a RS, reported what the locals said. This is the normal way to deal with possibly biased sources. You report what they say and reserve judgment on whether what they say is true. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Margin1522, I respect this opinion but according to this, any source will be reliable to say "locals said...", not just RS such as Ma'an. Ashtul (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How to put it, a reliable source for rumors? But basically, yes. It's not our business to pass along every rumor. I think what the guideline says here is appropriate: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true)." (WP:NEWSORG). In this case, it should be treated a rumor because it was a non-event – nobody was kidnapped, nothing happened, all we have is what the locals said. Whether it should be mentioned is a matter of judgment. How much weight to assign to the fact that rumors were flying, and what that says about the situation at that place and time. Ma'an thought it was important enough to write a story about, so that should carry more weight than a partisan site known for passing along dubious stories and outright falsehoods. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Umm, Ashtul was advised as a condition of his return here that he keep a respectful distance from myself, and yet he persists in going through my edits, one by one, and taking things he questions to various forums, in violation of that condition. Ma'an News, in this case, reports what local Palestinian people say happened. A rumour is something that circulates widely as hearsay: the reports of people who are described as being witnesses in an area to what occurs in that area cannot be dismissed simply as 'rumours'. Almost all reportage from eyewitnesses in news sources, not only for this area, is conflicted. Israeli police reports change by the hour, but we put the first in, and rarely take care to follow up. What Ashtul is challenging is the reliability of (a) the source (b) Palestinians. We simply cannot know, of course, but this is true of a huge amount of reliable mainstream reportage. The answer is not to weed out 'stuff', esp. from one side of the conflict, but simply supply the reader with an attributed and linked source to what is reported, as I have done in a corrective edit now here in response to his worries, and then wait till academic scholarship, as it will, revisits this in book form with meticulous research.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I had no idea you put it in. This have sat there for a few months now. You give me too much credit. Ashtul (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, okay. Let's call it a coincidence. But in any case, I have slightly adjusted the text to meet a part of your complaint, and added a further RSNishidani (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Close? This discussion has rambled ooutside of the purview of this venue. I'm not a regular at RSN, so I'm not going to close it. It seems to me, though, that the discussion ought to be closed here and discussion on wider ranging issues ought to take place as Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. I've created a talk page section at Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir#Suggestion: Move out of "Breaking News" mode. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, it is indeed a coincidence. Your new source states "according to local media", basically pointing back to Ma'an and raising the same question. I think this should be addressed in the policy as this may come back in many other articles, in I/P conflict or elsewhere.

Wtmitchell, what would be the right venue to bring this up? I believe this might fall under "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." under WP:NEWSORG. Please advise. Ashtul (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

IMO, discussion specific to the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir article and relating to improvement of that article ought to take place on the talk page of that article. Such discussion might involve the impact on such articles by details of WP policies such as your "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value ..." quote from WP:IRS. Discussion of the policies themselves, including proposals for changes in the policies and discussion thereof, ought to take place on the talk pages for the relevant policy pages. Also, WP:VPP is an appropriate venue to to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already tried to discuss this subject when Nishidani brought some event as a fact even without such "Locals said" (see en:Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015#NPOV).

I do not think there is a place in Wiki for all of these rumors even "sanctified" by dubious credibility of Ma'an (as well as by any other source). --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm fine with closing it. Ashtul (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I've been taking advantage of my new Wikipedia/Newspapers.com account to put together an article on Voris (designer). However, I've come across a few sources for her birth/death dates and her husband's dates that I can't verify in other sources. There is this Ancestry page but Ancestry is not considered a reliable source. I then found this site which confirms much of the information on Ancestry.com, with cited sources. There are some issues - Voris is stated to have been born in Baker, Oregon, although the reliable sources say Montana, or "near Billings, Montana" (to be more precise). In 1961, she's being reported as married to Clifford Marker, but other sources claim Clifford was divorced by 1930 (does this mean Voris was his second wife? It would explain how he managed to marry Beryl "secondly" in 1924 per the Boneshadow page, before he is supposed to have married Voris.) This page, with lots of citations, does give a fuller picture of Clifford, but sadly no info on his wife/wives, although it does note he was divorced by 1930.

