Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:06, 24 July 2012

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Assam#Etymology

This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:

The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam

The reference given is

S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."

This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page (Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion, and lastly to Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.

The issue

The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.

The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:

The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.

This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 . Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 ).

The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.

Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kakati 1953 is a reliable academic source. Only include conflicting views if they are backed by a source of equivalent quality. Reflect sources properly, don't cherry-pick small phrases out of context. Using Kakati you are on safe ground to say "Assam" is an anglicised form of "Asam"... You don't necessarily have to say anything about academic consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually saying that something is an academic consensus requires very good sourcing which actually says this or demonstrates it in an obvious way, but it is rarely necessary to use such language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. In lieu of the current unwieldy and confusing section, this was a suggested alternative alternative. Your comments on this alternative text would be very valuable. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Getting there but some tweaks may still be needed. Try to avoid using Gait directly as it is so old. Your other sources are all good, I think. There is an art in writing them up. Avoid using terms like "accepted", "consensus". Just follow the straightforward Fact - source model. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have rephrased the text and removed all use of "accepted" and "consensus". I could not avoid Gait for two reasons. One, he's is still a standard work; and two, because states clearly that the British used a name other than "Assam" and that a similar name was used by the Mughals earlier. I haven't seen any other reference that does this pointedly. Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Better still. Now, this would be nitpicking were it not that the text has been challenged, and also we are on RSN and the archives may be used for reference. You don't need Gait because you have Kakati, you don't need to attribute. British Raj sources are a perennial headache on India articles, full of ethnocentric assumptions and haphazard methodology. Perhaps Gait is better than the others, but post WW2 is a useful rule of thumb on history articles. Fact, footnoted reference to Kakati, done and dusted. The only other tweak, not a sourcing thing, is that I would take out the "the" before "medieval". Then good to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. As a post-war scholar Kakati can critically read Raj texts, and make scholarly claims. As an encyclopaedia we are not a post-war scholar like Kakati—we should most certainly avoid using Raj texts due to their manifest deficiencies and their general rejection as appropriate scholarship by the post-war scholarly community. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed Gait and the "the", here. I shall make more changes, if necessary. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't been involved before but I sometimes work on etymologies. Your latest text is fine I think.

My impression (could be quite wrong!) is that this long dispute has been caused partly by the desire to place on Misplaced Pages a justification for the Assam government's proposal to change the name. Unfortunately the misleading statement that "Assam is an English word" became a sticking point. It isn't an English word, it's an English spelling ... but there may still be good reasons for changing it. Andrew Dalby 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This and a similar dispute some time ago on Misplaced Pages seemed more personal, pushing a POV.

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now?

Chaipau (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As subject is controversial in nature, we may put POV's of some scholars and specialists as per Misplaced Pages's policy.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

After the disputing editor acknowledged a note I left on his talk page about the discussion here by blanking it, I went ahead and replaced the text in the section. He has now reverted the change, claiming the decision here is not binding. Where should this go now? When i reverted the change my actual words are like this Additions should be made without removing scholarly POV's and existing important data. Discussion is on going on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard though not binding in nature by which i refered to removal of large amount of important data by that change and advised to add without removing any existing data alongside mentioned about Misplaced Pages's policy of differences between order and recommendations.

I like to add here that i claimed "Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and adjoining areas without refering to any inspiring word which may be matter of another discussion. And i said that same word was used by British to refer to a piece of land not any tribe adding that same word was never used natively before arrival of British". Due to this fact, present scholars of state recommended the change of name, which is accepted by state government. So i recommended that we may put in POV's of scholars due to controversial nature of subject, which already in place. And what last change by disputing user has done is removal of such POV's of specialists.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling
• The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit.
• The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam.

Chaipau (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comparison. The situation seems to me very similar. "Orissa" was not an English word, but an English spelling/rendering of the name, and it was perfectly reasonable to say that it is inaccurate, reminiscent of a former colonial regime, and should no longer be official. Misplaced Pages can be quite neutral on such matters.

The difference is merely, I guess, that someone in Assam has claimed that "Assam is an English word". If so, we can surely say that in explaining the proposed name change -- "it has been claimed that Assam is an English word" -- and we can cite a politician who said it. It seems to me not likely that a linguist or scholar would have said it, but, if any have, we can obviously cite them too. If the assertion is notable, as it evidently is, there need be no difficulty about any of this. As you say, the best place for such an explanation is the full article Etymology of Assam; once it's set out fully there, it'll be even easier to decide what should be said in summary at Assam. Andrew Dalby 09:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Any official statement of the Assam government is notable enough to be included. We should avoid the word "claim". Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the Etymology of Assam (User:Bhaskarbhagawati has challenged it on various grounds) Your help in checking out the sources would be very helpful. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam". Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting. In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam. This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government.

The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'.

Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've said below, I don't think we can help you further at RSN. We will not comment on what "proposed spellings should have been": that has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. The statement "Assam is an English spelling" is not controversial and is not affected by whether the same spelling was used in Dutch. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. The disputed statement is not "Assam is an English spelling" but "Assam is based on the English word Assam". Could you recommend where I may go next to resolve this? On your recommendation I spruced up the main article Etymology of Assam, so you may draw the right conclusion. If Misplaced Pages cannot resolve this, it would be remarkable. I have tried the third opinion, the dispute resolution and now this. As a result of this dispute, the Etymology section of Assam is now unreadable and makes no sense. Chaipau (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but you can see yourself that by taking you round in circles over what exactly is in dispute, the account "Bhaskarbhagawati" is wasting your time and is persuading you to waste ours. The point you now raise is the same one you came on here with, two weeks ago, and we resolved it.

If "Bhaskarbhagawati" were doing this on the Latin Vicipaedia, I or any other admin over there would have blocked the account for timewasting, long ago. I'm not an admin here (thank heaven) so someone else will have to advise you where to go next :( Andrew Dalby 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been accepted here, and the references in Alternate Text 4 aver, that "Assam" is not an English word, but an English spelling Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The section is about the etymology of "Assam", and the changing forms and meanings of the word/name are all within its ambit. Separate article is there for it to discuss in depth. The proposal to change the name to "Asom" has stalled, mainly because it was based on false premises. A later proposal to change the name "Orissa" has completed the process and it is now "Odisha". It is pending due to opposition by an particular tribe, but what is important is proposition by scholars and acceptance by government both of whom are generally wiser than layman's. The appropriate place to discuss the proposal and the controversies in probably the main article Etymology of Assam. So what i am saying keep only mutually accepted facts and scholars POV's and keep the rest for main article.

The is that "Assam is an English spelling" is itself in doubt. Evidence has surfaced that the spelling "Assam" was initially used by the Dutch, not the English. A person in the Netherlands have produced a map from late 17th century that shows the modern spelling "Assam". Around the same time an Englishman used the spelling "Acham".(Bowrey, Thomas, A Geographical Account of Countries around Bay of Bengal, ed Temple, R. C., Hakluyt Society's Publications,, p143) He presented this and other at a meeting where local scholars were present, and this is his account of the meeting. In the published account, he mentions that the Director of the Historical and Antiquarian Studies (an Assam government department) was taken aback by the new evidence. It is not clear to me how this can be presented as reliable sources. I did refer to the map in the section as it currently exists, which User:Bhaskarbhagawati has marked as "not in citation given". I would agree that a weblink is not a very reliable source, but in this case it seems to have credence. This map was submitted as evidence in a petition to the Chief Minister of Assam. This petition and the meeting with the scholars were probably instrumental in stalling the name change effort by the government. Please refer to discussion at Talk:Assam and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The other problem is the proposed new spelling "Asom". It does not represent the way the natives call the state, which would be "Oxom", where the "x" is a velar fricative as "ch" in "Loch Ness". This would confuse the issue further. An alternative would be "Osom", which would be no better than "Asam". In fact in the linguistic literature, we have seen the name of the language spelled not as "Assamese" but as "Asamiya".( George Cardona ed. (2003) "The Indo-Aryan Languages", Psychology Press) Taking this lead, the proposed name should indeed have been "Asam", which differs from the current spelling in just one redundant letter 's'. It is because only one or two languistic groups in world used that X pronounciation that includes Eastern Assamese (included maybe due to corruption of S) which is exposed on others in state. S should be S not X and Asamiya is not from Asam but Sanskrit Asama.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati makes some tendentious remarks, but relevant nevertheless.

• His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4)
• The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words.
• The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.() "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam".
• It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing.

Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember, we are only advising about sources here. It's not up to Misplaced Pages either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks,Itsmejudith. I have accepted a previous suggestion that the main page Etymology of Assam should be fleshed out first so a synopsis could be better written. I started work on it, but it has turned out to be more work than I thought. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

His contention, that "Assam" is based on Sanskrit "Asama" has been rejected by Kakati and others (referred to in Alternate Text 4) I said Asamiya is from Sanskrit Asama like Assamese is from English Assam not Assam is from Asama.

The use of the velar fricative is common through out Assamese, not just in eastern Assamese. ("xaneri" Kamrupi; "xonari" St Assamese in Upendranath Goswami (1970) "A Study on Kamrupi: A Dialect of Assamese", Department of Historical and Antiquarian studies, p19). This book, based on a PhD thesis, is replete with the use of "x" in Kamrupi words. I already mentioned about imposition of X pronounciation.

The petition against the change in name was signed by a cross-section of people that included not just people from a particular tribe. The list includes novelists such as Mamoni Raisom Goswami, who belonged to western Assam, and who has pioneered the use of the south Kamrupi dialect in standard works.() "The Assam Tribune" newspaper that had adopted "Asom" soon after the government proposal, has since reverted to "Assam". Noted persons signs as sign of goodwill when approached. What matters is that majority involved is particular tribe. Newspaper done so because decision remain pending due to objection.

It seems to me that User:Bhaskarbhagawati's objections are primarily with associating the name "Assam" with this "tribe" (called shan invaders in Alternate Text 4). If so, his objections are nothing but POV pushing. No, my objection is regarding wrong glorification of something on false grounds which defeats neutrality policy.

It's not up to Misplaced Pages either to justify the Assam government's decision or to criticise it. But decisions of governments on the advice of scholars are considered as valid sources.

Articles in the Assam Tribune may be reliable for the article, it depends. It seems to me that the article you link to (What's in a name? by Wahid Saleh) could support a short statement something like "an article in the Assam Tribune reported the finding of a Dutch map of the 17th century bearing a label 'Assam'." But it may not be necessary, and other editors may take a different view of this. The petition itself is a primary source, but a newspaper report about the petition would probably be reliable.

Newspapers as source are conditional. An event reported by newspaper can a valid source but if newspapers reports that somebody objected on something does not mean this objection is correct.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread is repetitive, circular, and no longer a reliable sources matter. I hope some editor who hasn't previously commented will close it. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?

Source in question: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement - an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, Spring 2012, Issue Number: 145.

Material in question: factual statements about the men's rights movement (like "The suicide of Thomas Ball drew additional attention to the Men's rights movement") and additionally as a source for the opinion contained within the article (like "An article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report stated that some prominent men's rights advocates vilify women.") Obviously, opinion would have to be included only with appropriate weight, but issues of weight are outside the scope of RSN. This material would either be included in parts of the article on men's rights that already discuss the men's rights movement, or included in a new article about the movement itself (an RFC is currently underway on the talk page.)

I believe that the article is a reliable source for both the factual issues involving the men's right movement that it discusses as well as the opinion of the article. The SPLC is a well-regarded group that I would compare in stature to the EFF or the ACLU. Their intelligence report is a quarterly magazine that has editorial oversight that is widely circulated among (and frequently cited as an authoritative source by) academics, the media, and law enforcement officials. I believe that the article meets WP:RS, and I see no significant reason why it wouldn't be reliable for both statements of fact and statements of the opinions of the author.