Please can you advise me whether any of these sources are admissible - I think the last linked page is probably OK for Clifford's dates as it cites a lot of sources and describes the reasoning, etc; but I'm more concerned about getting Voris's dates right as she is the subject of the article. Can I use this for Voris's dates? Or are they all unreliable/inadmissible sources? Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to what Wikipedia finds reliable, but in terms of vital records, scholars find contemporary records preferable to secondary or tertiary sources. (This is not Wikipedia's usual position.) The marriage license of Clifford H. Marker and Voris Linthacum can be found at familysearch.org (it is Marriage License #7384 issued in the County of Flathead, State of Montana), and states that at the time the license was issued, 25 November 1936, Clifford had been previously married and divorced, and that this was the first marriage for Voris. Voris is said to be 28 and born in Baker City, Oregon. The ceremony took place on 29 November 1936 at Kalispell, Flathead Co., Montana. (For the record, it names Voris' parents as Charles E. Linthacum and Rose née Cunning). I would be inclined to say that the SSDI (the last item you linked) ought to be considered a reliable source for birth and death dates, though further judgement may be needed if it conflicts with other sources. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I must remember this resource. Mabalu (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sources.

1. "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296. Ellis Katz, “Overview of the American Federation” in “Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal Countries”, Majeed, Watts and Brown, eds., 2006, McGill-Queen’s Press,

2. Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined “in political union with the United States of America”. p. 2 State Department 7 FAM 1120 Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions. (2013)

3. Non-state Northern Marianas, like Washington, DC, is “within the political framework of the United States.” (item 27). State Department report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011. .

• Article. Talk:United States#Infobox, “Current composition” error

• Content. The “Current composition” date in the U.S. info box is the admission of Hawaii. I would like a confirmation of my three sources as reliable arguments that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI, Northern Marianas) was admitted as a territory of the United States, — and because it is within the U.S. "political framework” as is DC, as sourced,

The “Current composition” Info box date of the U.S. should be dated from November 3, 1986, the entry of the Northern Marianas (CNMI).

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of sources say something like, "The Supreme Court concluded, in a series of decisions known as the Insular Cases, that [Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samos] are dependent lands and are neither "foreign" countries nor "part of the United States."" (Ediberto Romn, Citizenship and Its Exclusions, NYU Press, 2010, p. 97). Searching for sources that appear to contradict the mainstream view is cherry-picking. Using terminology such as "within the political framework of" to imply without actually stating that the territories have been incorporated into the U.S. is misleading. TFD (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Referring to the Insular Cases a century ago for modern territorial status is misleading. Romn's treatment of the "Insular Cases" of 1901-1922 does not contradict Katz "the U.S. is composed of [territories]" in 2011. Territories remain "unincorporated" for the limited purpose of federal taxes and tariffs. Congress has expanded self-governance and protections, GAO rept. Jon M. Van Dyke in the Hawaii Law Review (1992) includes the five major territories by name as "a part of the United States" .

- The District of Columbia is a part of the United States though it too is not a state, but "within the political framework of the United States" as sourced, so are the territories politically. Congress has politically, --- not economically---, incorporated territory, see Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review (2009). Puerto Rico is the paradigm of an modern "incorporated" territory as modern jurisprudence understands the term. p. 1175 .

- Insular Cases in 1901 and 1922 do not speak to the sourced political union of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 1986, the point of the request here as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Ninth Circuit Court determined in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands v Atalig 1984 that the Insular Cases applied to CNMI. As a result, the guarantee of jury trials in the United States does not apply there. OTOH, the CNMI has a Covenant with the U.S. under which U.S. federal law does not apply there unless (1) it specifically mentions CMNI and (2) the CMNI approves. You can read more about the relationship between the United States and its territories in Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations

DC is a strawman argument. Indeed it is possible for territories to be part of the U.S. without being states. But in that case, as in D.C., the constitution applies in full.

TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Leibowitz in his “Defining status” (1989) notes that the CNMI is in “Political Union” with the United States (p. 520), and it “made more explicit the mutuality of consent principle. The Covenant...was approved in a U.N. observed vote in the Northern Marianas” (p.67). The Mann act is applied in DC and Puerto Rico in the same manner, unlike in states. (p.364) Reliable sources to date reinforce those posted in this Noticeboard request.

TFD has followed me contradicting the subject sources without a scholarly source to support non sequiturs. He asserts in error that the constitution applies in full in DC without a source -- it has a delegate Member of Congress, Congress reviews DC legislation before it takes effect. The State department source says DC and CNMI are alike "within the framework of the United States", -- DC is not a straw man to dismiss, another non sequitur, the reliable source supports DC and Northern Marianas constitutional equivalence in an international context.

Domestic economic "unincorporation" for federal taxes and tariffs is a non sequitur to territorial "political union" as sourced. No territories in U.S. history have had either uniform privileges nor full constitutional privileges of statehood until admission to statehood, that is a non sequitur to territorial status in "political union" as sourced. "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." TFD comments are to date disruptive of the purpose here.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across this site being used as reference for the death of the original drummer of the band Umphrey's McGee. I then searched Wikipedia and noticed that the same website is being cited in quite a few articles in a similar manner. I searched the RSN archives and found no menton of the site, so I am not sure if has been discussed before. Anyway, the site bills itself as "a list of dead rock musicians and singers, dead people associated with rock and dead people whose music helped influence and create rock (which I feel includes Jazz and Country artists), sorted by the date of their demise. This is a tribute to them." and it seems to be a personal website or database, but I can't find out any more about it. It also seems to be a repository for various links to official artist/band pages as well as other sites including Wikipedia. I'm not too sure how accurate the information is because no sources are being cited to support the information provided in individual entries thus making it hard to verify. For example, the entry for Jimi Hendrix links to Jimihendrix.com which is a dead link while the entry for John Lennon links to Wikipedia. Finding reliable sources which discuss the deaths of very famous musicians like Hendrix and Lennon is probably not a big deal, but this site looks like it's being used on Wikipedia for less famous types like the drummer of Umphrey's McGee. It doesn't seem very reliable to me at all, but I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly. I picked a page from that website at random, and clicked on ten musician's names, to see how the information about the death was referenced. In every case, Wikipedia was the reference. Accordingly, I conclude that this is not a reliable source. They base their accuracy to a large extent on linking to Wikipedia. It would be unacceptably circular for us to cite them as a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking Cullen328. These musicians no longer techncially fall under WP:BLP since they are dead (not recently dead at least in many cases), right? Should the cite just be removed and replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag or should the both the information and the cite be removed? Would the relevant policy be WP:UNSOURCED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CIRCULAR or something else? Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I recommend removing any references to this website, searching for a better reference, and if one is not available, placing a citation needed tag. I think all the pages you link to are relevant to this matter. Accuracy of dates of death is a BLP issue, unless the person was born over 130 years ago. If somebody digs up an obituary of a person with the same name, and we incorrectly report the BLP as dead, that can cause major problems for an elderly musician's comeback tour, among other things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Cullen328. I've cleaned up a few pages and tried to added reliable sources where I could (at least I hope they are reliable), but I noticed that there are literally hundreds of pages citing this website. That's a monumental clean up job for dozens of editors, let alone a single person. Anyway, since this site is being used so often, it seems to me that there should be someplace somewhere on Wikipedia that says something such as "Don't use this website because it's not reliable" like they have for WP:EL/P, WP:YOUTUBE, etc. Any suggestions on how best to bring this to the attention of others besides the two of us and post to make such a suggestion? The Village Pump perhaps? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just came across this thread. Having used DeadRockStars to check information on many occasions (probably hundreds of times), I would say that it is highly reliable as well as being constantly maintained. In fact, I personally can't recall finding any errors there, in terms of death dates - which contrasts with almost all other sites I have used regularly, such as Joel Whitburn's books or Allmusic. The links it provides to WP pages are, I believe, not the sources of the death dates or details - they are simply links to additional biographical information. The sources for the death details are, I believe, not set out in the database itself - which I accept is a flaw. It should always be checked against other sources - but it is a valuable and reliable resource. Perhaps it's fair to identify DRS citations with a warning that a better source should be found, but it would be unfair to call the site as a whole unreliable, or to remove all references to it entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Ghmyrtle. I may well be guilty of utilising this site as a reference for many musicians, and their like, over my time here. In almost ten years of referring to it, I can not recall a single error therein - accepting that it must, by human nature, contain a few of them. Whether it is accuracy that we strive, or religiously sticking with some supposed 'reliable source' (many of which are often lacking in basic detail), is a matter of debate. To put it another way, is the site 'unreliable' if it is consistently accurate ? One final point - whilst removing the DRS source might be easy, if somewhat time consuming, I would be very interested to hear if such editors found copious amounts of other, more 'reliable sources', particularly for the more 'obscure' individuals covered therein.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Ghmyrtle and Derek R Bullmore. I understand what you both are saying, but the site has to be getting its information from somewhere, right? Isn't it better to try and find collaborating sources in newspapers or other well-established publications and use those instead. For sure, WP:UGC does say "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Is the argument then that Doc-Rock, who I guess is the owner/operator of the site, such an expert? Is the reliability of the site commented upon by third-party sources or are we just assuming it is reliable for the sake of convenience? FWIW, I've seen a few articles where the website is not only being used to cite the date of death, but also the cause of death as well as other personal and career information, which seems a little strange to me.