Most of the arguments against the use of the article involve the fact that the article does not attempt to be neutral. I'll leave a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the article, so that editors who believe the article should not be used have an opportunity to explain their opinions in greater depth.

The discussion on the article talk page currently is generating an awful lot of heat and rather little light, I would appreciate it if some of you could throw out your opinions either here or at Talk:Men's rights about the reliability of the article in both contexts I posed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They clearly have a level of fact-checking in place, although I would not put them on the level of ACLU. This is serious investigative journalism, but it is "breaking news". The simple answer is "use with caution". Look for corroboration; see if any of the stories have been taken up more widely in the press. The most dramatic instances quoted in the story may turn out not to be notable in our terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPLC has specific political positions which appear to make much of their material subject to being treated as "opinion" and not mere statement of objective fact. Always attribute opinions to those holding them. And be wary of using their statements in WP:BLP articles. Collect (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith has struck the right note. Fact checking is good, but as a recent news item it should be treated more carefully than a well-researched long-term survey. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear that the SPLC has a position on Men's Rights, but rather on hate groups. Thomas Ball was a member of the Massachusetts Fatherhood Coalition. That is not a hate group; it is a rights group and so something the SPLC would be expected to support. That it does not, may be seen as a microcosm of the environment in which the Men's Rights groups often operate.

Tom Ball did not "war on women," he committed suicide by setting himself on fire in front of the courthouse, leaving a manifesto-- his reasons for what he was about to do (pour gasoline over himself and light a match). His reasons were despair, not hate (except psychologically, as suicide is rage turned inward). However, that is not the implication of the article.

The article implies that a father's rights group is equivocal to a hate group, that a suicide of despair is equivocal to an attack on women. Only if we accept a premise that a rights group is the same as a hate group is the SPLC a "reliable source." The question is not "reliable," rather, the question is "source." The article was virtually silent on rights.

I admit that, as policy goes, this is a grey area, but couching the argument as one of "reliable source" with an emphasis upon "reliable" is missing the point. The article not only does not address Men's Right's, it equates the subject to hate groups. That is a clear "ends justify the means" agenda on the part of the SPLC which has no place in the Men's Rights article-- unless such an agenda matches that of the editors. We ought the have ethic that the use of such an article is inappropriate-- as inappropriate as calling one man's suicide a "war on women" and calling a Men's Rights group a "hate group."

I submit that if one cannot talk about Men's Rights without discussing a specific man's "sins" then the agenda has become to articulate why men should not have rights. I can think of no other rights-based group which is expected to overcome such an obstacle-- and that does lead to despair-- and probably hate of those who place such obstacles before them. Therefore, I further submit that the SPLC is a questionable source on Men's Rights, reliable or otherwise.--cregil (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't make up our minds about sources on the basis of whether or not we agree with their conclusions, or on the political stances they adopt, but on objective criteria like the ones I and others presented above. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what it is being used for. I am unable to comment without knowing what the proposed text is. (I say this because the author has refuted what many have used it for in the past). Arkon (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have details on what I want to use it for in the original post of this section. That's probably not how I will word it exactly, since the context of the sentence will depend on how the RfC closes. Basically: facts about the MRM in a section dealing with the history of the MRM, and probably the opinion of the author briefly mentioned in a section about public reactions to the MRM or something similar to that. (Obviously sticking with what the text supports and not using it to say something like "The MRM is a hate group" since that's both not supported by the text and explicitly disavowed by the author.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That agreement or disagreement with the article's point of view is not at issue is exactly right. Agreement with an article does not make it a source anymore than disagreement with article makes it not a source.

In this political season in the US, we are painfully aware of the political claims made by each side about the other. So while each party is a reliable source for its own policy, neither party has proven to be particularly reliable about the other. Therefore, one question we are expected to ask about a reliable source is, "On what subject is it considered a reliable source?"

Since we see nothing to indicate that the SPLC is involved with Men's Rights, it cannot be assumed to be a source, reliable or otherwise, on Men's Rights. The article in question is not about Men's Right. It is about misogynist hate groups. To seek to provide physical and legal resources for battered husbands and their children, for example, has nothing to do with misogyny or any other kind of hate.

Is the SPLC a source on such matters as Men's shelters, battered husbands, fairness in child custody, resources for at-home-Dads, social issues such as negative portrayal of men in advertising, or any other men's equality and rights matters? If not, then it appears to not be a source related to the subject as it is silent on the subject of Men's Rights.--cregil (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be directly involved in a movement to be reliable sources about that movement. Indeed, our sourcing policies generally emphasize the use of secondary sources and of independent sources. The fact that the SPLC as a group is not generally actively involved in men's rights issues doesn't (at all) mean that they can't be used as a source for information related to the men's rights movement, as long as they have published information about the men's rights movement in a way that meets our reliability standards. This article speaks explicitly about the men's rights movement, and as outlined by other people in this section, it does meet our reliability standards. Once the RfC passes (and it does look likely to pass) to move men's rights to men's rights movement, I'll be looking to incorporate information from the SPLC article in to the MRM article. (I think it could be fairly done sooner than that, since the existing article has a decently long section talking explicitly about the men's rights movement, but think it would be better to hold off till after the RfC ends to make major content changes.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims?

I have a few concerns concerning the sourcing for Nazareth, (see article talk page for details), but I would like an opinion about one source in particular. The article says:

"James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.” Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”"

with the citations being:

Article "Nazareth" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

(Misplaced Pages does not have an article on James F. Strange or Eric M. Meyers, but Strange is mentioned at Yahad Ostracon and Meyers is briefly mentioned at The Jesus Family Tomb.)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims that have no citations to peer-reviewed science? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Without genuine academic peer-review, neither of these sources meets our requirements as a erliable source for archeological claims. All the more so as Strange seems to have no qualifications as an archeologist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries produced by non-scholars and aimed at non-scholars, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are not suitable places to publish scholarly archaeological conclusions. Scholarly archaeological conclusions are required to support claims about historical Nazereth's population and importance.

Abingdon press is a mass sectarian press, with no indication it has the competence to support the publication of scholarly monographs. Seek scholarly reviews of Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity in scholarly peer reviewed journals, bring such reviews here. If they're positive they may overcome the limits of Abingdon's capacity to publish. Until you find indication that Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity is accepted by the community of scholars, don't use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit outside of the scope of my question, but would someone be so kind as to take a look at my other concerns on the article talk page? It's pretty short.

If this was in my normal area of editing (engineering) I would just edit the page to reflect what reliable sources we have and take out claims that aren't backed up by a RS. I suspect that trying to do this on a page which touches on religious beliefs like this one is very likely to unleash a storm of protests, so I want to make absolutely sure that I have all my ducks in a row before trying.

There appears to be a large amount of debate on the internet about this, mostly from blogs that freely admit that they have an agenda. A few of the more widely-quoted (and, of course completely unreliable other than for documenting that a controversy exists) blogs are:

PRO:

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html (Search on "Nazareth")

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.php

CON:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When making claims about the contents of religious texts, the appropriate sources are scholarly theologians (and in some cases truly Expert practising contemporary theologians), scholarly religious studies academics, and scholarly literary criticists of religious texts. When making claims about the historical past (WP:HISTRS), appropriate sources are scholarly archaeology, scholarly history, and occasionally scholarly historical anthropology etc…. We have a responsibility to properly attribute and weight all non-FRINGE scholarly opinions, based on their acceptance in the preponderance of scholarly literature. I would suggest doing research on the scholarly opinion regarding Nazareth's historical significance before editing, so you're aware of the scholarly context. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• One should generally avoid things with names like "bible dictionary", but each case has to be considered on its merits. Contrary to what Fifelfoo claims, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of the most scholarly publications in this class, edited by a well respected scholar and containing articles signed by many eminent academics. The multi-volume series it appears in was recently taken over by Yale University. The reliability of this should be treated about the same as the best encyclopedias like Britannica. Zero 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• The comments about James Strange that Guy Macon is posting are completely wrong and probably a violation of WP:BLP. The fact is that James Strange is an archaeologist, involved in actual excavations. See for example this, this, this, this, and this. Very very obviously a reliable source. Zero 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• You just made a very serious accusation against me. Before I say or do anything further, I would like to give you the opportunity to retract it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified. For someone whose profession is archaeology, such statements are false and defamatory. So, no, I won't retract it. I don't have any sympathy with your ignorance either as it takes about one minute with google to determine that Strange is an accomplished archaeologist who is frequently cited by his peers. His coauthor in the book you don't like is even more eminent. It is also easy to determine that they are both specialists in the required subfield of archaeology. Zero 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not "arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified" I am asking whether there is a reliable source that supports the claim that Strange is an archaeologist. The citations you list above do not support that, and your argument that they do is WP:SYNTHESIS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • So cite the YUP edition, it is more recent anyway, and cite it properly. A wide variety of scholarly encyclopaedia articles are less than desirable: the unsigned ones for example. Doubleday (and before them Anchor) simply don't have the capacity to supervise scholarly outputs. Similarly, I'm less than willing to accept Expert arguments about scholars when they're publishing in non-scholarly presses. Reviews of the work in question in the scholarly literature are far superior to demonstrating that the scholar has indeed on other occasions published scholarly content. The issue is if the article desired to cite from in scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As discovered below YUP takes full responsibility for all Doubleday and Anchor elements of this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a more recent edition. The article on Nazareth is signed by James Strange. As a summary (2 pages) by an expert, it is fine for the few uncontroversial things being cited to it. It could be replaced fairly easily, but there is no urgency. Zero 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The few uncontroversial things being cited to it"? You call a speculation that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ was 480 -- a claim that I have shown that there is a huge debate about -- so uncontroversial that we are to accept it without a citation to a reliable source? I can think of only two possible explanations for you making such a claim. The first possibility is that you don't understand or verifiability policy. Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge clearly defines uncontroversial knowledge: "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline. Such facts may be taught in university courses, found in textbooks, or contained in multiple references in the research literature". Either add a citation to a reliable source for the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ, or the statement must be removed. The second possibility is that you are unable to overcome a bias that causes you to be willing to ignore Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and should recuse yourself from editing this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary arbitrary break

• • I haven't been able to find specific reviews, however this work has been cited admiringly regarding its extensive analysis of language use in New Testament Studies ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500006056 ), "For the latest over-all survey of the languages in first century Palestine we refer to E. M. Meyers – J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis & Early Christianity (Abingdon-Nashville, 1981), ch. 4, pp. 62–91." This methodology paper also treats its conclusions on Greek versus Aramaic as standard: McIver, Robert K., "Methodology and the Search for the Historical Jesus: A Response to John Dominic Crossan" (1999). Theology Papers and Journal Articles. Paper 23. It is relatively widely cited ( http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=8951557329322791848&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ), but a quick check of citations indicates potentially superior sources for historical Nazereth, ( http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7_rtx8zTBOAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=96a7yGl450&sig=IiKMzKLMQ8VL1W4IAHPaKWL7_GU#v=onepage&q&f=false ). YMMV. I think it seems like the text is treated as a member of the scholarly publications in its field. (I wish they'd find better publishers than minor, non-scholarly, sectarian presses for this stuff). I re-emphasise: Anchor/Doubleday isn't an appropriate scholarly text, cite the YUP version if, and only if, the piece is signed; regarding the Abingdon work, I believe it to be reasonably accepted in the scholarly literature, but by checking who cites the work in scholar I found multiple potentially superior works whose primary focus is on social and economic history in the region (for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As noted below YUP has taken full responsibility for the scholarly quality of all Doubleday and Anchor impression works in this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

    Our policies do not require the citation of a "scholarly text", and if the two editions say the same thing, by the same author, then demanding the one with the fancier-sounding publisher is silly, bureaucratic hoops to jump through. We normally prefer (NB: not require) scholarly sources because we think them more likely to get it right. So long as the facts are right, then any minimally reliable source, even if wholly non-academic, is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    The quality of the source needs to match the quality demanded by the claim. It is that simple. You can take your personal truth regarding facts and shove it up your personal original research. If you want to meet policy and consensus regarding V in areas covered by scholarly work, guess what you need to cite? And mass market paperback publishers aren't that. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I ask again: What policy and what consensus (at least what consensus that is not limited in its application by WP:CONLIMITED)? What you have said is arguably the best practice, but neither policy nor consensus requires it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." WP:IRS. Think about "appropriate to the claims made." in the context of a pulp presses' dictionary. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yale University Press describes the six-volume ABD and its companions as "a prestigious collection of more than 115 volumes of biblical scholarship" and thought highly enough of it that they bought it and promised to keep publishing every volume.