Finally, and this is mainly for Ghmyrtle, I'm not sure what is meant by "warning" editors that "a better source should be found". That's seems to be like saying "this source might be a little questionable, but if it's all you can find then use it, at least until something 'more reliable' is found to replace it". This seems totally contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. If the consensus is that the source is reliable, then it should be able to be used without any conditions attached; On the other hand, if the consensus is that the source is only sometimes reliable, then it shouldn't be used as a place holder until something better can be found. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My view is that the source is, in fact, reliable - as reliable as any other source in relation to death details (not necessarily career details). No-one "assum[es] it is reliable for the sake of convenience" - that's somewhat dismissive of those of us who use the site and (having checked) are confident of its accuracy. But whether it meets the established Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources may be a different matter, and if editors wish to find sources which meet those criteria better (such as, I guess, Allmusic - which I think is far less reliable, on almost all criteria, but which seems to be regarded here as generally reliable), then they should do so. As I said, it is a failing of the DRS site that it does not set out its sources, but that does not mean that its information is inaccurate. So, it is fair both to accept the DRS information as reliable, but also to flag up that sources that better meet WP criteria might be available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: First, I didn't intend my comment about convenience to be dismissive, so I sincerely apologize if it sounded like that was my intent. The point I was trying to make is that if there's a need to check whether a particular site is accurate, then perhaps we should be using something else. The information on a site may be true and accurate, but the question is whether it can be verified or whether it can be assumed to have been verified through some sort of established editorial control. Many individuals have websites or blogs which are well-maintained, regularly updated and for the most part pretty accurate. Wikipedia itself seems to be pretty accurate for the most part. Yet, none of these are considered, for the most part, to be a reliable sources for use on Wikipedia.