But Fifelfoo seems to be saying here that if the version in your hands was published before the 2007 acquisition, then it's not scholarly on the grounds that the enormous original publisher has some non-scholarly books in its list, but the minute that the same book, with the same contents, says "Yale University Press" instead of "Doubleday" on the copyright page, it's okay. This is silly. We have a reliable source saying that ABD is a scholarly publication. YUP—Fifelfoo's preferred publisher here—is selling the exact 1992 volume being cited here. We don't need to rely on Fifelfoo's personal opinion about whether Doubleday is capable of having a scholarly source in its list. This is a scholarly source and should be treated like any other scholarly tertiary source (which is to say, it's reliable-but-not-best for most purposes). There is nothing "inappropriate" about using a prestigious scholarly encyclopedia (IMO it's more encyclopedia than dictionary) as a source for basic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, and your quotation of YUP makes me reverse my position because you've demonstrated that the acquisition is due to the scholarly quality of the entire series (not just "new" YUP releases). How can you demonstrate it is scholarly? Do you have reviews of the Anchor edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Do you have reviews of the Doubleday edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Can you point to the YUP acquisition document praising it? You did! In fact Yale points out my criticism is valid when they say, "This sale will enable Doubleday to enhance its existing focus on publishing general religious titles for the trade market." Doubleday and Anchor are not scholarly presses, they work in the trade market. But when YUP acquires a work because, "Yale University Press will publish all backlist and new volumes in the series, to be renamed Anchor Yale Bible, going forward. Yale University Press will be adding a highly-regarded line of books that strengthens its existing publishing program and serves its mandate to publish serious works that further scholarly investigation and advance interdisciplinary inquiry." Then this for me counts as YUP taking responsibility for the editorial content of the entire series. I'm sure we're all familiar with now reputable sources that began in the gutter press. New Left Review began as the unreviewed dissident communist Reasoner within the Communist Party of Great Britain (possibly in the CPGB historians group...). NLR is scholarly. Reasoner ain't. YUP's acquisition statement demonstrates that all of the Anchor series were scholarly. RS/N needs a process to use for demonstration of source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these sources that we are talking about are not available online. I would very much like to read the sources we are basing this article on in context. I believe that it would be well within fair use for someone with access to these sources to quote a paragraph or two on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy, most humanities works have a "long tail" of tens or even hundreds of years; they are also very much paper library oriented (except for the past two years of publications). You may have to hit a high quality scholarly library. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this, for what its worth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alarmed to see top editors falling out so quickly. There are some complexities here, and it necessarily takes a few posts to work it out properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the usual problem for the regulars here: someone asks whether a source is reliable, and half the group says, no, it's unreliable because it's not the best imaginable source, and the other half says yes, obviously it's reliable, because it meets or exceeds the minimum standards set forth by the guidelines and policies. And when you throw in a suspicion that the "unreliable" answers are knee-jerk anti-Christian bigotry (which would be appalling in this context, because modern archaeology was practically invented by Christians for the purpose of studying religious history), then you get prompt a falling out.

In the future, I suspect that we could reduce this miscommunication by saying "best" when we mean "best" and "reliable" when we mean "complies with WP:RS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not that at all. All posters were addressing the criterion of a fully scholarly source, essential for an archaeology article. It was about haste, probably. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that party of the problem is an unexamined assumption. Zero0000, who is no stranger to wikiconflicts, seeing me question the reliability of his sources assumes that I want to remove material from the article. My actually my goal is, if at all possible, to keep the material and add a new and better citation. Removal is only a reluctant last resort. My main issue is that the sections that are about archaeology really do need to have citations that can be traced back to a peer-reviewed source for all controversial (likely to be challenged) claims. Claims that there was a population of 480 there in the first century -- or any population at all -- are very likely to be challenged and need to be backed up by peer-reviewed science. I really do think that previous editors accepted poor citations for religious reasons, and that the article will be far stronger if we only report what is in the peer-reviewed science. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith, there is no rule requiring every single source in an archaeological article to be "a fully scholarly source". Every source must be reliable, meaning that every source must meet or exceed the minimum standard set forth at WP:RS. Some sources should be fully scholarly sources, but "some" is not "all", and "reliable" encompasses far more than "fully scholarly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) Guy, this is a different point from the one first made. Now the question seems to be not whether the source is a reliable source, which it pretty much clearly is, but whether it is one of the best sources on the subject, which in fact is the kind of sources we would prefer to use. Standing on its own, I would have to say no, it is not one of the best possible sources. The question then would be whether we can find better sources. This might not be as silly a question as some might think. Remember, we are talking about Israel here. A lot of material relating to this subject might not have been translated or made easily available in English. The problem is whether anyone has access to those better sources, wherever they are. I would agree if possible better sources, including academic ones of some sort, would be preferred. Even some non-scholarly books might be preferable. This page lists a book by Charlesworth, generally regarded as a very good scholarly author, and mentions a few others. But, at this point, I don't see any good reason to necessarily remove the information, although admittedly it would be a good idea if better sources were found. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary second arbitrary break

I have a followup question. Let me know if it belongs in a new entry. Is this page

http://web1.cas.usf.edu/main/peopleDetails.cfm?ID=9537&DeptID=0-1259-000

a reliable source for the claim "James Strange is an archaeologist"?

On the yes side, are these statements:

"He was Montgomery Fellow at the W.F. Abright Institute for Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem in 1970-71 and NEH fellow at the same Institute in 1980."

"Dr. Strange's research interests are in Biblical Archaelogy,"

"Strange has participated in field archaeology annually since 1969 and has directed the excavations at Sepphoris, Israel annually since 1983"

On the no side is this:

"James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Studies. He has served both as Chairperson of Religious Studies (1990-93) and as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters (1981-89). He earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959, an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School in 1964, and a PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970."

...no degree in archaeology, and nowhere does he claim to be an archaeologist.

Related questions: would the above justify calling him a "biblical archaeologist" or "amateur archaeologist"? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a reliable source. Depending on the date of publication, and the length of the material included, and the potential bias of the author of any individual article (which happens rather often), and other things, it may not be the best source, but it is reliable. Second, Strange I think could reasonably be described as a Biblical archaeologist, given his status as a director of excavations. However, if one wanted to get really OCD about it, one could describe him as a biblical historian who has directed archaeological digs. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

People who are paid to do archaeology cannot be described as "amateurs". Amateur vs professional is all about the money. University degrees are not relevant: Abraham Lincoln, for example, was a lawyer despite having attended school for only a total of 18 months in his life. He was a professional lawyer because people paid him to do the work, not because he spent years in a classroom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Counterexample: "Dr. Carl Baugh, Director of the Creation Evidence Museum, began his excavation project on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas in March 1982. Since that time, Baugh, along with teams of volunteers, has uncovered over 400 dinosaur tracks and over 80 human footprints in Cretaceous limestone." Source: Creation Evidence Museum People pay Baugh to do archaeology, but he is no archaeologist. Baugh is a creation scientist, and Strange is a Biblical Archaeologist (not to compare the two - Biblical Archaeologists are real scientists)

Also, Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer in 1836 when he passed the bar exam which was administered to him in Sangamon County Circuit Court and obtained his law license. It was then and still is no illegal to practice law or call yourself a lawyer just because someone is willing to pay you to practice law. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing only the question of amateur vs professional: You don't become a professional _____, no matter what _____ is, until you get paid for doing it. An unpaid attorney, archaeologist, or armadillo hunter is an amateur. The word derives from "doing it for love", i.e., not for money. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If he's published archaeological conclusions in scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's got a PhD in archaeology then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological books in a University Press (or similar) and they've not received hostile reviews in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological findings in the mass-marked non-fiction presses, and these have been reviewed positively in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. Membership of the practicing scholarly community is the criteria, this is most easily evidenced by research publications that meet the standard of scholarly acceptance. (This answer in terms of considering expertise in terms of reliable sourcing, not in terms of reliably sourcing wikipedia claiming he's an archaeologist) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim in question is both extraordinary and controversial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Furthermore, the claim is archeological in nature, and thus requires a genuine archeological source. The Anchor Biblical Dictionary clearly fails as a source because it was not compiled with the intention of being an authoritative source on archeological matters, nor did it receive any sort of review from an archeological standpoint. The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He has never particpated in excavations at Nazareth, nor does he have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph should get a prize of some sort. Zero 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is really quite absurd to imagine that someone who has been the director of several archaeological excavations in Israel is not an archaeologist. The State of Israel issues excavation permits carefully and sparingly, of course he's an archaeologist. Incidentally, he also wrote the article on Nazareth in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (one of the most respected academic organizations in archaeology) and published by Oxford University Press. I guess Dominus Vobisdu will tell us it is really a children's book. He spent three years as Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the most famous institution in Middle East archaeology, of course he's an archaeologist. His coauthor Meyers was even the director of the Albright Institute for a while. Can we stop this nonsense now? Zero 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People stumbling on this section might not realise what is going on. There is a fringe theory that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus, and some of its adherents have been trying for years to push it into Nazareth. It must be true, but the archaeologists refuse to cooperate. They even do things like digging up houses from that time period, bad bad archaeologists! Zero 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The confusion may have resulted from the fact that his son, James R. Strange, helps him do his field work. James F. Strange is the one qualified in archaeology. is/was a lead archaeologist at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris. Notice these links: University of South Florida, A blog of someone working with the Strange family (second generation includes the son and a daughter): Here; James F. Strange has published in peer-reviewed journals. He is leading in excavations at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris, three miles from Nazareth. His opinion most-likely is biased in favor of the existence of the ancient Nazareth of Jesus, but there seems no doubt that James F. Strange is a competent and respected archaeologist. Note these search results from Google scholar here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding evidence for the existence of Nazareth, it may still be FRINGE to doubt that it existed, but the lack of evidence is a valid concern. This helps explain why the excavations at Sepphoris hold significance for these Christian archaeologists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nobody ever claimed that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that there is no evidence of human habitation between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE). I personally doubt that claim, based upon arguments by Richard carrier,, but the fact remains that the only citation to a RS the article has on this dates the artifacts found to "the first and second centuries CE". All I am saying is that if Misplaced Pages says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ, we need to have a citation to a RS that says that. Right now we have no such citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is cutting an awful fine line. If there are no humans, then Nazareth, as a human construct did not exist during that time. So there is no ongoing question regarding James F. Strange's credentials as a bonafide archaeologist? If a reputable archaeologist, such as James F. Strange, speculates about Nazareth at the time of Christ and is quoted in a reliable source, then his opinion is okay to cite, I would think. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone questions James F. Strange's credentials as a biblical archaeologist, but as a reliable source for the claim we are examining there are at least two participants in this discussion who question his qualifications. First, Dominus Vobisdu above, who wrote

"The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP."