How would you, techinically speaking, flag something like DRS if it was being used? Would something like {{self-published}} or {{better source}} be used? If the consensus is that a website is reliable, then we should just take it as being reliable like we do for something like a major newspaper or magazine; There should be no need to flag it. Similarly, if the consensus is that there's a need to "flag" a website in such a way right from the start, then perhaps we shouldn't be using it to begin with in my opinion. Anyway, I'm not trying to impose my will on Wikipedia. I'm perfectly happy to go along with whatever consensus is reached. I only removed the DRS site from a handful of articles and tried to replace it with better sources, or at least what I felt were better sources, wherever I could. If you feel my edits were unwarrranted , then please revert them and re-add the DRS cites. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Two editors User talk:Hga and IP 99 who are likely the same keep putting in fringe sources from blogs to the Jeff Cooper article . They have had several years to find better sources and have not done so. Hga appears to be owning the article as well through tendentious editing. Several editors over a long period have challenged his edits but he reverts them calling them vandals. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The "fringe sources" are sub rosa but apparently accurate on-line copies of Cooper's Commentaries, which I'll admit are dodgy (although I can only remember myself adding one or two of these references, and the one about his rules of gun safety has, per my memory, been changed into two different ones since I fixed up that section long ago (people not trying to "improve" the rules were using corrupt texts)). But since there are now official copies available as part of a three volume set, I've got those books on order and will be fixing up all the citations to Commentaries.

But while we're here, what about Fr. Frog's bibliography of Cooper's writings? You claim that's linkspam;I don't see that, but I'll admit I have only a vague notion of what linkspam is. Hga (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That Fr. Frog site is a terrible source. Lightbreather (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I just glanced at the bibliography, and at least the books page looks OK, and the magazine with the most references is the one where he has his longest running column, to my memory. Is there a better bibliography? Hga (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Rappler a reliable source? It is presently used to "verify" a partner of the deceased Zulkifli Abdhir. Here is the website being used, and it is being used to verify the name "Zainab Dongon".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. The facebook origin, the focus on "news and action site" , the reliance on social voting for stories all lead to the reputation of a publisher with a focus on clickbait rather than fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You're ignoring that Rappler.com is made and run by award winning journalist Maria Ressa and is very often cited as a legitimate source of news from the Philippines. It's voting emotion system is no more than a streamlined comment section which is widely used on other websites despite their established credibility. True, the source in question may not be the exact one referring to Zainab Dongon which is http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/83258-marwan-ties-family-global-terrorism which is also linked on the page. In conclusion calling Rappler.com an unreliable source of information is entirely ridiculous when compared to other "reliable" sources that have been used on this site, such as Fox News for instance. Breckham101 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So what if the what if the editor is notable, so is the editor of The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, but that doesn't change it in the eyes of most here as it being a reliable source (which I may disagree with). Also how is it "often cited" what other news sources that are generally considered reliable relying on Rappler like they do say Associated Press or United Press International? Please provide examples.