I myself also question the claims, partly because Richard Carrier, who I have found to be very reliable when he reports a fact (his conclusions are another matter), wrote "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" That statement is enough for me to require actual peer-reviewed science that supports the claim. Nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper where James F. Strange makes the claim, and nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper that James F. Strange may have consulted before making the claim, and nobody has shown me that James F. Strange is enough of an authority on this that I am willing to accept his word that there are -- somewhere -- peer-reviewed papers that support the claim. In fact, I suspect that if I had access to the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Nazareth, I would find the he presents the claim as opinion or speculation, not as a fact that is backed up by peer-reviewed science. I also question the fact that this is the only source that anyone has come up with that gives a population estimate for the period in question. Where did Strange get this data that nobody else can find? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't investigated James F. Strange enough to defend his credentials. Archaeology in the Middle-East has moved away from biblical reference points. There are some very good older archaeologists who are very reputable but still could be called "Biblical" archaeologists. Regarding Nazareth, I am okay with a strict skeptical standard. Misplaced Pages is served well by such. I have tried to find any kind of information about early 1st-century "Israel". Outside of the biblical manuscripts, there isn't much available about anything. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a cut and dried case of an article basing a claim on a source that does not meet our criteria for being a reliable source for that claim. Think about what we are being asked to accept here. We are expected to accept a Misplaced Pages article giving an estimate of the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ. Everything about our reliable sources policy points to a requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper that makes that estimate for that period. We are being asked to accept that somehow Strange knows the population without any sort of evidence, based upon a statement he made in a publication that is not peer reviewed. Given the high visibility of this particular topic, if there really was a peer-reviewed paper backing up Strange's claims, we would know about it. So how, exactly, does Strange know what the population was? Unless he has a time machine, he must base his opinion on peer-reviewed science, and we know he does not have any peer-reviewed science to back up his claim. To accept Strange as a reliable source for the the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ goes against everything our verifiability policy stands for. Verifiability means that we can verify that he knows what he says he knows, when in actuality we know that he has no way of knowing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just not true. There is absolutely no "requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper" that says anything about this. Misplaced Pages requires reliable sources. We do not require "peer-reviewed papers". Peer-reviewed papers happen to be one of the many types of sources that are typically reliable, but we do not require a peer-reviewed paper for every fact about history or archaeology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to this? It says something about estimating the population using Safrai's method, but I can't see what the answer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can get ahold of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, but it would take a few days. But I also agree with WhatamIdoing above. Guy Macon said we can only use academic journals. We can and do have other sources available, and they are of sufficient quality that they can be used as well as academic journals. Also, yes, we are not obliged to use exclusively academic journals anyway. But, back on point here, Google books here lists several books which discuss the matter. One of which I just pulled out, the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible also edited by David Noel Freedman. It says something about the respect an editor is given when two different encyclopedia want him as their main editor, right? I have started to get together a list of dictionaries on religious topics at User:John Carter/Religion reference, but haven't gotten around to adding them all yet, and having looked at the reviews I found as I pulled them up, and the general academic opinion of the editor, it is basically counted by academics as being on a par with academic journals in terms of reliability. Quoting Eerdmans page 951, in the article on Nazareth written by Jonathan L. Reed, "At the time of Jesus, Nazareth was an obscure village S of Sepphoris. ... Evidence for a necropolis helps determine the extent of the 1st-century-ruins, which correlate to a populataion of well under 500. Nathanel's exclamation in John 1:46, 'Can anything good come out of Nazareth?' aptly symbolizes the town's obscurity in the 1st century." The bibliography for the article includes B. Bagatti, Excavations at Nazareth I (Jerusalem, 1969); E. M. Myers and J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville, 1981); J. E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places (Oxford, 1993). Maybe it is a bit of a guess, but I assume those sources support the content of the article. Now, by saying this, I am in no way saying that the article should not include some information regarding how this conclusion is apparently questioned, because that seems to be valid as well. However, that quote, "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" explicitly uses the word some. "Some" is not all, or even a majority - it means some. So based on the evidence I have seen, there is sufficient evidence to include the material on both sides, using the language "some" used in the source regarding the numbers of those who question it. It might be better if someone found on the secondary sources included in the Eerdmans bibliography, but I think we can use either that book, or the Anchor, as a reliable source in its own right. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus and it does indeed address the population of Nazareth. Thanks to WhatamIdoing for finding it; it will improve the article. The author (Paul Foster of the University of Edinburgh) says that one method would give 630–720 and another method would give 200–220 which "appears to be an underestimate". Then he cites Strange's estimate of at most 480 from the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Note two things: one is that Strange is very widely cited on ancient Nazareth because he is regarded as an authority on the subject, and his article in Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of those which is widely cited. Second, not in this article nor in any other article I have ever seen in the professional literature since the 1950s excavations of Bagatti is there any credence given to the possibility that Nazareth was unoccupied in the time of Jesus (let alone for many centuries as Salm's amateur theory insists). The possibility of it being unoccupied is hardly ever even mentioned. There is in fact no controversy over this question among archaeologists. People who want to write the article on the basis of there being a dispute should first prove that there is one. Of course there are disagreements over details, but that is how science works. Zero 06:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And by "prove that there is ", we mean by citing sources rather stronger than http://www.nazarethmyth.info and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com, which seem to be the only "sources" cited as proof that these academic books and journal articles are all wrong.

It seems to me that we've determined that both the ABD and the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (1) are reliable sources for statements about the population of Nazareth during the time in question and (2) represent the mainstream academic views on the subject (i.e., the population was a couple of hundred, and exact estimates vary according to the method used). Does that sound like the consensus to everyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

India and state terrorism

The following sources are being used in this article, I had removed them as SPS but they have been reverted back in. Sources used For Whom the Bell Tolls: America or the Jihadists? Trafford Publishing and this published on a personal website.

Are these suitable for anything at all, never mind what they are currently being used to cite. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Every source is suitable for something, even if it's just to say "Some guy wrote the following words on his personal website..."

These sources are self-published, and so whether they are reliable for any normal purpose will depend on whether the authors are recognized experts under the WP:SPS rules. Do you know anything about the authors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true that every source is suitable for something. See previous threads about Facebook pages. Gautam Matra is the author in question. I find nothing about him online at all. No reviews of the book. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What if the author in question is given attribution for the content that is cited by his book? For example, Gautam Maitra writes so and so in xyz book etc. Per WhatamIdoing, every source is suitable for something. In this case, Maitra's work is being used to cite that India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism. Both these statements are not even something ambiguous, but rather a widely known accusation/fact. It might have been a different scenario if Maitra was, without attribution, being used to cite something that was not as widely known (and hence his work could have been legitimately challenged). Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing might have gone on to say this: "what some guy wrote" is only a candidate for mention on Misplaced Pages if the guy's opinion is notable. That's not for this board, but, if Judith's correct that Gautam Mitra doesn't show up anywhere online at all, it could be hard to demonstrate that his opinion is notable. Andrew Dalby 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We need much better sourcing than this for a controversial topic in international relations. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have said that it might not be WP:DUE, rather than risking confusion with WP:Notability, but Andrew Dalby is otherwise correct. Even something as weak as a Facebook page is 100% reliable for a claim that a given Facebook page contained certain words on a given date, but that doesn't mean that we should include that information. However, that's technically a question for WP:NPOVN, not RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• If as Mar4d says it is common knowledge the "India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism" then he should have no trouble finding an academic source to cite this well known factoid. He is also conflating State terrorism with State sponsored terrorismDarkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• According to this source support was not as full on as the SPS would suggest. "The LTTE enjoyed material and moral support from Tamil Nadu State in India" Historical Dictionary of Terrorism p399 That is a state, not the Indian government. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Snopes.com

Is snopes.com considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki (talk • contribs)

Yes, sort of, in certain contexts. Are you talking about this? The snopes article is based on Dave Marsh's book Louie Louie. You may be able to find it in your local library. Arcandam (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm sure this has been asked a bajillion times, but what about about.com? Specifically http://oldies.about.com/library/weekly/aa091602a.htm and related links? ~EDDY ~ 03:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My initial guess was that it wouldn't be; however, it appears like it is reliable. It is a part of the New York Times Company. Check the page for a random contributor Aaron Gold. This appears to be the contributor who added the information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would say that Snopes is reliable but not About.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Too expand, if we can trust the information they provide us about their contributors, the author of the link given is "an entertainment critic and journalist who has been published nationally for over a quarter century, and has written about oldies music for most of that time". Aaron Gold, who I linked to earlier, works full time for about.com and is a consulting producer for Top Gear. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand the site well enough to comment conclusively ... my impression is that about.com contributors are well chosen for their expertise and the site is professionally managed. I'd incline towards saying "yes, reliable". Andrew Dalby 08:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise, About.com itself is not reliable, but the individual authors fairly often qualify for expert status (see WP:SPS) and are thus reliable sources no matter where they publish. That's why we say that "source" has three meanings on Misplaced Pages (author, publication, and publisher). Only one of the three needs to be acceptable. In this case, the overall publication (About.com's website) is unreliable, but some of the authors are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Campus Circle (newspaper) and Campus Circle Media

Inre: February 22, 2010 interview in free alternative newspaper Campus Circle as used in the article The Last Hurrah (2009 film) for sourcing non-controversial information in The Last Hurrah (2009 film) "Production" and "Critical response" sections:

From "Production":

The movie is filmed in one single, continuous 88 minute shot. The film is considered part of the mumblecore movement because of its shooting style, emphasis on dialog, and focus on Generation Y relationships. The director states that the film was inspired by Richard Linklater and Woody Allen, with dialogue intended to be "a lot of fast-paced one-liners. A lot of philosophy." Obstacles encountered while shooting the film as one take included coordinating a film crew in a party scene filled with extras, and equipment limitations such as cameras with 30 minutes shot length. Filming took five nights of shooting attempts - on the fifth night, "the film came together."

From "Critical response":

Campus Circle wrote that teen comedies have become reviled due to their becoming "synonymous with cheap laughs and awkward, over sexual punch lines," but that Last Hurrah "reminds audiences of what has since been lost from the high point of ’80s filmmaking."

Refcite: Stokell, Spence (February 22, 2010). "Jonathan Stokes: The Last Hurrah Director Takes Five" Campus Circle. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

Campus Circle's "about us" and "media" pages stress that their target demographic are readers between the ages of 18 and 34, gives company history and background leading to the formation of "Campus Circle Media" in 2000 as a group of 33 alternative newspapers nationwide that are distributed both on and off college campuses in their respective cities, and offers that they now network with over 34 different publications in 32 different markets. Their "contact us" page shows that they have different editorial departments and, in serving college and university age students on campuses across the US as part of their target demographic, they have main offices at a non-university address in Los Angeles. The bottom of their main page shows that along with the online version, hardcopy issues are published 49 times a year. So... is the source reliable enough in context to what is being sourced? Or not? Schmidt, 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason here to think that it is less reliable than any other weekly entertainment rag.

I assume that you're worried about it being considered a student newspaper. It's not. We accept sources that young people read. We worry about sources that inexperienced people write. That's why we have a general dislike for student newspapers: the students who write, edit, and publish those papers don't normally know what they're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would DA be a RS?

I'm a pretty big book fan and as such, I edit a lot of articles about books. Every so often (rather often, depending on the genre) I'll come across a book that has a review by Dear Author, such as this book. I'm halfway between seeing the site as a reliable source and half not. It is essentially a book blog when you get down to it, but the site is also seen as a pretty reliable source in the publishing industry, with the site being quoted by other sites (not just no-name book blogs) and portions of their reviews being placed on book jackets and the like. They've also been somewhat responsible for the publishing of various authors by way of putting the first page of an author's work on their site. (Agents and the like see the page and if they like what they see, they contact DA and get the person's contact info and publish the book, which has actually happened.)

However, I know that it being a blog does sort of put a crinkle in the mix, so I thought I'd come here and ask. To me it's a RS and the reviewers on the site are considered authorities, but I figured I'd come here and ask.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:USERGENERATED deals with personal blogs, but per WP:RS, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If site reviewers are established authorities, and have been published elsewhere, it would appear you are good to go. Best to cite the expert, AS an expert. For example, if Roger Ebert were accurately quoted in a blog, it would be he as the expert who lends the credence to what is being quoted... not the blog. Schmidt, 08:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

musicOMH

is musicOMH a reliable source to use for critical responses about songs and albums? For example, this. Till I Go Home 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

New York Daily News - reliable source for attribution of "Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012"

Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has any number of issues that need to be dealt with, but is the screaming headline from New York Daily News ] a reliable source to base the inclusion of a new "incident" into the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Typically, we do not cite news headlines as these are (generally speaking) not written by the author, but by the editor trying to get the reader's attention. I'm not sure if there's a rule that says that, but that's typically what we do. In that particular news article, there's a quick summary beneath the headline that says, "Bus driver responsible for the zombie-like attack took a long liquid lunch before jumping on the hood of a passing woman's car, biting her when she got out, reports say." Does anyone know who typically writes these? If it's written by the journalist, I would say that it's reliable; if it's not, that I would say no. Of course, that's assuming that Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 is a real topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

re: "that's assuming that is a real topic. " got any advice on how to proceed on that front? I am at a loss and just attempting to keep it from getting worse. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual source for this is the Shanghai Daily—there's no reason to think that the New York Daily News article contains any original reporting, so why not cite the Shanghai Daily? Of course, then you have "intoxicated man gnaws woman's face," which says nothing about zombie-like behavior. Even if the headline were WP:RS, it doesn't say that this is a zombie attack—it asks if it was a zombie attack. I think it's important to be careful when reading articles like this to differentiate between what the reporter says happened, and what the reporter or in this case, editor, implies might have happened. These days if you want to get a lot of ad impressions, news articles have to imply things that are titillating, but of course they don't actually say these things, and we ought not to take the implication as if it were a statement. Abhayakara (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have an Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 article? How did this survive Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2012 Zombie controversy. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

why do we have it? the AfD process is broken + ZOMBIES. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Media's use of the word "zombie" is a sensationalism intended to sell papers and, as in none of the cases was it determined that biters/flesh eaters were actually undead. I suggest the entire stub be smerged and redirected to its parent topic Cannibalism in its subsection Cannibalism#2012. Schmidt, 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

David Jay Brown a reliable source for blog post re cultural views of drug use?

Would a blog post by David Jay Brown be considered a valid "expert" self published source for a commentary about the mainstream media and cultural views of use of drugs? Specifically His commentary here for use in Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012?

Absolute, definite, imperative NO. Not reliable for anything at all except for what cranks think. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? He's written non-self-published works about marijuana. That's the definition of "expert" under WP:SPS, isn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to use Drowned in Sound as a source in Oxbow (band)

Specifically, this review was used to source the following information.

It was described as "2007's greatest LP" in Drowned in Sound

Robinson's vocals have been described as..."genius soundbites emerging from his catalogue of last real bluesman howls, yabbers and harrowing squeals".

Here is my reason for removing the information

I did some research and found that DiS has been repeatedly described as unreliable at RSN. See this and more importantly this. Drowned in Sound's terms state that "We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy". The sight contains user submitted content, and the particular content we are dealing with was submitted by "Adam Anonymous". That hardly gives me confidence in the reliability of anything posted by him. In any case, the information presented by him is his opinion which means that it was described as the best album in 2007 by a contributor of DiS, not DiS itself. I find no reason for Misplaced Pages to feature the opinions of a contributor, hidden by anonymity, to a site that doesn't take responsibility for it's content or the accuracy thereof

Thanks for helping out on this one! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That review is absolutely no use as a source as far as I can see. It's nothing more than the opinion of a random person. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless Adam Anonymous is a professional music reviewer, no it does not count as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes it is. To clarify, at the time that the reference was removed, it was used to source 'The band's 2007 album The Narcotic Story was positively received by critics, being described as "2007's greatest LP" in a review from Drowned in Sound', which makes much of the above argument moot. Previous discussions at RSN have involved few editors and very little time. Previous discussions here and here demonstrate consensus that the site is a reliable source for reviews. The site contains a forum which is clearly not to be used as a reliable source, but material submitted by the site's regular contributors (listed here) which include respected music writers John Robb and Everett True clearly are. The site has has received awards and accolades such as being named 9th on the Observer Music Monthly list of top 25 internet websites, a nomination in the Best Music Website category at the 2007 PLUG Awards and the Best Website category at the 2007 Shockwaves NME Awards, best music website nomination in the BT Digital Music Awards, Best Online Music Publication award at the 2007 Record of the Day awards. On the issue of a writer using a pseudonym, this has happened through the history of rock music writing, with several writers for the British weekly music press writing under pseudonyms (Johnny Cigarettes, DJ Fontana, etc., etc.) - it's a very weak argument for treating a source as non-reliable. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't make the argument moot at all. Who is "Adam Anonymous", and why is his opinion given any weight at all? Is he a respected music writer? After looking at the links provided I don't see any consensus at all, just a few people saying they like it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Much like the ones provided to demonstrate that it isn't a reliable source. The site is a respected music site - we don't require every individual writer for a given publication to also be well known and respected. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The source was being used as a reference for the opinion expressed by one writer for a respected music website - if you look at the content of the article it was not there to claim that this was the opinion of the website itself. This is just like every review in every publication - the opinion of the writer concerned, which that publications sees fit to publish. No different to Johnny Cigarettes reviewing an album for the NME. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, we require a reliable source to stand behind the review, or the reviewer to have been previously published in the area of the review. There is no indication that the any sort of editorial oversite went into the post. It is just some comment by some guy who is likely not even using his own name. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviews are different from 'regular' sources since vitually any source is reliable for its own opinion. So, the issue here isn't reliability, it's WP:WEIGHT. Is this user-submitted content? Generally speaking, when doing reception sections of artistic works, you want to cite the most notable reviewers possible. IOW, if Rolling Stone reviewed their album, it would be a great opinion to include in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"likely not even using his own name" - I think you might be right there, just like many music writers. If Drowned in Sound, one of the most respected music websites in the UK published this review, then we should assume that DiS stands by the review. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't user-submitted content, it's a review from one of the site's listed regular contributors - the sort of content on which the site is judged and has been judged in the past. Your argument re. WP:WEIGHT is perfectly valid - I have been adding numerous sources to this article over the past couple of days after it was deprodded, and there are more out there but I have been repeatedly diverted from improving the article by reverts and discussion on the talk pages of the article and the editor who tried to get it deleted. The weight issue would be a valid point of discussion on the article's talk page, ideally after all available sources have been reviewed and incorporated, and as you say, reliability is not the issue here - it's a writer's opinion and nothing else. My intention was to eventually move the detail of the critical opinion about that particular album into a separate article, but at this stage I am at the point of building up the content. Nobody else has made any significant constructive contributions to the article during this time. I don't feel encouraged to go ahead and continue improving the article by going through and adding the rest of the sources, however, as experience so far suggests that these will just be picked over, removed, and further discussions initiated, before the work can be completed. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User Michig added a citation to The Village Voice, for the undisputed fact that Robinson is the vocalist. The Village Voice actually compared his voice to Adam Sandler's Cajun Man, and noted his Oxbow connection. When I added this comparison, Michig removed it, leaving the ridiculously vacuous "sounding between Robert Plant and Nick Cave" as well as information about Robinson's "professional fighter" status. It depends on whose Oxbow is getting gored....

Nonetheless, Michig has repeated advised me to "step away" from his article.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This illustrates the problem here. The Village Voice citation was not there to prove that Robinson is the vocalist, it was added as a citation for Robinson contributing to an album by DJ /Rupture - it's citation number 13 in the article. The Village voice comparison to Cajun Man was a reference solely to one track on the DJ /Rupture album, not related to Robinson's vocals with Oxbow, and the above user added it as though it was a statement of fact. Given that K.W tried to get the article deleted, stated that he has no interest in the subject, and has been disruptive since the article was deprodded, I would say that was advice that should have been followed. --Michig (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Anybody who followed your "work" on that article can see what your opinion is worth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's sad that this sort of nonsense has now been dragged here, and now with cheap personal attacks, but should anyone wish to make their own judgment: Version before my "work": and after: . I've had enough of this behaviour. --Michig (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are too modest about your contributions: Consider this re-insertion of a BLP violation, re-insertion of the vacuous ("unique sound") and unsourced ("created an international following that has been growing ever since"), etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're impressing yourself with this off-topic nonsense because I doubt anyone else is impressed. Your first link above is addition of sourced content, the second was due to an edit conflict.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DIS appears to have at least 4 levels of contributors:

• Administrators
• Writers
• Contributors (our Adam Anonymous)
• Users

I was unable to find anything that defined what the various status mean. It would seem likely that Admin and Writer status would be considered "backed by the site" and therefore reliable, if the editorial content of DIS is in general considered a reliable source. The others are anybody's guess. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I rather think it's similar to what we have on Misplaced Pages. Administrators (obviously), writers (trusted high-volume editors), contributors (other editors, gnomes, etc.), and users (those who just read Misplaced Pages). Generally the first two are also "backed by the site" in the sense of having gained the trust of the community. I don't see how such a heirarchy makes a site useful as a reliable source, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going on the assumption that the site overall was because it is listed here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Albums/Review sites (although it would probably have been a better presumption that DIS should be removed from that list)-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian also has editorial staff, writers on the payroll, and freelance contributors. I suspect most newspapers do. We don't only accept articles in the Guardian as RS's if they're written by its regular staff. We go by the status of the newspaper, and I believe we should take the same approach with a music website, particularly a respected one such as this. It's not like sites such as SputnikMusic where anyone can create an account and publish reviews there. --Michig (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is a leading international newspaper, and DiS is a weak source. There's no comparison. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Your analysis is clearly off. All content in the guardian goes through a HEAVY editorial screening before it appears, except for the on line user posts. And the on line user posts at the guardian are NOT allowed as sources. A central question about using DIS is how much editorial oversite of the posts happens?-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Take all of this with a grain of salt, the majority of this is based on guesses and opinions. So I went ahead and created an account on Drowned in Sound. It initially required me to answer what Mike Skinner is also known as and what Indie band wrote Is this it. At that point, I became a user. Note that this review was created by a "user". It appears that after answering those two questions, I am fully capable of contributing to the site. On another note, I have the opportunity to provide my full name and it "will be used for review credits". I'm not entirely sure what those are for, could they be to become a contributor? On another note, I attempted to go to the site's about page to see if I could learn more about what their process and I ended up on the Misplaced Pages page for Drowned in Sound. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This demonstrates the difference between Users and Contributors. There are an awful lot of User accounts on that site and relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers. Don't you think 'review credits' might just mean putting your name against a review that you write? The site indicates that 'User Reviews' part of the site is currently in 'Beta'. It wasn't there in 2007. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers." - we still have no criteria about what makes a "contributor" other than guesses. If someone is a "well known, established professional music writer" then their commentary, where we can verify it is them, can be allolwed. "Adam Anonymous" however, is not a "well known, established professional music writer" and even if he was, we cannot verify that this DIS account is his and not Randy from Boise claiming to be him. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The site doesn't meet the requirements for authorship, editorial oversight, IMO; I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount about it but I believe the lower level "contributors" are at best part-timer, probably more like glorified wiki-editors/bloggers/hobbyists. I just did a quick search of my local hometown music forums and found at least one guy posting links to reviews he'd written for it. Content by the respected regular contributors should be treated as reliable but trying to piggyback the anonymous reviews onto that is untenable if there's any question of the site's authority and editorial oversight. It should be treated as a situational rather than a blanket reliable source. In any case, saying that the work is "genius" and the "greatest" of the year is IMO WP:EXCEPTIONAL and if credible there should be found other, better respected sources to back it up. bridies (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest this discussion is closed. The reference is no longer in the article, so it would be a waste of time continuing to discuss it. I don't intend to waste any more of my time addressing theories about how the site in question may be run, and I would suggest that everyone else moves on to something more constructive.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  The question was asked: Is DiS reliable (in this instance). It seems that the consensus is that DiS is not reliable in itself. There is great skepticism about much and perhaps most of DiS's content, which does not have editorial review. Is this a fair summary? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, I asked this question in the context of this specific instance. In this context, it seems like it has been determined as unreliable. I don't know that I'd use it as a source, but I don't think that a blanket statement on the reliability is evident from this discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  Ryan,

  It is good in law to make narrow decisions. However, in deciding the scope of consensus, the question is how narrow are the arguments than others have made.