And just because Fox News is a reliable source, doesn't automatically make Rappler a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not my job to prove that this is a reliable source, it's your job to prove otherwise. You were the one initially making the claim that Rappler.com is an unreliable source based solely off of attention grabbing article names (which tons of other "reliable sources" do much worse than Rappler. i.e. Fox News, again.) and the emotion setting, which I have argued is nothing more than an experimental alternative to the comment section on news articles on sites such as The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and many others. This is, in my opinion, a preferable alternative to the vile idiocy left in news comment sections. Furthermore, Tucker Carlson is a political pundit, who IS NOT notable for actual journalism. Your arguments are invalid. Breckham101 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, in fact it is the other way around. Presently there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source, only a single user says it is. Furthermore, I marked it as not a reliable source not based on "attention grabbing article names", as I have been accused of (please stop), but because it doesn't meet WP:IRS. Therefore, the above statement by Breckham101 holds no weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on WP:IRS, I do think that Rappler, being prima facie a news organization (albeit having only an online presence), can be considered as a reliable source for their news articles. The only reason we Wikipedians can consider a news organization to be unreliable is because the organization is known to consistently fabricate or misrepresent facts, or is widely considered to be part of yellow journalism. I have not seen any discussion here on Wikipedia or elsewhere that says Rappler is unreliable. —seav (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Now it's two against two. As with all ongoing discussions there is not a consensus until such a consensus has actually been reached. Please stop acting as though the opinions of two users can undermine one of the forefront new publications in the Philippines for all of Wikipedia. Breckham101 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've used Rappler as a reliable source for things such as WP:DYK. I've gone lazy on creating WP:GAs for a while now (far longer than right after Rappler started), so I don't know if it can be accepted as such on that level, but considering GAs can become DYKs lately, that means de facto it can be accepted. No one has raised questions on using that website as a source on the articles that I've written. The fact that people had accepted it as a reliable source for DYK means it's good to go for most articles which aren't being rated. –HTD 17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.rappler.com/bulletin-board/41751-corrections Reliable. Rhoark (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In this clip from the Malaysian SwitchUp-Channel Prem Rawat is presented with the Asia Pacific Brands Foundation BrandLaureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award. Can it be used as an additional secondary source for a corresponding statement in the Prem-Rawat-article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJdEa1TTF8--Rainer P. (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As an official YouTube channel of "The Star", its reliability is essentially that of "The Star", so probably yes. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention one journalist's account of how Mail Online articles are put together . Not sure if any ramifications for WP --Cedders^tk 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources, particularly news media are frequently wrong. However errors are corrected. If one wants to explain what happened today in articles, then these are the only possible sources. TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I know its been discussed before, but the Daily Mail is just about the bottom feeder of "mainstream" news sources. If a better source is available, use it instead. If the Daily Mail is the only source reporting something, it should be treated with extra skepticism.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would avoid almost every source (even the NYT) for contentious claims about "celebrities." For basic nes, the MailOnline is fine and meets WP:RS. And if it is an opinion - it should always be cited as an opinion, ascribed to the person holding it. Collect (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The part about headlines sometimes being misleading is true of pretty much all newspapers - they are written by headline writers whose task is to grab readers. Collect (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. Can someone please respond?

Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/

The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. Silverseren^C 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Silverseren^C 02:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the website but will make a few observations: First, they describe themselves as a "blog" which is not a strong indicator of reliability. On the other hand, this page lists editorial staff, which is a good sign. I will let others comment on how professional that staff is, and whether they have a good reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

According to their About page, they are "published by the Consumer Technology Publishing Group (CTPG), a division of NAPCO Media. CTPG also publishes leading consumer technology industry trade magazines Dealerscope and Technology Integrator." Silverseren^C 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find where Technology Tell calls themselves a "blog". Not saying it isn't there, just wasn't able to find it. Also, just being published by Consumer Technology Publishing Group doesn't automatically deem Technology Tell as an RS. It seems credible but back to what Cullen stated, we'd need other users to research the editors and whether or not they fact check. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

From WP:USERG, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." That seems to be the case here, and the claim being made is not contentious. In the absence of any specific indicator that the source is WP:INACCURATE or WP:QUESTIONABLE, there's no reason to consider it unreliable. Rhoark (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! If it helps, the gaming editor in question that wrote the articles, Jenni Lada, also writes for Cheat Code Central, Siliconera, and GeekParty. Silverseren^C 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I accidentally run into this super-aggregator of encyclopedias when loooking into Stevens County, Washington: the WHE page looks like a complete rip-off of ours. Two problems:

• WHE page does not have have the word "Wikipedia" as reference (nor vice versa :-) How is it to be handled?
• What is more interesting, this is a rip-off with all our external references removed.
• In view of the previous, their statement " Unlike many online encyclopedias, World Heritage Encyclopedia is crowd sourced, referenced and edited, making our information reliable." is clearly a blatant lie.

• Wikipedia has several references to WHE and the number will grow, since WHE seems to be a 2014 project. This poses a famous problem of circular referencing.

Therefore IMO WHE is of immediate interest of this noticeboard: is WHE an admissible reference in wikipedia?.