  I would suggest excluding you, Michig, and myself---since we were involved before---and read what the other WP editors have written.

  The other WP editors have evaluated this case by evaluating the site (checking out reviews of familiar artists, etc.); they have found that the site is unreliable. Almost none of the WP editors here restrict themselves to "Adam Anonymous", but rather all WP editors are arguing about the characteristics of DiS.

  I would amend my suggested consensus with this caveat: "If a reliable writer credibly posts a review at DiS (and this review does not seem like a string of cliched nonsense, "last of the great bluesmen", etc.), then the writer's reliability could be transferred from his writing in edited/reviewed fora"---as others have stated. As usual, Michig and other editors are free to revisit the general case of DiS as a reliable source (as long as the repetitiveness of such discussions are seen as good-faith and non-disruptive). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  as an overall judgement of DIS, the contents would not appear to meet the standards of generally having editorial oversite. it may be an important community voice in the music world, but wikipedia is an important voice in the information world, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. individual posts under the standard view of WP:SPS may be occasionally valid. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a 1988 book evidence for current Ukrainian attitudes?

The opening paragraph of the article on Little Russia states that "The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists." It cites the following source for this statement:

Eternal Russia:Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and the Mirage of Democracy by Jonathan Steele, Harvard University Press, 1988, ISBN 978-0-674-26837-1 (page 216)

I fully agree that this is a reliable source for attitudes by Ukrainian nationalist attitudes at the time it was written. But it is it a reliable source for now?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Then set the claim in its historical context: "As of the late 1980's, the term had become an archaic one, and its anachronistic usage was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists."(source) -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons sourcebooks

Several discussions at Dungeons & Dragons related AfDs and talk pages lately have been going nowhere, due to the contested issue of the independence of certain sources. The articles are all concerning creatures within the Dungeons & Dragons game system (this one, for example), and the sources in question are all sourcebooks for the Dungeons & Dragons game system.

In the articles, the source in question is the Tome of Horrors sourcebook. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors and the Monster Manual that makes it independent? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons & Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons & Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons & Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.

There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons & Dragons independent of Dungeons & Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. There seems to be a confusion among editors between third-party publisher (i.e. not the rights holder) and third-party source (i.e. unaffilated with the subject, in this case Dungeons & Dragons). We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes to a table-top format? Third-party publishers have created video game content for games before, this doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't believe anyone would seriously argue that those would be independent sources.

Am I wrong in this line of thinking, that something is not an independent source on the sole basis that the sourcebook's publishers do not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons? (and this is ignoring the fact that this only contributes to a single line in an "Other publishers" section in these articles, and that the articles aren't based on third-party sources per WP:SOURCES). - SudoGhost 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

you are correct - "third party" sources need to be fully independent. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks may make for useful citations as in references to works that discuss the topic, they are not good as sources in the sense of works that we write wikipedia from. They are certainly not useful for establishing notability. For example, if Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) were widely discussed in sources providing notability, it would certainly be appropriate to have the sourcebooks where Lamia are described "in universe" under the Further Reading section; but, it would not be useful to base the content of the article on the sourcebooks. We are an encyclopaedia where readers are interested in Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) as culturally notable; not as in-universe. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence is self-contradictory. Sources are the only thing we cite. That's why the page on how to type up a proper bibliographic citation is called WP:Citing sources. I think that what you meant is that we want articles to be based primarily on independent/third-party sources, just like WP:V says ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

the middle east quarterly

the middle east quarterly (meq) is publication of "the middle east forum" (mef). mef works, according to their website, "to define and promote american interests in the middle east and protect the constitutional order from middle eastern threats." one of the tools to achieve this is the middle east quarterly.

this publication must surely fail our wp:rs-policies? here on wiki the meq is used as a source on primarily controversial subjects like the books of bat ye'or and so on.-- altetendekrabbe  17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

they sound like an advocacy group and their opinions should be clearly identified by text in the article as coming from them (if their opinions should be included at all as a significant or noteworthy set of opinions.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since 2009 its peer reviewed academic journal thus it acceptable source much like Journal of Palestine Studies --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree. their opinions are controversial and non-neutral. as a start meq-related content should be removed as it violates wp:npov and is wp:undue, in my opinion. what we need is sources that comply with wp:scholarship.-- altetendekrabbe  18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is sourced to MEQ?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies is published and distributed by the University of California Press so I'm not sure the comparison works...not that that necessarily matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MEQ has come up several times before. Not to be regarded as a straightforward academic journal. What claims is it being used to support? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I see in the article the only thing that MEQ is sourced for is "Johannes J.G. Jansen, Professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Leiden University, wrote that "In 1985, Bat Ye'or offered Islamic studies a surprise with her book, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, a convincing demonstration that the notion of a traditional, lenient, liberal, and tolerant Muslim treatment of the Jewish and Christian minorities is more myth than reality" IMO as it attributed to scholar in the relevant field so I think its should be OK.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

jansen is *clearly* a counterjihadist......"the impossibility of bridging the gap between islam and the west"...? sounds very familiar to the rhetorics of another age... here's another quote, "to portray the crusades as the equivalent of the jihad, as the multiculturalists do, is a false presentation of the matter, an absurd distortion of history. it is like equating a cold with aids: both are viral diseases that lack appropriate curative drugs." and we all know what the crusaders did to the jews and muslims. he's a counterjihadist, nothing more nothing less.-- altetendekrabbe  19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So what he is scholar if the field thus his opinion is notable but lets hear from uninvolved editors shall we?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also be careful about WP:BLP you can't call people names and source it to some blogs--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I 'm seeing WP:REDFLAGs here, but you need further opinions. Which articles are we looking at? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or.And here is the link What exactly is red flag here ?As I understand its favorable book review.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He was a speaker at Counterjihad Brussels 2007: European Conference Resists Islamization according to this Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are still some WP:BLP problem especially at last sentence--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

he was the tutor of theo van gogh, here's a pearl: ""we do not realise that the threat of violence, and violence itself, can only be stopped through the controlled and cunning use of violence". the dutch secret service (auvd) should get a special department "that gets its hands dirty, if need be"..

everything is, of course, "islamic propaganda" . here's another: "hans jansen criticised the subservient role he considers the churches and the government are adopting towards islam". wow, the churches *and* the government in netherlands? really? what kind of a conspiracy is this? :P no wonder he is found of bat ye'or.-- altetendekrabbe  21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we must be careful about BLP. Writers have a right to express their opinions. At the same time, we have to take care about which sources we can use. If this professor really is close to Geert Wilders, that's a possible indication of extremism, in our definition. That's a red flag for me. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

he's in the counterjihadist-movement where you have worse people than wilders.-- altetendekrabbe  21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK but it can be complicated. The animal rights movement has some advocates who are definitely extremist and some who definitely aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The main question still stands can be used for his opinion on Bat Ye'or book?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Need more uninvolved opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Middle East Quarterly is included on the HighBeam Research site, so I assume it meets minimum standards of a reliable source, at least in their eyes, and considering that is a site owned by Gale Publications, that's a fairly good recommendation. That leaves the specific quote quote Shrike produced. , it seems to me generally acceptable, barring possibly the use of the word "convincing". On that site, in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, in a review of her later book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, it says of this book, "Her earlier The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (reviewed in J.E.S. 25 : 104-105) was a ground-breaking work that gave definition to the hitherto unexplored sociopolitical and religious concept of "dhimmitude." So I'm guessing the favorable view of the book is supportable as well, although I might prefer the 1988 review of the book, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be on the site. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is HighBeam really anything other than a centralized Archive system? Yes, Gale is very relible to accurately present previously published content, but I am not sure they are doing anything other than "this is what was published in that source". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam is very handy (I declare an interest because I got free access for a year as a Misplaced Pages contributor) but it doesn't guarantee reliability. We have to judge individual publications as we always would. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

agree on that. in addition, book reviews like jansen's are not necessarily scholarly pieces, as pointed out in our wp:rs-policy. they can be opinions and summaries as well. given the fact that jansen is involved with the counterjihadist-movement his views on bat ye'or are neither neutral nor reliable... both authors are part of the same extremist political movement.-- altetendekrabbe  09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There seem to no consensus if the source should be used or not maybe a RFC is a proper way to continue?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC would be inappropriate because this is the place to get comments about sources. Opening further discussions elsewhere would be "forum-shopping". My view, after considering all the issues, is that this is not reliable for reviews of the subject's work. Scholarly reviews exist, positive and negative, as well as some reviews in mainstream news media. This source is much more of the nature of political commentary, and it is a tiny-minority view. Therefore exclude. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree. filling up articles with minority partisan political commentaries is not good way to build an encyclopedia.-- altetendekrabbe  11:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Not a reliable source. Their statement on peer-review is deeply troubling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And note that, even if we were to accept that, as noted above, MEQ has been peer-reviewed since 2009, the article in question was published in 2005. So the journal's current status is irrelevant; when the article was published, it was not subject to peer review. RolandR (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

very good point. thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  17:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think that the right decision has been made in this context, a then unreviewed journal of doggerel is not the best place to "appreciate" a controversial academic's work in a highly politicised domain—particularly where the journal of doggerel claims that the academic's work is actual reality, rather than theory—we should remember that reliability is not undercut by politics, it is undercut by politics that lacks the scope to discuss the content and claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Charley Project

Disappearance of Robin Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this webpage from The Charley Project a reliable source for these statements in Disappearance of Robin Graham:

The case of Robin Graham's disappearance has been included in television specials about missing persons. It remains an unsolved mystery.

Some speculate that Graham was a victim of the Zodiac Killer.

Thanks! Location (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

no. a self published source can only make claims about itself (ie the website or the project) so if the website says "This could be the work of the Zodiac Killer" the website could be used as a source for a statement in the article "The Charlie Project thinks it is the work of the Zodiac Killer (citation to website)", but the inclusion of such a statement in the article would need to be based on the fact that the opinion of the Charlie Project was an important point of view WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Location (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why does The Charley Project even have its own Misplaced Pages article? DreamGuy (talk)

I was wondering that, too. There is only one non-self published source in that article and it only mentions The Charley Project as part of a listing: . Location (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

the wayward wind (song) page

Boy, it's too hard to figure out where to tell someone that a mistake has been made. On The Wayward Wind (song) page, at the bottom, all Anne Murray's albums are listed. This obviously doesn't belong there. I don't know how else to notify someone that a mistake has been made. Anne Murray's information obviously is not supposed to be listed at the bottom of this page.

The Wayward Wind appears to be fine and I am not seeing any other duplicate pages. maybe there was something wrong with your browser? try clearing the cache. if the problem still exists, please post a link on my talk page User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - your question is not really about reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Pink Slime source

People in the beef industry have referred to the additive as "pink slime" due to the product's unique appearance.<ref>{{cite book |title=The great food robbery: How corporations control food, grab land and destroy the climate |last=Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Pambazuka Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780857491138 |page=57 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7-XSc2znVFoC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=pink+slime&source=bl&ots=_arUmvz0HO&sig=kaYqn5WE9Z-HMBNDYQ1bNBNv27o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FegJUMv5JsjBrQGLvLHBCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pink%20slime&f=false |accessdate=July 2012}}</ref>

Has a minor problem - the source uses Misplaced Pages as one of its sources. The book was issued on 28 April 2012 by "Pambazuka Press". demonstrates that one of the listed sources for the new book is Misplaced Pages. The book has no named authors, and is not from a peer-reviewed or recognized academic publisher. "GRAIN.org" is not recognized as any sort of authority on anything that I can find. it appears to be mainly a political organization.

The book is described:

This book is intended to reveal the ways in which corporations seek to increase their control over the food system so that they can be more effectively challenged. It aims to provide information and analysis that enables and inspires people to take action to take the food system back from corporations and put it in the hands of people.

I suggest that where a book is so recently issued, uses Misplaced Pages as a source, and is not written nor issued by a publisher known for editorial control per WP:RS, that it is, in fact, not a reliable source. Collect (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is excellent RS/N reasoning. CIRCULAR concepts only apply when a work does not have independent review processes sufficient to overcome the stigma of citing wikipedia. For example, a scholar published in Routledge is free to cite wikipedia. An unauthored work published by a lowgrade press is itself unreliable due to the lack of publishing and authorial competence. The core problem is the lack of editorial review of the book, and as such we ought to reject its claims in relation to food science. (GRAIN.org might be competent in relation to food politics, but this is not the issue at stake.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Publication from Prof. Colin Rourke, University of Warwick

It was suggested to make an inquiry here to verify that the following publication is reliable:

Title: Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2)

Author: Prof. Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK. This full address is mentioned on the bottom of the paper.

Publisher: Aulis (including link to the paper)

The paragraph “Anomaly 2: The outward shadow” is the topic of the Misplaced Pages article Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light, second paragraph.

When Prof. Colin Rourke wrote this paper he was working for the University of Warwick. He made several publications. Such further information can be found on his private homepage, via a link from his university homepage.

My recommendation: Reliable. The only reason why it might not be judged as reliable is the content of the paper which is contrary to the “published opinion”. But this is never stated to be a criterion. Andrew199 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

References:

1. "University Homepage of Prof. Colin Rourke". Retrieved 2012-07-25.
2. "Hadley: A Study in Fakery". Aulis.com. Retrieved 2012-07-25.

Aulis describes itself as a "flexible outlet" for publishing anti-orthodox content. In other words, it is a peer-review-free zone that publishes fringe content. Looking through the other papers published on that site will lead you to the same conclusion. This is not a reliable source for anything but author's opinions, which are only significant if there is some special reason for caring about that author's opinion, such as in an article on himself.. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the author who is responsible for the content of a paper. And here we have a paper from the University of Warwick. The question is therefore whether the Warwick University is reliable or not. Andrew199 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Warwick University is exceedingly reliable. Has the uni put its weight behind this particular paper. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be the self-published (except through Aulis.com, as noted above) work of a professor of mathematics there; it's also available through his personal ftp page as hadley.doc, but interestingly enough is not mentioned on either his personal web page there or in his (badly out of date) CV linked from that personal web page. While he appears to be an expert in topology, there's no sign that he is an expert in photographic analysis or in forensics in general. There's no peer review or university endorsement of this paper that I can find. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Images of genealogical relationships

There is a dichotomy in the interest of those who edit many of the articles which come under the auspices of PEER. Some edit to include the notable events in which the subject of the article took part. Others edit to build up a geological profile. This often takes the form of an ancestral tree. Often these trees are put in place without any sources, but because they are in specific sections of an article and although the appear in graphical formats (see for example here), because they are constructed with text it is possible to add both {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}}. However there has recently been an edit to the article Dál gCais that turned the text linked above into an image (see diffs).

There are several advantages to the approach most of the aesthetic, but it causes several problems with sourcing:

• The image is not likely to be scrutinised with as much details as text would be (it will be assumed that the text is from a copy from reliable source and the usual tools used to scan for textual errors will miss them as they are contained within an image)
• It makes it impossible to link the subjects of the new image to their articles (and hence indirectly to the reliable sources used in the more specific biography article (which (particularly but not exclusively biographies on women) may be under a different name.
• If an error is found in the image most people will not have the tools to edit the image to fix the errors.
• It is not possible to use {{unreferenced section}} and more specifically {{citation needed}} on the image -- although {{citation needed}} can be added it can not be added to a specific entry in the image.

If a major error is found in the image then of course it can be deleted and moved to the talk page for further discussion. But what if there is a minor mistake, what should be done if the original editor is no longer available to fix the mistake, or refuses to fix something they do not consider to be a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As a side issue, the editor who made this image, has also been adding a template to what I think are inappropriate types of articles such as dab pages: eg Flood (surname) had template:Dalcassians added to it (diff) where should an editor discuss the mass addition of a template to what may be inappropriate articles? -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated a section: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Template:Dalcassians -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

let's start with the obvious question: do you personally believe that the information now in this graphic is right or wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a fringe claim?

We have to printed, reliable sources for the outcome of Talk:Battle of Dirschau, as a Polish victory ( and a book by historian Leszek Podhorodecki. There is also a website () that calls it a Swedish victory; it does not cite any sources, through the author seems somewhat reliable (). I think that the website is less reliable, and without support form other sources, it claim is fringe-ish. Another editor uses it to argue that the battle outcome should be changed from Polish victory to indecisive. What would our resident experts on reliability suggest? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Misplaced Pages does not call the "winner". We cite the opinion of each source to the source itself. And we only use "reliable sources" per the strange Misplaced Pages usage. Collect (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

a quick scan on google books shows quite an array of interpretation on the battle. wikipedia should present the notable views in the proportion that they are held by mainstream scholarship, generally determined as by how they are presented reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not seeing any interpretations other than Polish victory/Swedish defeat. Could you point me to those you found? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it was a "quick scan" and I saw things like "was a minor swedish vicotry" (which on closer inspection turns out to be self published and so not reliable unless Robert Firth is a notable historian)

and its only a snippet view so you cannot really verify exactly what is in the work but "Battle of Dirschau: Swedes defeat Poles " in The northern wars: war, state, and society in northeastern Europe, ... by historian Robert I. Frost.

a close inspection could very well show that those are non-notable and/or fringe interpretations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw and discarded the first source a while ago, as it was self-published (as you note) and also got the date wrong. Robert I. Frost is a reliable historian, but I'd like to see a little more before including him in the infobox; he may merit inclusion in the text, however. (He also gives the date wrong, same as Robert Firth; I wonder if they are using a different calendar?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We can't count the website as a reliable source, though I agree it looks good. The Robert Firth book has no claim at all to be reliable in our terms. The Robert I. Frost text, assuming Red Pen of Doom cites it correctly (I can't verify) is potentially a reliable source allowing us to say that the result has been called both ways. And it would be good to say that, because, clearly, if you read the text of our page and of other narratives about this battle, it was not really conclusive and it isn't surprising that evaluations differ. Andrew Dalby 14:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not use the Frost claim without having some one be able to verify the actual text. The content in the snippet view appears pretty straightforward, but without being able to verify it in full context it is not really supportable other than as a discussion point that there are apparently alternate views. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"The History of the Swedes" seems to state that Dirschau was "restored" to Poland in 1629. This strongly suggests that Poland was not in control of Dirschau and that Sweden was, as of 1629. It may be of interest that different countries in Europe may or may not have adopted the Gregorian calendar at that time -- Poland appears to have used it from 1582, and Sweden from 1700 (sort of - it took 44 years to fully align). Interesting reading for sure. Collect (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If the sources disagree, I would suggest putting something like "Disputed" or "Interpretations vary" for "Result" in the Infobox, with a link to the section of the article or a footnote which explains how the sources diverge on who won the battle and why. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Or just leave that field of the infobox blank, and explain the differing accounts in the lead and final sections of the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

God helmet article and "Neuroscience for the Soul" source

• God helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I work the WP:COIN board. There is a very detailed request there rearding the God helmet. It doesn't appear to be a COI dispute. However, a recent post there by an IP sugggests that the dispute may be over adding negative information from a source that might not be reliable in the way it is being used in that article:

I haven't been a very active Misplaced Pages editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Misplaced Pages rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Misplaced Pages has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Misplaced Pages is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Misplaced Pages. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Misplaced Pages rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself.

I'm hoping RSNs effort can help calm things at the God helmet article. Is -- Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist. 25 (7): 520–523. -- a reliable source for the God helmet article? If so, to what extent can it be use in that artice? Also, please look over any other references being used to support negative information that article. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank-you to the IP address and Mr. Uzma Gamal who have considered the situation. This article is not a reliable source. It misquotes the original findings by Gendall and McGrath. Here is an example:

Aaen-Stockdale:

" ... claims these devices are able to modulate emotional states, in addition to enhancing meditation and generating altered states. In flat contradiction of this claim, Gendle & McGrath (2012) found no significant difference in emotional state whether the devices was on or off.

Famousdog :

"Experimental attempts to produce these effects have found no difference in emotional state whether the device was on or off."

Actual quote (from the Gendle study):

"Although the device's "amygdala signal" had no effect on the emotive response to images in this study, additional investigations examining the effects of weak and complex magnetic fields on various aspects of perception and cognition are warranted."

Instead of trying to edit on the God helmet page today, I will instead head your suggestion and re-read the article very closely for other negative information from that article. Once again, thanks for your consideration.Ksirok (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Going to the website for the device in the Gendle study, I found that it doesn’t claim to "modulate emotional states". Instead, what it does claim is that it can enhance moods for people who feel at their worst in the morning, but don't have psychiatric disorders. The Gendle study didn't look at emotional state. It examined changes in the way people responded to images with emotional impact. It doesn't look like the Gendle study examined any of the effects attributed to the God helmet, but I'll have to read the full study to be certain.

The Aaen-Stockdale article also claims that the researcher Michael Persinger bases his ideas (about the neurological basis of religious experiences) on the literature of epilepsy. This isn't true. Persinger’s ideas are based on temporal lobe and limbic lability (how easily these brain areas change their state). Epileptics are only one of the groups who have this trait.

Aaen-Stockdale says that Persinger uses field strengths of 1 millitesla. In fact, the fields are much lower - 1 to 5 microtesla. Aaen-Stockdale's information is not correct. He claims that the fields are too weak to penetrate the cranium, but it's a fact of physics that magnetic fields penetrate everything. Nothing can stop a magnetic field (so-called magnetic shields bend the fields, but aren't insulators). True magnetic insulation appears to be as impossible as perpetual motion. Persinger attributes his effects to field-to-field interactions between the God Helmet and the weak magnetic fields present in the brain, created by its electrical activity. This error may have originated with a psychologist in Sweden who attempted a replication experiment, but Aaen-Stockdale's article perpetuates it. Accuracy is more important. Perhaps a physics editor can confirm this.

Looking over the references for the God helmet page, I can see that most of them are from scientific journals. There's no need to rely on popular psychology magazines, like The Psychologist. I will be looking into this some more, because of my interest in the subject, but for now it looks like the Aaen-Stockdale article is not a reliable source on the subject.