Are there any other venues to discuss the peculiarities of WHE? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the Stevens County page, it says "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source" - and the phrase "Citational Source" is a link to the revision history for our article. Clearly a mirror, and thus clearly not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. So can I go ahead and strip wikipedia of references to WHE? If "Citational Source" leads to no-wikipedia source I have to consider releability of this redirect, right? If it is reliable, then replace the citation of WHE by the 'origin', right? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor claims that geoengineeringwatch.org is a reliable source. I dispute that view. What do others think? Guy (Help!) 23:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I think I know what article you are referring to, but you should let the rest of us know.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to know the article to see that the website concerned isn't going to be a reliable source for any assertions of fact - it is clearly promoting fringe conspiracy theories. If a notable proponent of such theories needs quoting, maybe it would do for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur, if it makes a difference, it's at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where it is proposed as a source for notability and to counter the idea that he is a conspiracy theorist, because this site endorses his views on chemtrails. But I was happy to discuss it in isolation, because I cannot think of any situation in which I would use this as a source for facts. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability for a proponent of fringe views is demonstrated by coverage in non-fringe sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's my view, too. So: you agree this site is unreliable? Guy (Help!) 10:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It has a veneer of empiricism that almost made me want to go to bat for it, but a little digging quickly got to a thick and squishy core of FRINGE. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see anything here that's usable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't consider this source reliable though it does provide links and documents to reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the preferred way to source basic details about a book - publication date, ISBN, publisher etc? I mean in an article about the book or its author, not for books used as sources in other articles. Are worldcat.org or isbnsearch.org considered reliable for this? Is a link to Special:BookSources considered sufficient to source these details?

Whatever the answer, is this written down somewhere? GoldenRing (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would use the book itself for that sort of thing, unless the information is disputed for some reason. Rhoark (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In the past few hours, there has been something of a dispute brewing on 2015 Formula One season over the use of the website GP Update as a source. GP Update has sponsored racing drivers and teams in the past, which I believe creates a clear conflict of interests and renders them an inappropriate source to use. The following is taken from their "About Us" page:

"Along the way, staff and readers alike have also enjoyed seeing the site’s logo in the heart of the action, thanks to sponsorship connections with F1 teams Minardi (2005), Midland (2006), Spyker (2007) and most recently 2010 debutants Hispania. A number of up and coming drivers have also been backed along the way, including Britain’s Sam Bird and Dutch GP2 race winner Giedo van der Garde."

Of specific concern to me is their sponsorship of Giedo van der Garde, as the dispute centres on content specifically relating to him as published by the site. This represents a clear conflict of interests, and another source would be more appropriate. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A news site about a sort sponsors teams and drivers involved in the sport. This would be akin to claiming ESPN is biased because they give money to sports teams, leagues, and colleges.

The point was raised because an article regarding the driver Giedo van der Garde was cited using GPUpdate. The statements in the GPUpdate citation are backed by several other sources, they all state the same thing. This is changing the URL for the sake of changing the URL. Nothing in the GPUpdate article uses a POV to promote Giedo van der Garde. GPUpdate is also used as a citation for Formula One information elsewhere on Wikipedia not related to Giedo van der Garde. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So if another reliable source without any potential for conflict of interest is reporting the same thing, why do we persist in using a source with questions over its conflict in interest on the grounds that it might not have a conflict of interest? Please prove to me that van der Garde received no financial support in this instance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the quotes used, specifically "most recently 2010..." these have NO impact on 2015. Twirlypen (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the section more carefully:

"thanks to sponsorship connections with F1 teams Minardi (2005), Midland (2006), Spyker (2007) and most recently 2010 debutants Hispania"

The 2010 reference only refers to the site sponsoring teams. The remainder of the quotes specifically relating to sponsorship of drivers gives no dates:

"A number of up and coming drivers have also been backed along the way, including Britain’s Sam Bird and Dutch GP2 race winner Giedo van der Garde."

Please be more careful. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think such sources need to be discarded out of hand, but they shouldn't be used for contentious or unduly self-serving claims. (Self-serving is not just complimentary but also distortion, hyperbole, or deceptive omission.) Rhoark (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And the story which use is currently being contested does not contain any such claim. It's entirely supported by what other reliable sources write about the event. Tvx1 16:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto and the wartime uprising there are not uncommon" was added to Gaza Strip based on this source. (see ^[8] - added by --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC))

It's 'About page reads the following "Foreign Policy Journal is an online publication dedicated to providing critical news, analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its purpose is to challenge the narratives and narrow framework for discussion presented by the U.S. mainstream media that serve to manufacture consent for government policy. FPJ offers information and perspectives all too lacking in the public debate on key foreign policy issues." and is owned by Jeremy Hammond, a hacker that was sentenced to 10 years (it may actually makes it more reliable :).

The author himself, Moign Khawaja, write this about himself on his blog.

foreignpolicyjournal.com seems to be a blog which might be RS if the author had credibility but a glance at his portfolio doesn't show any major publications. I will appreciate any input. Ashtul (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Still can't refrain from following me around, huh? It was one of the conditions for suspending your topic ban set by HJMitchell.

What you leave out is that the article is not by Moigne Khawaja but by Mark LeVine professor of history at the University of California, and a regional specialist with a command of all of those languages. Moign Khawaja merely introduces the topic.

There is nothing controversial about the analogy. The earliest analogy was made by a Captain in the IDF, who said this;:

In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'(Amir Oren, 'At the gates of Yassergrad,' 25 January, 2002 )Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the earliest example I know. A senior staff officer planning war strategies with regard to the Gaza Strip, imagined the study of Nazi strategy against the Jews of Warsaw's ghetto might provide some hints as to how to fix the Palestinians, That was picked up by Norman Finkelstein, and after that, fed into the news world, and into books. The only positive thing about it was that it made a lot of Arabs look up the history of what the Jews suffered in Warsaw under Nazism. But the responsibility lies with that staff officer.

LeVine doesn't agree with the analogy by the way, but he remarks on its frequency of its use after the 2008 military destruction of Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a legitimate RSN request.

The officer mantions dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw. Not that the siege on Gaza is similar to Warsaw. Ashtul (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1:LeVine)A 1943 photograph of Jews in a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. Israeli forces and Jewish settlers withdrew in 2005, turning the 41 kilometer long strip literally into the world’s largest prison. Around the world people are beginning to compare Israel’s attack on Gaza to the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.' Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(2=Officer)In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month.

You also get the officer wrong. He is not reported as 'dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw.'

He is raising the idea of dealing with Palestinians along the lines of the way Nazis dealt with Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

Please read texts precisely, and do not misconstrue them.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(1 LeVine) The question whether the source is RS is viable. Not sure why you write such an essay.

(2 Officer) He speaks about dealing with Palestinian terrorists years before the blockade. Putting his words into the context as you did is WP:OR at best or completely wrong.

Now, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. Ashtul (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant. Mark LeVine is an eminent historian specializing in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what venue he chooses to publish his views in.

The officer does not speak of Palestinian terrorists. The WP:OR was to construe it that way, as you did. Now, I'd be happy to listen to what third parties say, since your misrepresentations of the sources have been clarified.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• "one of the Israeli officers in the territories said..." - is it RS at all?

Moreover, in 2nd, more full your quote one may read: "The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example..." So?

I'd remind you that we're already talking about such "comparisons" and your willing to equate Israel with Nazis. Now you do the same thing (as well as using & reverting Ewawer here) based on such pro-Hamas propaganda "source" netto as Khawaja and on Mark LeVine whose opinion isn't so NPOV. What else are you willing to bring to Wiki?

I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera^[9]

But as I've already mentioned, his Al Jazeera's article cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about LeVine's own opinion.

And you by youself have referenced here Philip Seib's book^[10] where he not only wrote about LeVine's contradiction to such comparison, but describes its Hamas, Al Jazeera, Assad's, etc. origins :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)