Alternative reliable sources for personal info in an article

Some advice is needed for alternative sources that we can consider reliable for personal details in a Misplaced Pages article. Recently, the Brittany Binger article has included information about her engagement to a person, and we've recently had some editors who claim to be personally involved that she is no longer engaged. What sort of sources can we consider reliable here, other than mainstream media? We have a blog that has been used as a source, but it is a gossip blog. Does this engagement information even need to be included in the article in the first place? If we remove it entirely would that satisfy the issue well enough for now? -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RS/N works through specificity. Could you please cite the blog being used to claim that the engagement took place. Personal correspondence or knowledge (for example, "I personally know that this engagement is broken off") is never acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Source for engagement: http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2012/01/sorry_ladies_grady_sizemore_is.html

Source for breakup: http://www.terezowens.com/grady-sizemore-brittany-binger-call-off-engagement/

-- Avanu (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So, do I have to tweet it again since the newspaper used Twitter as it's only source despite it being true? I don't want to have to do that. Jpjpstar (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have not looked at that article, but my standard response to a situation like that would be to remove any claim that is not of essential encyclopedic value and for which there is a plausible belief that the information may be incorrect. If there are multiple reliable sources saying someone is engaged (and none saying otherwise), and if that information is considered somehow valuable, the normal approach would be to include it. I underlined "reliable" because with gossipy stuff one often finds multiple websites that are merely repeating the opinion of one source. If someone is particularly concerned, they should ask at WP:BLPN and could consider a personal statement via email to WP:OTRS. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can't find any editorial information regarding the purported newspaper The Plain Dealer or any of the content hosted by Cleaveland.com => not reliable for BLP. The claim needs to be removed immediately as a BLP violation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.terezowens.com/ is an unedited blog. The claim needs to be removed immediately as a BLP violation. (I have had enough of these snakes on this plane.) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper for Cleveland, with the largest circulation of any newspaper in Ohio, and the 16th largest in the US . How does this not meet guidelines for a reliable source? TimofKingsland (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. It and The Columbus Dispatch were usually considered the best dailies in Ohio. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to find their editorial details on their "official" website; it is an exercise in futility. When I eventually did find something purporting to be such, on a non-official website, I was more impressed with the editorial policy displayed on heavy metal music review (edited) blogs. Reliability is about demonstrable reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a look at their awards pages (via their about us) page? The newspaper has been recognised by a large number of independent organisations, such as universities, press societies, etc. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't their webpage, consult http://www.cleveland.com/ where the article is a) published and b) claimed to be the website of The Plain Dealer. We are not an apologia for fucking idiotic US publishing modalities: cleveland.com does not supply any editorial information. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Facebook page for the PD contains more information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is their website. Look at the bottom of every page "Get today's news (...) from The Plain Dealer, exclusively on our affiliated Web site, cleveland.com!". Or cleveland.com - "We are the online home of The Plain Dealer featuring real-time news (...) from Ohio's largest newspaper." ThePlainDealer.com is the official website of the newspaper, online versions of the article are put on cleveland.com. As stated on both of the websites. TimofKingsland (talk)

So the source as cited we're dealing with here, which was published on cleveland.com; is clearly unedited. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source was published and edited by a reputable newspaper, who republish the content of the newspaper on their affiliate site cleveland.com. The choice to publish the material on cleveland.com rather than their own website is a business/marketing decision by the newspaper, and has nothing to do with the reliability of the newspaper, or the content they produce. This is like arguing that using a book that is republished freely on google books as a source is not acceptable because google books have not re-edited it themselves, despite the original publisher of the material being considered reputable. The Plain Dealer is a an established newspaper, therefore the content they produce is reliable, even if they decided to publish the online version of their content through a website other than their own (like a publisher allowing their books to be read on google books). TimofKingsland (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate by citing against theplaindealer.com or a physical copy. Because cleveland.com contains no editorial information regarding theplaindealer.com, and shows no evidence that they're a credible news archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is on PlainDealer.com, clearly the official site of The Plain Dealer, which directs users at their home page to read online copies of their content at cleveland.com (and at ever other page on the site). Cleveland.com is clearly The Plain Dealer's official source for online copies of their newspaper, as per The Plain Dealer's website. TimofKingsland (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

even if it were in the NYT, we would not be printing BLP information sourced only to a report of someone's twitter feed. engagement announcements are almost always entirely trivial to the subject of the article and should not be included to begin with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is unquestionably reliable. Continuing to doubt that cleveland.com is The Plain Dealer is disrupting the function of this noticeboard. No comment on the other issues at hand. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a report on a tweet, but I'm not interested in whether the content is kept or not. I don't care. Other editors have been edit warring about it. I'd rather stay out of it. I'm concerned about the idea that Ohio's biggest newspaper cannot be cited on Misplaced Pages because the site they host their content on is different to the site they use to handle subscriptions and business matters. In the case of a major news event in Cleveland, the inability to cite the online edition of Cleveland's largest newspaper will hinder Misplaced Pages's coverage. It seems the argument is about a technicality - that they have chosen to use another company to host their material online, rather than handle it themselves. But this is just like using another company to print their newspaper. The reliability of a newspaper is not determined by who prints/hosts it, as long as they are appointed to do so by the newspaper. Or why is this not the case? And why should we not trust a reliable source to choose its own content publisher? Or do we have a consensus that The Plain Dealer articles sourced at Cleveland.com can be used as a reliable source? Only one editor disagrees with this. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion just confirms in my opinion that WP:RS needs to explicitly state that RSes are not required to publish an "editorial policy" online or to have an "editorial board". Real newspapers don't publish editorial policies in their print copies either, and many "editorial boards" are responsible solely for opinion pieces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Off topic here. For the talk page of WP:IRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

from the website: "Binger, from Bellevue, Ohio, announced the engagement on her Twitter account. The former Playboy Playmate in June of 2007 Tweeted a picture of her engagement ring." yeah, its a twit. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed your post. I hadn't look that closely at the source material. You're right, it is a story on a tweet. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, sources for biography subjects' personal lives include published biographies, the mainstream media, (taking account of WP:RECENT), possibly the subject's own official website or official fan club, statements by their agents, and that's about it. We do not cover celebrity gossip. Have a look at some featured biographies. On Cleveland.com, if you dig around you can see that it is closely related to the Plain Dealer. It's annoying to have to dig around. Perhaps a reader will email them and ask them to add an About Us section on their website. Itsmejudith (talk)

OK, again, not arguing for inclusion, but out of interest, how does WP define celebrity gossip? I would have thought an engagement announcement covered in an RS would be notable as a detail about their personal life, especially if it was to someone else notable. This was reported in the sports section, which might not be the most reliable section of the paper, but it's not the gossip section. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Announced engagements, pregnancies, weddings, divorces (to give these celebrity-intensive events in chronological order) aren't tittle tattle. "Friends said" stories are tittle tattle, as are "she looked tipsy" stories. Even so, the announced situations are not always notable. It depends on the biography. Posh's marriage to Becks has to be included in both biographies, but in the case of a scientist you wouldn't want more than "she is married with four adult children". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought. On top of that, I would have thought if the engagement was to someone else notable (especially if they are more notable than the subject), it would increase its notability. If a scientist with an article on them here announced their engagement to Lady Gaga, I would expect this to be much more notable, and worthy of a mention in an encyclopaedia, than if they announced their engagement to their high school sweetheart. In that situation, it's quite likely reliable sources would only mention the engagement if it was to someone "notable" like Gaga, as they would consider the engagement more notable. This case is obviously different: the subject is not a scientist, and their (ex?) fiancé is not as famous as Lady Gaga. But their fiancé was more notable and well known than the subject. And the fact that the subject has made a career of being a TV personality (i.e. being paid for who they are), their personal life becomes important to their career in a way it does not for a scientist, and I would argue it becomes more notable. That seems to have been the approach taken for the "Snooki" article. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dhimmi

In the dhimmi article, is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai'im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law, Syracuse University Press 1990' p 90 reliable for the statement "In classical Islamic law, dhimmis were treated differently from Muslim men in the administration of criminal law and would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions in personal law."? Is An-Naim not writing specifically about punishments for fornication? Would such a statement be cherry-picking? The book is scholarly; as the title indicates it is also advocacy (haven't read it in full, but seen Google books preview). At the start the author describes it as "a preliminary work introducing a revolutionary approach to Islamic legal reform". p xiii. The author is a legal specialist, PhD in law, and a former political activist, not a historian. There were major differences between the letter of the law and how it was implemented, as he recognises on several occasions, and as historians stress. Itsmejudith (talk)

For reference his webpage and his wiki page Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im the author is clearly a scholar in the field but maybe used with attribution to alleviate any concern--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

in the main text, *perhaps*. in the lead, no.-- altetendekrabbe  14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved comments, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The author is an academic expert in the field of Islamic law and human rights, with numerous books published on the topic of Islamic law by academic presses. The specific source you are using is an on-topic book, published by a university press. If thou want to edit the sentence win question to better reflect the specific claim (wrt fornication) - do so, but there is no doubt this is a relabel source. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source may be 'reliable' in the abstract, but that is not what is at issue. Is it 'reliable' for the material it is cited for? I say clearly not, simply on the basis that the word "would" is unsupported - or more accurately, is contradicted by the source, which argues that such discrimination 'might' have occurred, but was by no means a universal given in the practice of 'classical Islamic law'. I'd also point out that the material under question is in the article lede, and as such should summarise what is said in the body of the text - it doesn't, so regardless of its validity, it doesn't belong there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this sourcing seems to be the claim that formal distinction existed in law which is necessarily actual social discrimination. The source doesn't adequately support this claim. It supports most of the rest of the content, this is "AndyTheGrump"'s would. The author appears to hold the opinion that formal distinction in law is necessarily concrete discrimination at all times in all places, this claim could be attributed, but then we are forced to ask if the author is competent for such a claim. I'd say yes because this claim is a trivial argument in law. But in history it isn't a trivial argument, and it certainly isn't widely accepted (it'd be accused of anachronism out of the box). Correspondingly the concept that this was "humiliating" is a more historical than legal claim, that I worry about. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that al Qattan in the International Journal of Middle East Studies is a better source, and can supersede this one? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

Hey all,

I want outside opinion on this source, ] it says founded 1873, there has been a long on goign dispute on this page and another about whether this club has been liquidated or not, but the scottish football league have put on there site as a founded year of 1873, i know this will probably be a primary source but can it be used reliably to determine for wikipedia article whether the club is the same club that existed since 1873 or is in fact new club. I am not trying to ascent the club has or has not been liquidated only trying to put a end of this dispute.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Zodiac and Horoscopes

It seems User:Bobrayner will keep removing reliable information from the Chinese Zodiac and not from the Western Astrology articles. I keep informing the user if you keep remove per WP:BOLLOCKS the user should have had the common sense to remove the BOLLOCKS information from the characteristics from the (Western astrology) section as it also pertains BOLLOCK book sources. If the user does not do anything with the Western Horoscopes. I will keep the information of the Chinese Zodiac signs if the user does not do away with Western astrology characteristics, and please inform the user why the user did not complete the rest of BOLLOCKS information from other Chinese zodiac signs.--GoShow (...............) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All the astrology articles need cleanup. If you can find sources for Chinese astrology that would be helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Race and Racism

Encyclopedia of Race and Racism by Gale group in article about "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World" says the following "Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century." I want to use it as one of descriptions of dhimmitude in dhimmitude article.Thank you in advance--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The article is authored by --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While not an outright bad source, that appears to be a tertiary source from a publisher which, according to its website, is focused on e-research and educational publishing for libraries, schools and businesses. A secondary, and preferably scholarly, source would be much superior, especially given that this is a sensitive and disputed topic - our Dhimmitude article states that some scholars consider this concept to be a myth (please also see WP:PSTS for background on the relevant policies here). I hope that this is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is there already some secondary sources its not the only source.Maybe it could be used with conjunction with other sources?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As a non-authored article in an encyclopaedia aimed not at scholars I don't see why we should pay this any attention under WEIGHT and exceptional claims (claiming a tenuous theoretical construct is reality). These claims are meant to come from scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It does authored by him --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Brevik and Dhimmitude

This source "Liz Fekete. "The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre". Race & Class" is used for the follwoing claim "Anders Breivik, who identified Bat Ye'or as a key influence, used the term "dhimmitude" in his internet postings to describe what he called "jihad against the kaffir"." Does it acceptable becouse the article is not about dhimmitude.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is dhmmitude substantially discussed, or is this the only sentence discussing it? If the latter, the source isn't sufficiently about this topic to really bother with. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have linked the source.As I am involved I really like outside opinion--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution